Edgar Filing: ROYCE GLOBAL VALUE TRUST, INC.

UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM N-CSR

CERTIFIED SHAREHOLDER REPORT
OF
REGISTERED MANAGEMENT INVESTMENT COMPANIES

Investment Company Act file number: 811-22532

Name of Registrant: Royce Global Value Trust, Inc.

Address of Registrant: 745 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10151

Name and address of agent for service: John E. Denneen, Esq. 745 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10151

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (212) 508-4500
Date of fiscal year end: December 31, 2016
Date of reporting period: January 1, 2016 – June 30, 2016

Item 1. Reports to Shareholders.

JUNE 30, 2016 2016 Semiannual Review and Report to Stockholders Royce Global Value Trust Royce Micro-Cap Trust Royce Value Trust roycefunds.com

A Few Words on Closed-End Funds

Royce & Associates, LP manages three closed-end funds: Royce Global Value Trust, which invests primarily in companies with headquarters outside of the United States, Royce Micro-Cap Trust, which invests primarily in micro-cap securities; and Royce Value Trust, which invests primarily in small-cap securities. A closed-end fund is an investment company whose shares are listed and traded on a stock exchange. Like all investment companies, including open-end mutual funds, the assets of a closed-end fund are professionally managed in accordance with the investment objectives and policies approved by the fund’s Board of Directors. A closed-end fund raises cash for investment by issuing a fixed number of shares through initial and other public offerings that may include shelf offerings and periodic rights offerings. Proceeds from the offerings are invested in an actively managed portfolio of securities. Investors wanting to buy or sell shares of a publicly traded closed-end fund after the offerings must do so on a stock exchange, as with any publicly traded stock. Shares of closed-end funds frequently trade at a discount to their net asset value. This is in contrast to open-end mutual funds, which sell and redeem their shares at net asset value on a continuous basis.

A Closed-End Fund Can Offer Several Distinct Advantages

Why Dividend Reinvestment Is Important

•

A closed-end fund does not issue redeemable securities or offer its securities on a continuous basis, so it does not need to liquidate securities or hold uninvested assets to meet investor demands for cash redemptions.

A very important component of an investor’s total return comes from the reinvestment of distributions. By reinvesting distributions, our investors can maintain an undiluted investment in a Fund. To get a fair idea of the impact of reinvested distributions, please see the charts on pages 12 and 13. For additional information on the Funds’ Distribution Reinvestment and Cash Purchase Options and the benefits for stockholders, please see page 14 or visit our website at www.roycefunds.com.

Managed Distribution Policy

The Board of Directors of each of Royce Micro-Cap Trust and Royce Value Trust has authorized a managed distribution policy (“MDP”). Under the MDP, Royce Micro-Cap Trust and Royce Value Trust pay quarterly distributions at an annual rate of 7% of the average of the prior four quarter-end net asset values, with the fourth quarter being the greater of these annualized rates or the distribution required by IRS regulations. With each distribution, the Fund will issue a notice to its stockholders and an accompanying press release that provides detailed information regarding the amount and composition of the distribution (including whether any portion of the distribution represents a return of capital) and other information required by a Fund’s MDP. You should not draw any conclusions about a Fund’s investment performance from the amount of distributions or from the terms of a Fund’s MDP. A Fund’s Board of Directors may amend or terminate the MDP at any time without prior notice to stockholders; however, at this time there are no reasonably foreseeable circumstances that might cause the termination of any of the MDPs.

•

In a closed-end fund, not having to meet investor redemption requests or invest at inopportune times can be effective for value managers who attempt to buy stocks when prices are depressed and sell securities when prices are high.

•

A closed-end fund may invest in less liquid portfolio securities because it is not subject to potential stockholder redemption demands. This is potentially beneficial for Royce-managed closed-end funds, with significant investments in small- and micro-cap securities.

•

The fixed capital structure allows permanent leverage to be employed as a means to enhance capital appreciation potential.

•

Royce Micro-Cap Trust and Royce Value Trust distribute capital gains, if any, on a quarterly basis. Each of these Funds has adopted a quarterly distribution policy for its common stock.

We believe that the closed-end fund structure can be an appropriate investment for a long-term investor who understands the benefits of a more stable pool of capital.

This page is not part of the 2016 Semiannual Report to Stockholders
Table of Contents Semiannual Review Letter to Our Stockholders 2 Performance 5 Semiannual Report to Stockholders Managers’ Discussions of Fund Performance

Royce Global Value Trust

Royce Micro-Cap Trust

Royce Value Trust

10 History Since Inception 12 Distribution Reinvestment and Cash Purchase Options 14 Schedules of Investments and Other Financial Statements

Royce Global Value Trust

Royce Micro-Cap Trust

Royce Value Trust

41 Directors and Officers 55 Board Approval of Investment Advisory Agreements 56 Notes to Performance and Other Important Information 58

This page is not part of the 2016 Semiannual Report to Stockholders

Letter to Our Stockholders

A BEAR, A BREXIT, AND A WELCOME START TO 2016

We were happy to greet 2016 with a spirited “Hello” in the hope that certain emerging trends in the small-cap world would gain a firmer foothold in the new year. We were very pleased, then, to see the market’s pronounced shift toward companies with attractive to reasonable valuations, solid balance sheets, and strong profitability—attributes found in many of our portfolio holdings—arrive in the year’s first half. And though domestic small-caps did modestly well in the first half, an achievement that looks more commendable in the context of the high levels of volatility that all equities faced in the first half of 2016, many active managers, ourselves included, did even better. This was a welcome change.
Both the absolute and relative health of domestic equities was in evidence during the first half of 2016. The Nasdaq Composite, which is home to a large number of biotechnology companies that corrected sharply in the first half after leading the market last year, was the only major U.S. index to finish the year-to-date period ended June 30, 2016 in the red. A few non-U.S. indexes remained marginally positive in the first half, but most concluded the semiannual period with at least minor net losses. Among those that fell further behind was one that did notably well in 2015—European small-caps, whose more diminutive size made them most vulnerable to the post-Brexit sell-off. But to participate in these strong first-half results for U.S. equity, investors needed the stomach for a wild ride that started with a steep and speedy initial drop followed by a far smoother, robust recovery. The year began with a more dramatic extension of last year’s decline, and we initially failed to grasp that 2015 would, in the manner of Shakespeare’s best-known stage direction, “Exit, pursued by a bear.” From the June 23, 2015 small-cap peak through its year-to-date low on February 11, 2016 , the Russell 2000 Index fell 25.7%, a truly ursine decline.

This seems to have been a remarkably quiet double-digit correction—a stealth bear market, as it were. Few outside the small-cap world have acknowledged it, never mind analyzed or discussed it. Yet it was the ninth biggest decline since the Russell 2000’s inception at the end of 1978, and the worst for small-caps since 2011. It included many of the signs that typically accompany a bottoming-out process—panic selling in a number of sectors (most notably within the bio-pharma complex), small-caps losing more than large-caps, and greater resilience from value stocks—to us, the most significant development in the down phase. This heightened volatility was triggered by the ongoing implosion of oil prices, struggles for other commodities, anxiety over possible bank defaults, and the devaluation of currency in China. Together, these factors led to a few sessions in which hysteria ruled the equity markets. Like many bear markets (and unlike that of the more closely correlated collapse in 2011), it also solidified a rotation in leadership from small-cap growth to small-cap value.
Having invested through many previous small-cap declines (some pre-dating the Russell 2000), we sought to turn the downdraft to our advantage by looking for bargain-priced opportunities amid the volatility and to stay invested for the eventual recovery. Our commitment was rewarded as the Russell 2000 rebounded sharply from its early February low, rising 21.6% by the end of June. During these tumultuous days, a shift in leadership could be seen clearly in the earnings outlook. We first saw evidence for it in October 2015 and noted it again in February 2016. Many companies, including several of our holdings, reported decent earnings while also not revising guidance downward. This was viewed as a positive in that expectations had been so low, particularly for companies in more economically sensitive sectors, that “pretty good” or “not that bad” was in several instances much better news than people were

2 | This page is not part of the 2016 Semiannual Report to Stockholders

LETTER TO OUR STOCKHOLDERS

expecting. The general lack of downward earnings revisions both last fall and in the first half of this year has allowed for some recovery for these companies’ shares. Brexit, of course, tossed an already highly uncertain global economy into even stormier seas. While we see the vote as more of a political event for the United Kingdom and the European Union than an important economic event for the U.S., there’s no question it has made the already tenuous prospects for global growth that much shakier. Still, we do not see it having a lasting or meaningful impact on U.S. small-caps.
For the global economy, however, Brexit and other risks look likely to persist. At this writing, there are negative rates for long-term sovereign debt in Germany and Japan, ominous signals from the banks in Italy, and in both the U.K. and eurozone a political and economic situation that it would be an understatement to call “unsettled.” Here at home, we have seen record lows for both 10- and 30-year Treasury yields. These more recent developments can be added to the older—that is, mid-June’s—list of concerns about the pace of growth in China and other important emerging markets, stabilizing but still volatile commodity prices, and the ambiguous state of the U.S. economy, in which housing and autos remain strong but consumer confidence, manufacturing, and the job market have been more mixed. It is a daunting set of challenges, to be sure. Where we differ from some observers, however, is in our belief in the strength and resilience of the economy. This is rooted in our long-established practice of giving more weight to what we are hearing from the management teams we speak to every day than we do to fatalistic headlines and dire—or overly sunny—prognostications. The corporate managers with whom we have been meeting are far more cautious and uncertain than pessimistic. Well aware of the fragility of current conditions, they have also offered some measured optimism in terms of growth picking up, however gradually or in fits and starts. In terms of now widespread recession concerns, we also want to stress

that, over its long history, the stock market has seldom, if ever, offered false positives—that is, shares do not rise when economic growth is about to contract. And in all the tumult of the first half, most U.S. indexes rose, however modestly. The upshot is that, in the midst of heightened global uncertainty, the U.S. economy and markets look far healthier to us than what the rest of the globe has to offer.

SIGNS O’ THE TIMES—THE SIGNIFICANT SHIFT
Most notable to us as small-cap specialists with a value orientation was how thoroughly style drove results. The Russell 2000 Value Index outpaced the large- and mid-cap indexes year-to-date through the end of June, while the Russell 2000 trailed them, and the Russell 2000 Growth was negative. Value indexes in fact did better up and down the market cap range, from micro- to large-cap, in the first half. Although small-cap leadership began to rotate following June 2015’s small-cap peak, the widening performance gap between small-cap value and growth has been the critical development within small-cap so far in 2016. This could be seen in both bear and bull phases during the first half. The Russell 2000 Value lost far less than its growth counterpart from the end of 2015 through the February 11th small-cap low (-12.9% versus -18.9%); it was then essentially tied with the Russell 2000 Growth from that low through the end of June (+21.8% vs +21.4%). In prior years (2009-2015), value led in many downdrafts but lagged in up markets. This renewed up market strength is a major reason behind our optimism for value stocks.
Another reason, related to value’s emergent leadership, has been the relative strength of many stocks in economically sensitive, cyclical sectors. Defensive areas led within small-cap, with Utilities, Consumer Staples, Telecommunication Services, and REITs enjoying strong first halves. Unlike 2015, however, they were joined by strong turns for Materials, Industrials, and certain non-REIT areas in Financials, with the first particularly strong. Along with Information Technology and Energy, these have been areas of collective investment interest for us over the last several years. Yet even with the recent shift in investor preferences, which eventually sparked the turnaround for many of our holdings, expectations for many of these cyclical businesses remain low. In many cases, stocks were so deeply oversold during the winter months that, even after having experienced some recovery, their valuations still look attractive to us. Several looked even cheaper in late June.

Equity Indexes as of June 30, 2016 (%)
YTD1 1-YR 3-YR 5-YR 10-YR Russell 2000 2.22 -6.73 7.09 8.35 6.20 Russell 2000 Value 6.08 -2.58 6.36 8.15 5.15 Russell 2000 Growth -1.59 -10.75 7.74 8.51 7.14 S&P 500 3.84 3.99 11.66 12.10 7.42 Russell 1000 3.74 2.93 11.48 11.88 7.51 Nasdaq Composite -3.29 -2.89 12.48 11.79 8.35 Russell Midcap 5.50 0.56 10.80 10.90 8.07 Russell Microcap -1.68 -12.06 5.95 8.20 4.31 Russell Global ex-U.S. Small Cap 1.01 -5.77 4.06 1.91 3.82 Russell Global ex-U.S. Large Cap -1.16 -9.94 1.63 0.36 2.17 1 Not annualized. For details on The Royce Funds’ performance in the period, please turn to the Managers’ Discussions that begin on page 6.
This page is not part of the 2016 Semiannual Report to Stockholders | 3

LETTER TO OUR STOCKHOLDERS

WHAT A LONG STRANGE TRIP IT’S BEEN We could use this title to describe the first half of 2016, the entire post-Financial Crisis period, and, perhaps most fitting, the peculiar span from 2011-2015, when QE (quantitative easing) and zero (or near zero) interest rate policies inflated many asset values but also created a barbell-shaped range of small-cap returns, with bouts of leadership from defensive, typically high-yield stocks at one extreme and fast-growing healthcare and/or tech issues at the other. Most companies in the middle spent the period struggling to catch up. This was bad news for active small-cap management, as comparative returns during this otherwise robust five-year period make clear. In what seemed at times like a perverse inversion of the usual patterns of stock market behavior, there were penalties in the form of lower relative returns for those managers who, like us, generally emphasize qualities such as earnings, profitability, low leverage, and steady dividends (as distinct from high yields).
We are pleased to say that so far in 2016, things have changed. Investors have been showing greater interest in the attributes that had been out of fashion for too long—steady dividends, profits, and effective capital allocation, to name a few. And as share prices began to rise following the February low, these qualities stayed in demand. We remain confident that an extended period of even slow economic growth should be enough to boost the shares of many companies in sectors such as Industrials, Financials, Information Technology, Materials, and Energy—all of which are home to cyclical businesses with earnings and, in some cases, high ROIC (returns on invested capital). Those that also have reasonable to attractive valuations are the companies that we expect to lead small-cap going forward. Recent data from Furey Research Partners reinforces this point. It showed that at the end of June 2016 small-caps were the cheapest they have been versus large-caps in the last 13 years, that value is cheap relative to growth, and that cyclicals are cheap compared with defensive stocks. In addition, we have seen anomalous markets before—including the large-cap led “Nifty Fifty” of the 1970s, the sudden crash in 1987, and the Tech Bubble in 2000. As challenging as each

of these was, the stock market eventually resumed more historically typical performance patterns. These resumptions often signaled better times for risk-conscious, research-driven small-cap investors as well. So we feel as though there are many reasons to feel good about the long-term potential for both profitable small companies and small-cap value.
Not that the equity world is without very real risks. The added layer of Brexit-bred uncertainty to an environment in which interest rates are still historically low could continue to push small-cap investors to safety and/or high yield at one extreme and lead to a fresh run at speculative growth at the other. We see four factors, however, that in our view should prevent a repeat of the pattern that dominated 2011-2015. First is the first-half success for cyclicals, particularly during the recovery phase when many helped to give small-cap value its post-bottom lift. Second, valuations for many defensive stocks look stretched to us, which should enhance the appeal of many of our holdings. Third, credit spreads remain wider than they were a year ago at this time, even with the 10-year Treasury making new lows. As long as the cost of capital remains higher, it should help profitable, lower leverage businesses. Finally, there is reversion to the mean—the middle of 2015 marked a two standard deviation event in terms of a performance edge for the Russell 2000 Growth versus its small-cap value sibling.
On balance, then, we see ongoing leadership for small-cap value—and we recently did some research, posted on roycefunds.com, which shows that the kind of sustained advantage growth previously enjoyed is rare. Over the life of the small-cap style indexes, value still owns a compelling relative edge. The Russell 2000 Value beat the Russell 2000 Growth in 65% of monthly rolling three-year periods, 73% of monthly rolling five-year periods, and 83% of monthly rolling 10-year periods ended June 30, 2016 (see roycefunds.com/connection for more details). And this same research showed that when small-cap value beat growth, active management did better as well. So while we still expect returns for stocks to be low, we also think that leadership for value—now in place for more than a year—has ample room to run. We will be tireless in our collective efforts to run with it.

Sincerely,

Charles M. Royce Christopher D. Clark Francis D. Gannon Chairman, President, Chief Executive Officer, and Co-Chief Investment Officer, Royce & Associates, LP Co-Chief Investment Officer,
Royce & Associates, LP Royce & Associates, LP August 1, 2016

4 | This page is not part of the 2016 Semiannual Report to Stockholders

Performance

NAV Average Annual Total Returns As of June 30, 2016 (%) SINCE INCEPTION YTD1 1-YR 3-YR 5-YR 10-YR 15-YR 20-YR 25-YR INCEPTION DATE Royce Global Value Trust 3.86 -5.05 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A -1.26 10/17/13 Royce Micro-Cap Trust 5.39 -6.47 7.07 7.90 5.51 8.27 9.73 N/A 10.35 12/14/93 Royce Value Trust 8.17 -2.24 6.13 5.77 5.05 7.10 9.37 10.49 10.15 11/26/86
INDEX Russell 2000 Index 2.22 -6.73 7.09 8.35 6.20 6.96 7.61 9.52 N/A N/A Russell Microcap Index -1.68 -12.06 5.95 8.20 4.31 6.46 N/A N/A N/A N/A Russell Global Small Cap Index 1.40 -6.37 5.11 4.12 4.51 7.71 N/A N/A N/A N/A

1 Not Annualized

Important Performance and Risk Information

All performance information in this Review and Report reflects past performance, is presented on a total return basis, net of the Fund’s investment advisory fee, and reflects the reinvestment of distributions. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. Investment return and principal value of an investment will fluctuate, so that shares may be worth more or less than their original cost when sold. Current performance may be higher or lower than performance quoted. Current month-end performance may be obtained at www.roycefunds.com. The Funds are closed-end registered investment companies whose respective shares of common stock may trade at a discount to the net asset value. Shares of each Fund’s common stock are also subject to the market risk of investing in the underlying portfolio securities held by each Fund. Certain immaterial adjustments were made to the net assets of Royce Micro-Cap Trust at 12/31/12, as well as 12/31/14, for financial reporting purposes, and as a result the net asset value originally calculated on that date and the total return based on that net asset value differs from the adjusted net asset value and total return reported in the Financial Highlights. All indexes referenced are unmanaged and capitalization-weighted. Each index’s returns include net reinvested dividends and/or interest income. Russell Investment Group is the source and owner of the trademarks, service marks and copyrights related to the Russell Indexes. Russell® is a trademark of Russell Investment Group. The Russell 2000 Index is an index of domestic small-cap stocks that measures the performance of the 2,000 smallest publicly traded U.S. companies in the Russell 3000 Index. The Russell Microcap Index includes 1,000 of the smallest securities in the small-cap Russell 2000 Index, along with the next smallest eligible securities as determined by Russell. The Russell Global Small Cap Index is an unmanaged, capitalization-weighted index of global small-cap stocks. The performance of an index does not represent exactly any particular investment, as you cannot invest directly in an index. Index returns include net reinvested dividends and/or interest income. Royce Value, Micro-Cap and Global Value Trust shares of common stock trade on the NYSE. Royce Fund Services, Inc (“RFS”) is a member of FINRA and has filed this Review and Report with FINRA on behalf of each Fund. RFS is not an underwriter or distributor of any of the Funds.

This page is not part of the 2016 Semiannual Report to Stockholders | 5

MANAGER’S DISCUSSION Royce Global Value Trust (RGT)

Chuck Royce FUND PERFORMANCE
Royce Global Value Trust (“RGT”) increased 3.9% on a net asset value (“NAV”) basis and 2.0% on a market price basis for the year-to-date period ended June 30, 2016, outperforming its unleveraged benchmark, the Russell Global Small Cap Index, which was up 1.4% for the same period. The year began on a distinctly bearish note, with small-cap stocks across much of the globe declining into the middle of February before recovery for many began. The Fund outperformed on an NAV basis in the first quarter, up 2.3% (while falling 1.1% on a market price basis) compared to a decline of 0.2% for its benchmark.
     The second quarter was moving along at a modestly bullish pace until the Brexit vote upended capital markets on a worldwide basis. For many markets outside Europe, however, the disarray proved very temporary, with many global small-caps already rebounding before the end of June. RGT, notwithstanding its much greater weighting in Western Europe—and in the United Kingdom in particular—fell only fractionally behind its benchmark in the period. For the second quarter, the Fund was virtually even with the Russell Global Small Cap, up 1.6% on an NAV basis (and +3.1% based on market price) versus 1.6% for the benchmark. The Fund’s strong first half helped it to outperform the Russell Global Small Cap on an NAV basis for the one-year period ended June 30, 2016.
WHAT WORKED... AND WHAT DIDN’T Materials and Financials led the list of five of the Fund’s nine equity sectors that made net contributions to first-half results. Health Care, Consumer Discretionary, Energy, and Telecommunication Services detracted, with comparatively modest net losses. The metals & mining group in the Materials sector had by far the biggest net gains of the portfolio’s industry groups. We were overweight in this industry in the first half, holding what we think is an attractive balance of industrial metals companies and businesses involved in precious metals mining. Three of the Fund’s top five contributing holdings hailed from the industry—Pan American Silver, Agnico Eagle Mines, and Major Drilling Group International—and benefited from the rebound in precious metals prices during the first half. Canada’s Major Drilling Group International was also helped by increased revenues and margins in what was a challenging environment for its business in early 2016. Moving from Materials to Financials, Genworth MI Canada is one of that country’s leading residential mortgage insurance providers. Its stock rebounded with consecutive quarters of strong results which were driven by a loss ratio that remains below the low end of its guidance. This has eased investor anxieties about the impact of lower oil prices in resource-rich Alberta, where about 20% of its policies are written. The recovery in oil prices also helped its shares to surge.      Positions that detracted from first-half performance included two holdings in the Health Care sector. Virbac is a French firm that makes vaccines, antibiotics, and other veterinary medications. Its shares suffered mostly from the negative results of a 2014 FDA investigation of its U.S. plant in St. Louis that were released earlier this year. We were confident that the company had dealt effectively with these issues, though we reduced our position in the first half. Consort Medical is a U.K. based business that supplies drug delivery devices and development services to pharmaceutical companies. It continued to execute effectively and profitably in the first half, but its shares were caught up first in the widespread sell-off for biopharma companies and then in the crashing wave of Brexit.
     On a country level, the largest positive contributions came from Canada, Brazil, and Japan while the U.K. and Hong Kong detracted most. Relative to its benchmark, RGT was helped chiefly by its overweight and savvy stock picking in the previously mentioned metals & mining group, its underweight in biotechnology, and successful stock selection both in thrifts & mortgage services and in a number of industries in Information Technology. Conversely, our underweight in REITs, ineffective stocks picks in pharmaceuticals, and our lack of exposure to Utilities all hurt versus the benchmark.
Top Contributors to Performance
Year-to-Date Through 6/30/16 (%)1 Pan American Silver 0.61 Genworth MI Canada 0.60 CETIP - Mercados Organizados 0.46 Agnico Eagle Mines 0.42 Major Drilling Group International 0.38 1 Includes dividends
Top Detractors from Performance
Year-to-Date Through 6/30/16 (%)2 Virbac -0.49 Consort Medical -0.29 Value Partners Group -0.29 Midland Holdings -0.26 Gaztransport Et Technigaz -0.21 2 Net of dividends
CURRENT POSITIONING AND OUTLOOK While the corporate earnings picture is a phenomenon we continue to watch quite carefully, we are cautiously optimistic about RGT’s near- and long-term prospects, basing our belief primarily on two factors—the growing performance advantage of small-cap value versus growth and the relatively attractive valuation and earnings picture for many cyclical stocks. We continue to believe that an extended period of slow growth should be enough to keep profitable cyclicals climbing, especially after factoring in the ways in which low expectations and—for some industries—oversold conditions depressed the stock prices of so many small-caps that we see as attractive—that is, solidly profitable—businesses. In many cases, it appears that several global markets have just begun to reward steady earnings and high profitability and are only gradually recognizing how low valuations had become for many cyclicals. Going forward, we remain confident that earnings, profitability, and low leverage will matter more and more to investors through what we expect should be a long-running cycle.
6  |  2016 Semiannual Report to Stockholders

PERFORMANCE AND PORTFOLIO REVIEW SYMBOLS  MARKET PRICE RGT NAV XRGTX
Performance Average Annual Total Return (%) Through 6/30/16 JAN-JUN 20161 1-YR SINCE INCEPTION (10/17/13) RGT (NAV) 3.86 -5.05 -1.26 1 Not Annualized

Market Price Performance History Since Inception (10/17/13)

Cumulative Performance of Investment1

1-YR 5-YR 10-YR 15-YR 20-YR SINCE INCEPTION (10/17/13) RGT -7.3% N/A N/A N/A N/A -12.5%

1 Reflects the cumulative performance experience of a continuous common stockholder who purchased one share at inception ($8.975 IPO) and reinvested all distributions. 2 Reflects the actual month-end market price movement of one share as it has traded on NYSE and, prior to 12/1/03, on the Nasdaq.

The Morningstar Style Map is the Morningstar Style BoxTM with the center 75% of fund holdings plotted as the Morningstar Ownership ZoneTM. The Morningstar Style Box is designed to reveal a fund’s investment strategy. The Morningstar Ownership Zone provides detail about a portfolio’s investment style by showing the range of stock sizes and styles. The Ownership Zone is derived by plotting each stock in the portfolio within the proprietary Morningstar Style Box. Over time, the shape and location of a fund’s ownership zone may vary. See page 58 for additional information.

Top 10 Positions % of Net Assets SEI Investments 2.1 Kirby Corporation 1.9 VZ Holding 1.6 Clarkson 1.3 Santen Pharmaceutical 1.3 Spirax-Sarco Engineering 1.2 Vetoquinol 1.2 Bajaj Finance 1.1 USS 1.1 Meitec Corporation 1.1

Portfolio Sector Breakdown % of Net Assets Industrials 26.4 Financials 20.6 Information Technology 17.7 Health Care 13.0 Consumer Discretionary 10.6 Materials 9.8 Consumer Staples 2.9 Energy 1.4 Telecommunication Services 0.1 Outstanding Line of Credit, Net of Cash and Cash Equivalents -2.5

Calendar Year Total Returns (%) YEAR RGT 2015 -3.4 2014 -6.2

Portfolio Country Breakdown1,2 % of Net Assets United States 26.1 United Kingdom 13.0 Japan 12.2 Canada 7.5 Germany 5.6 France 5.5 Switzerland 4.8 Hong Kong 3.3 1 Represents countries that are 3% or more of net assets. 2 Securities are categorized by the country of their headquarters.

Portfolio Diagnostics Fund Net Assets $95 million Number of Holdings 271 Turnover Rate 34% Net Asset Value $9.15 Market Price $7.60 Net Leverage1 2.5% Average Market Capitalization2 $1,431 million Weighted Average P/E Ratio3,4 18.0x Weighted Average P/B Ratio3 2.4x Active Share5 98% 1

Net leverage is the percentage, in excess of 100%, of the total value of equity type investments, divided by net assets.

Geometric Average. This weighted calculation uses each portfolio holding’s market cap in a way designed to not skew the effect of very large or small holdings; instead, it aims to better identify the portfolio’s center, which Royce believes offers a more accurate measure of average market cap than a simple mean or median.

Harmonic Average. This weighted calculation evaluates a portfolio as if it were a single stock and measures it overall. It compares the total market value of the portfolio to the portfolio’s share in the earnings or book value, as the case may be, of its underlying stocks.

The Fund’s P/E ratio calculation excludes companies with zero or negative earnings (6% of portfolio holdings as of 6/30/16).

Active Share is the sum of the absolute values of the different weightings of each holding in the Fund versus each holding in the benchmark, divided by two.

Important Performance and Risk Information

All performance information reflects past performance, is presented on a total return basis, net of the Fund’s investment advisory fee, and reflects the reinvestment of distributions. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. Current performance may be higher or lower than performance quoted. Returns as of the most recent month-end may be obtained at www.roycefunds.com. The market price of the Fund’s shares will fluctuate, so that shares may be worth more or less than their original cost when sold. The Fund invests primarily in securities of small- and micro-cap companies, which may involve considerably more risk than investments in securities of larger-cap companies. The Fund’s broadly diversified portfolio does not ensure a profit or guarantee against loss. From time to time, the Fund may invest a significant portion of its net assets in foreign securities, which may involve political, economic, currency and other risks not encountered in U.S. investments. Regarding the “Top Contributors” and “Top Detractors” tables shown on page 10, the sum of all contributors to, and all detractors from, performance for all securities in the portfolio would approximate the Fund’s year-to-date performance for 2016.

2016 Semiannual Report to Stockholders | 7

MANAGER’S DISCUSSION Royce Micro-Cap Trust (RMT)

Chuck Royce
FUND PERFORMANCE
Royce Micro-Cap Trust (“RMT”) increased 5.4% on a net asset value (“NAV”) basis and 5.8% on a market price basis for the year-to-date period ended June 30, 2016, ahead of both of its unleveraged benchmarks: the small-cap Russell 2000 Index was up 2.2% while the Russell Microcap Index declined 1.7% for the same period. RMT was solid in a first quarter that was challenging for micro-cap stocks, up 0.1% on an NAV basis and down 1.2% based on market price, compared to first-quarter declines of 1.5% for the Russell 2000 and 5.4% for the Russell Microcap.
The second quarter was mostly a period of gradual recovery that favored more defensive areas, such as REITs and utilities, while cyclical areas within Materials, Industrials, and Energy also continued to do well. The aftermath of the Brexit vote wound up doing little to impede this low-key bullish phase. Although it had little exposure to defensive stocks, the Fund excelled in the second quarter, advancing 5.3% on an NAV basis and 7.1% on a market price basis, outpacing the Russell 2000 (+3.8%) and the Russell Microcap (+4.0%). On an NAV basis RMT outpaced the Russell Microcap for the one-, three-, 10-, and 15-year periods ended June 30, 2016 while also beating the Russell 2000 for the one-, 15-, 20-year, and since inception (12/14/93) periods. (Returns for the Russell Microcap Index only go back to 2000.) RMT’s average annual NAV total return for the since inception period ended June 30, 2016 was 10.3%. WHAT WORKED... AND WHAT DIDN’T Eight of the Fund’s 10 equity sectors were in the black at the end of June, led by Materials, Information Technology, and Financials, with the net losses posted by Health Care and Consumer Discretionary more modest in comparison. RMT’s leading industry group by a wide margin was metals & mining (Materials), where we were significantly overweight relative to the Russell 2000. We hold what we think is an effective balance in this group between industrial metals companies and precious metals and mining companies. It contributed two of the portfolio’s top five net gainers in the first half. Major Drilling Group International performs contract drilling for companies involved in mining and mineral exploration. In a challenging environment for miners early in 2016, the company increased revenues and margins, helping its shares to climb. Exeter Resource mines for gold primarily in Argentina and Chile and benefited mostly from increased gold prices. We were drawn to its large cash reserves and promising mining properties. ASA Gold and Precious Metals, part of the capital markets group in Financials, is a closed-end fund that invests primarily in gold mining companies that was also rewarded by the rebound in precious metals prices. Electronic equipment, instruments & components is another key industry overweight that made a large contribution to first-half results. Its top performer was Newport Corporation, a photonics technology specialist whose shares climbed by more than 50% in February after the company agreed to be acquired by MKS Instruments.

As for those holdings that detracted from performance, we held our position in ZAIS Group Holdings, an investment manager focused on specialized credit strategies—an asset management segment with what we think is ample long-term potential. Its shares fell with a quarterly loss reported in March and were mostly down through the end of June. A falling stock price in the first half and our confidence in its long-term prospects led us to add shares of Fenix Parts, which recycles and resells original equipment manufacturer automotive parts and products. Consecutive quarterly losses drove investors away, but we like its business and the acquisitions it made in 2015, which have not diluted its balance sheet to a worrisome level.

Relative to the Russell 2000, the Fund benefited most from both its overweight and effective stock picking in metals & mining (Materials), the combination of an underweight and stock picking success in biotechnology (Health Care), our larger weighting and savvy stock picks in electronic equipment, instruments & components, and the same mix in the energy equipment & services group. Conversely, first-half results were hampered most by our underweight in REITs (Financials) and lack of exposure to the Utilities sector.

Top Contributors to Performance
Year-to-Date Through 6/30/16 (%)1 Major Drilling Group International 0.74 Newport Corporation 0.50 ASA Gold and Precious Metals 0.48 Care.com 0.41 Exeter Resource 0.37 1 Includes dividends
Top Detractors from Performance
Year-to-Date Through 6/30/16 (%)2 ZAIS Group Holdings Cl. A -0.53 Fenix Parts -0.35 Avalanche Biotechnologies -0.35 Liberty Tax Cl. A -0.33 SeaChange International -0.32 2 Net of dividends
CURRENT POSITIONING AND OUTLOOK While the corporate earnings picture is a phenomenon we continue to watch quite carefully, we are cautiously optimistic about RMT’s near-and long-term prospects, basing our belief primarily on two factors—the growing performance advantage of both small- and micro-cap value versus growth and the relatively attractive valuation and earnings picture for many cyclical stocks. We continue to believe that an extended period of slow growth should be enough to keep profitable cyclicals climbing, especially after factoring in the ways in which low expectations and—for some industries—oversold conditions depressed the stock prices of so many small-caps that we see as attractive—that is, solidly profitable—businesses. In many cases, it appears that the market has just begun to reward steady earnings and high profitability and is only gradually recognizing how low valuations had become for many cyclicals. Going forward, we remain confident that earnings and low leverage will matter more to investors through what we expect should be a long-running cycle. We have been researching and investing in micro-cap stocks for more than two decades and believe that our experience in this asset class can be a differentiator as the markets continue to normalize.
8 | 2016 Semiannual Report to Stockholders

PERFORMANCE AND PORTFOLIO REVIEW SYMBOLS MARKET PRICE RMT NAV XOTCX

Performance Average Annual Total Return (%) Through 6/30/16 JAN-JUN 20161 1-YR 3-YR 5-YR 10-YR 15-YR 20-YR SINCE INCEPTION (12/14/93) RMT (NAV) 5.39 -6.47 7.07 7.90 5.51 8.27 9.73 10.35 1 Not Annualized

Market Price Performance History Since Inception (12/14/93)

Cumulative Performance of Investment1

1-YR 5-YR 10-YR 15-YR 20-YR SINCE INCEPTION (12/14/93) RMT -7.3% 43.4% 42.9% 230.6% 521.7% 658.5%

1 Reflects the cumulative performance experience of a continuous common stockholder who purchased one share at inception ($7.50 IPO), reinvested all distributions and fully participated in the primary subscription of the Fund’s 1994 rights offering. 2 Reflects the actual month-end market price movement of one share as it has traded on NYSE and, prior to 12/1/03, on the Nasdaq.

Top 10 Positions % of Net Assets SurModics 1.8 Seneca Foods Corporation 1.5 Major Drilling Group International 1.4 IES Holdings 1.1 Care.com 1.1 Exactech 1.0 Orbotech 1.0 Atrion Corporation 1.0 Heritage-Crystal Clean 0.9 MVC Capital 0.9

Portfolio Sector Breakdown % of Net Assets Information Technology 22.5 Financials 17.7 Industrials 16.0 Health Care 15.6 Consumer Discretionary 15.2 Materials 6.5 Energy 5.2 Consumer Staples 2.3 Utilities 0.1 Telecommunication Services 0.1 Miscellaneous 3.2 Preferred Stock 0.5 Outstanding Line of Credit, Net of Cash and Cash Equivalents -4.9

Calendar Year Total Returns (%) YEAR RMT 2015 -11.7 2014 3.5 2013 44.5 2012 17.3 2011 -7.7 2010 28.5 2009 46.5 2008 -45.5 2007 0.6 2006 22.5 2005 6.8 2004 18.7 2003 55.5 2002 -13.8 2001 23.4

Portfolio Diagnostics Fund Net Assets $321 million Number of Holdings 348 Turnover Rate 15% Net Asset Value $8.65 Market Price $7.34 Net Leverage1 4.9% Average Market Capitalization2 $329 million Weighted Average P/B Ratio3 1.7x Active Share4 95% U.S. Investments (% of Net Assets) 86.1% Non-U.S. Investments (% of Net Assets) 18.8% 1 Net leverage is the percentage, in excess of 100%, of the total value of equity type investments, divided by net assets. 2 Geometric Average. This weighted calculation uses each portfolio holding’s market cap in a way designed to not skew the effect of very large or small holdings; instead, it aims to better identify the portfolio’s center, which Royce believes offers a more accurate measure of average market cap than a simple mean or median. 3 Harmonic Average. This weighted calculation evaluates a portfolio as if it were a single stock and measures it overall. It compares the total market value of the portfolio to the portfolio’s share in the earnings or book value, as the case may be, of its underlying stocks. 4 Active Share is the sum of the absolute values of the different weightings of each holding in the Fund versus each holding in the benchmark, divided by two.
Important Performance and Risk Information

All performance information reflects past performance, is presented on a total return basis, net of the Fund’s investment advisory fee, and reflects the reinvestment of distributions. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. Current performance may be higher or lower than performance quoted. Returns as of the most recent month-end may be obtained at www.roycefunds.com. Certain immaterial adjustments were made to the net assets of Royce Micro-Cap Trust at 12/31/12 and 12/31/14 for financial reporting purposes, and as a result the net asset value originally calculated on that date and the total return based on that net asset value differs from the adjusted net asset value and total return reported in the Financial Highlights. The market price of the Fund’s shares will fluctuate, so that shares may be worth more or less than their original cost when sold. The Fund normally invests in micro-cap companies, which may involve considerably more risk than investments in securities of larger-cap companies. The Fund’s broadly diversified portfolio does not ensure a profit or guarantee against loss. From time to time, the Fund may invest a significant portion of its net assets in foreign securities, which may involve political, economic, currency and other risks not encountered in U.S. investments. Regarding the “Top Contributors” and “Top Detractors” tables shown on page 8, the sum of all contributors to, and all detractors from, performance for all securities in the portfolio would approximate the Fund’s year-to-date performance for 2016.

2016 Semiannual Report to Stockholders | 9
MANAGER’S DISCUSSION Royce Value Trust (RVT)

Chuck Royce FUND PERFORMANCE
Royce Value Trust gained 8.2% on a net asset value (“NAV”) basis and 4.4% on a market price basis for the year-to-date period ended June 30, 2016, compared to respective increases of 2.2% and 6.2% for its unleveraged small-cap benchmarks, the Russell 2000 and S&P SmallCap 600 Indexes, for the same period. We were pleased to see the Fund show its down market resilience early in 2016, as it often has throughout its long history. First-quarter NAV returns for RVT were notable on an absolute and relative basis. The Fund gained 4.4% based on NAV (and advanced 1.7% on a market price basis), outperforming each of its benchmarks: the Russell 2000 declined 1.5% while the S&P SmallCap 600 rose 2.7% for the first quarter.
     The second quarter was mostly a period of gradual recovery that favored more defensive areas, such as REITs and utilities. Some of the growth stocks that had been hurt in the winter sell-off also rebounded, while cyclical areas within Materials, Industrials, and Energy continued to do well, in sharp contrast to what we experienced in 2015. The wave of volatility that hit the markets in the wake of the Brexit vote wound up doing little to impede this low-key bullish phase. Although it had little exposure to defensive stocks, RVT barely lost ground to the Russell 2000 during the second quarter, gaining 3.6% on an NAV basis and 2.6% based on market price versus 3.8% for the Russell 2000 and 3.5% for the S&P SmallCap 600. The Fund also beat the Russell 2000 on both an NAV and market price basis for the one-, 20-, 25-year, and since inception (11/26/86) periods ended June 30, 2016. RVT’s average annual NAV total return since inception was 10.1%.
WHAT WORKED... AND WHAT DIDN’T Each of the Fund’s 10 equity sectors finished 2016’s first half with net gains. The resurgent Materials and Industrials sectors led by a sizable margin while a meaningful net contribution also came from Information Technology. Three industry groups from three different sectors dominated performance—metals & mining (Materials), electronic equipment, instruments & components (Information Technology), and machinery (Industrials). Net losses at the industry level were comparatively modest. The leading detractors were professional services (also from Industrials) and capital markets (Financials). Each of these five industry groups is an area of investment focus in the portfolio, and we were overweight in all of them relative to the Russell 2000 at the end of June.
     Three of RVT’s top four contributing positions came from the electronic equipment, instruments & components group, and two were acquisition targets. The stock price of Newport Corporation climbed by more than 50% in February after the company, which specializes in photonics technology, agreed to be acquired by MKS Instruments, prompting us to begin selling our position. FEI Company produces specialized electron microscopes for protein analysis, which was a complementary business for Thermo Fisher Scientific. The acquisition was announced in May. Long-time holding Coherent manufactures lasers and laser-based technology for scientific, commercial, and industrial customers. In January the company reported record setting quarterly bookings, boosted by orders for its VyperTM Linebeam systems, which helped its stock to soar. From the metals & mining group, Toronto’s Franco-Nevada Corporation owns royalties and streams in gold mining and other commodity and natural resource investments. The company paid down debt, increased its dividend, and offered upward earnings revisions, all as gold prices surged during the first half.      As for those holdings that detracted from performance, we held our position in ZAIS Group Holdings, an investment manager focused on specialized credit strategies—a segment of the capital markets with what we think is considerable long-term potential. Its shares fell with a net quarterly loss reported in March and then were volatile, though mostly down, through the end of June. We added shares of The Advisory Board Company, which provides best practice research and analysis to the health care industry, after its decelerating core healthcare business and warnings of lower revenues sank its shares. We like its niche business and think its long-term prospects remain promising.
Top Contributors to Performance
Year-to-Date Through 6/30/16 (%)1 Newport Corporation 0.43 Coherent 0.41 Franco-Nevada Corporation 0.38 FEI Company 0.34 Ritchie Bros. Auctioneers 0.33 1 Includes dividends
Top Detractors from Performance
Year-to-Date Through 6/30/16 (%)2 ZAIS Group Holdings Cl. A -0.31 Advisory Board (The) -0.24 On Assignment -0.20 Zealand Pharma -0.16 Artisan Partners Asset Management Cl. A -0.15 2 Net of dividends
CURRENT POSITIONING AND OUTLOOK While the corporate earnings picture is a phenomenon we continue to watch quite carefully, we are cautiously optimistic about RVT’s near- and long-term prospects, basing our belief primarily on two factors—the growing performance advantage of small-cap value versus growth and the relatively attractive valuation and earnings picture for many cyclical stocks. We continue to believe that an extended period of slow growth should be enough to keep profitable cyclicals climbing, especially after factoring in the ways in which low expectations and—for some industries—oversold conditions depressed the stock prices of so many small-caps that we see as attractive—that is, solidly profitable—businesses. In many cases, it appears that the market has just begun to reward steady earnings and high profitability and is only gradually recognizing how low valuations had become for many cyclicals. Going forward, we remain confident that earnings, profitability, and low leverage will matter more and more to investors through what we expect should be a long-running cycle.
10  |  2016 Semiannual Report to Stockholders

PERFORMANCE AND PORTFOLIO REVIEW SYMBOLS    MARKET PRICE RVT NAV XRVTX

Performance Average Annual Total Return (%) Through 6/30/16 JAN-JUN 20161 1-YR 3-YR 5-YR 10-YR 15-YR 20-YR 25-YR SINCE INCEPTION (11/26/86) RVT (NAV) 8.17 -2.24 6.13 5.77 5.05 7.10 9.37 10.49 10.15 1 Not Annualized

Market Price Performance History Since Inception (11/26/86)

Cumulative Performance of Investment through 6/30/161

1-YR 5-YR 10-YR 15-YR 20-YR SINCE INCEPTION (11/26/86) RVT -5.9% 27.8% 40.2% 165.2% 490.3% 1279.8%

1 Reflects the cumulative performance of an investment made by a stockholder who purchased one share at inception ($10.00 IPO), reinvested all distributions and fully participated in primary subscriptions of the Fund’s rights offerings. 2 Reflects the actual month-end market price movement of one share as it has traded on the NYSE.

Top 10 Positions % of Net Assets HEICO Corporation 1.2 Coherent 1.1 MarketAxess Holdings 1.1 Copart 1.1 Ritchie Bros. Auctioneers 1.0 Ash Grove Cement Cl. B 1.0 E-L Financial 1.0 Core-Mark Holding Company 1.0 Reliance Steel & Aluminum 0.9 IDEXX Laboratories 0.9

Portfolio Sector Breakdown % of Net Assets Industrials 29.1 Financials 19.8 Information Technology 18.6 Consumer Discretionary 11.6 Materials 7.9 Health Care 5.3 Energy 5.1 Consumer Staples 1.9 Telecommunication Services 0.5 Utilities 0.1 Miscellaneous 2.3 Outstanding Line of Credit, Net of Cash and Cash Equivalents -2.2

Calendar Year Total Returns (%) YEAR RVT 2015 -8.1 2014 0.8 2013 34.1 2012 15.4 2011 -10.1 2010 30.3 2009 44.6 2008 -45.6 2007 5.0 2006 19.5 2005 8.4 2004 21.4 2003 40.8 2002 -15.6 2001 15.2

Portfolio Diagnostics Fund Net Assets $1,131 million Number of Holdings 428 Turnover Rate 18% Net Asset Value $14.05 Market Price $11.77 Net Leverage1 2.3% Average Market Capitalization2 $1,348 million Weighted Average P/E Ratio3,4 19.8x Weighted Average P/B Ratio3 2.0x Active Share5 90% U.S. Investments (% of Net Assets) 83.7% Non-U.S. Investments (% of Net Assets) 18.5% 1 Net leverage is the percentage, in excess of 100%, of the total value of equity type investments, divided by net assets. 2 Geometric Average. This weighted calculation uses each portfolio holding’s market cap in a way designed to not skew the effect of very large or small holdings; instead, it aims to better identify the portfolio’s center, which Royce believes offers a more accurate measure of average market cap than a simple mean or median. 3 Harmonic Average. This weighted calculation evaluates a portfolio as if it were a single stock and measures it overall. It compares the total market value of the portfolio to the portfolio’s share in the earnings or book value, as the case may be, of its underlying stocks. 4 The Fund’s P/E ratio calculation excludes companies with zero or negative earnings (17% of portfolio holdings as of 6/30/16). 5 Active Share is the sum of the absolute values of the different weightings of each holding in the Fund versus each holding in the benchmark, divided by two.
Important Performance and Risk Information

2016 Semiannual Report to Stockholders | 11

History Since Inception

The following table details the share accumulations by an initial investor in the Funds who reinvested all distributions and participated fully in primary subscriptions for each of the rights offerings. Full participation in distribution reinvestments and rights offerings can maximize the returns available to a long-term investor. This table should be read in conjunction with the Performance and Portfolio Reviews of the Funds.

HISTORY AMOUNT INVESTED PURCHASE PRICE1 SHARES NAV VALUE2 MARKET VALUE2 Royce Global Value Trust 10/17/13 Initial Purchase $ 8,975 $ 8.975 1,000 $ 9,780 $ 8,975 12/11/14 Distribution $0.15 7.970 19 9,426 8,193 12/10/15 Distribution $0.10 7.230 14 9,101 7,696 6/30/16 $ 8,975 1,033 $ 9,452 $ 7,851 Royce Micro-Cap Trust 12/14/93 Initial Purchase $ 7,500 $ 7.500 1,000 $ 7,250 $ 7,500 10/28/94 Rights Offering 1,400 7.000 200 12/19/94 Distribution $0.05 6.750 9 9,163 8,462 12/7/95 Distribution $0.36 7.500 58 11,264 10,136 12/6/96 Distribution $0.80 7.625 133 13,132 11,550 12/5/97 Distribution $1.00 10.000 140 16,694 15,593 12/7/98 Distribution $0.29 8.625 52 16,016 14,129 12/6/99 Distribution $0.27 8.781 49 18,051 14,769 12/6/00 Distribution $1.72 8.469 333 20,016 17,026 12/6/01 Distribution $0.57 9.880 114 24,701 21,924 2002 Annual distribution total $0.80 9.518 180 21,297 19,142 2003 Annual distribution total $0.92 10.004 217 33,125 31,311 2004 Annual distribution total $1.33 13.350 257 39,320 41,788 2005 Annual distribution total $1.85 13.848 383 41,969 45,500 2006 Annual distribution total $1.55 14.246 354 51,385 57,647 2007 Annual distribution total $1.35 13.584 357 51,709 45,802 2008 Annual distribution total $1.193 8.237 578 28,205 24,807 3/11/09 Distribution $0.223 4.260 228 41,314 34,212 12/2/10 Distribution $0.08 9.400 40 53,094 45,884 2011 Annual distribution total $0.533 8.773 289 49,014 43,596 2012 Annual distribution total $0.51 9.084 285 57,501 49,669 2013 Annual distribution total $1.38 11.864 630 83,110 74,222 2014 Annual distribution total $2.90 10.513 1,704 86,071 76,507 2015 Annual distribution total $1.26 7.974 1,256 75,987 64,222 2016 Year-to-date distribution total $0.33 7.169 412 6/30/16 $ 8,900 9,258 $ 80,082 $ 67,954
1 The purchase price used for annual distribution totals is a weighted average of the distribution reinvestment prices for the year. 2 Values are stated as of December 31 of the year indicated, after reinvestment of distributions, other than for initial purchase. 3 Includes a return of capital.
12 | 2016 Semiannual Report to Stockholders
HISTORY AMOUNT INVESTED PURCHASE PRICE1 SHARES NAV VALUE2 MARKET VALUE2 Royce Value Trust 11/26/86 Initial Purchase $ 10,000 $ 10.000 1,000 $ 9,280 $ 10,000 10/15/87 Distribution $0.30 7.000 42 12/31/87 Distribution $0.22 7.125 32 8,578 7,250 12/27/88 Distribution $0.51 8.625 63 10,529 9,238 9/22/89 Rights Offering 405 9.000 45 12/29/89 Distribution $0.52 9.125 67 12,942 11,866 9/24/90 Rights Offering 457 7.375 62 12/31/90 Distribution $0.32 8.000 52 11,713 11,074 9/23/91 Rights Offering 638 9.375 68 12/31/91 Distribution $0.61 10.625 82 17,919 15,697 9/25/92 Rights Offering 825 11.000 75 12/31/92 Distribution $0.90 12.500 114 21,999 20,874 9/27/93 Rights Offering 1,469 13.000 113 12/31/93 Distribution $1.15 13.000 160 26,603 25,428 10/28/94 Rights Offering 1,103 11.250 98 12/19/94 Distribution $1.05 11.375 191 27,939 24,905 11/3/95 Rights Offering 1,425 12.500 114 12/7/95 Distribution $1.29 12.125 253 35,676 31,243 12/6/96 Distribution $1.15 12.250 247 41,213 36,335 1997 Annual distribution total $1.21 15.374 230 52,556 46,814 1998 Annual distribution total $1.54 14.311 347 54,313 47,506 1999 Annual distribution total $1.37 12.616 391 60,653 50,239 2000 Annual distribution total $1.48 13.972 424 70,711 61,648 2001 Annual distribution total $1.49 15.072 437 81,478 73,994 2002 Annual distribution total $1.51 14.903 494 68,770 68,927 1/28/03 Rights Offering 5,600 10.770 520 2003 Annual distribution total $1.30 14.582 516 106,216 107,339 2004 Annual distribution total $1.55 17.604 568 128,955 139,094 2005 Annual distribution total $1.61 18.739 604 139,808 148,773 2006 Annual distribution total $1.78 19.696 693 167,063 179,945 2007 Annual distribution total $1.85 19.687 787 175,469 165,158 2008 Annual distribution total $1.723 12.307 1,294 95,415 85,435 3/11/09 Distribution $0.323 6.071 537 137,966 115,669 12/2/10 Distribution $0.03 13.850 23 179,730 156,203 2011 Annual distribution total $0.783 13.043 656 161,638 139,866 2012 Annual distribution total $0.80 13.063 714 186,540 162,556 2013 Annual distribution total $2.194 16.647 1,658 250,219 220,474 2014 Annual distribution total $1.82 14.840 1,757 252,175 222,516 2015 Annual distribution total $1.24 12.725 1,565 231,781 201,185 2016 Year-to-date distribution total $0.51 11.736 751 6/30/16 $ 21,922 17,844 $ 250,708 $ 210,024
1 The purchase price used for annual distribution totals is a weighted average of the distribution reinvestment prices for the year. 2 Values are stated as of December 31 of the year indicated, after reinvestment of distributions, other than for initial purchase. 3 Includes a return of capital. 4 Includes Royce Global Value Trust spin-off of $1.40 per share.
2016 Semiannual Report to Stockholders | 13

Distribution Reinvestment and Cash Purchase Options

Why should I reinvest my distributions? By reinvesting distributions, a stockholder can maintain an undiluted investment in the Fund. The regular reinvestment of distributions has a significant impact on stockholder returns. In contrast, the stockholder who takes distributions in cash is penalized when shares are issued below net asset value to other stockholders. How does the reinvestment of distributions from the Royce closed-end funds work? The Funds automatically issue shares in payment of distributions unless you indicate otherwise. The shares are generally issued at the lower of the market price or net asset value on the valuation date. How does this apply to registered stockholders? If your shares are registered directly with a Fund, your distributions are automatically reinvested unless you have otherwise instructed the Funds’ transfer agent, Computershare, in writing, in which case you will receive your distribution in cash. A registered stockholder also may have the option to receive the distribution in the form of a stock certificate. What if my shares are held by a brokerage firm or a bank? If your shares are held by a brokerage firm, bank, or other intermediary as the stockholder of record, you should contact your brokerage firm or bank to be certain that it is automatically reinvesting distributions on your behalf. If they are unable to reinvest distributions on your behalf, you should have your shares registered in your name in order to participate. What other features are available for registered stockholders? The Distribution Reinvestment and Cash Purchase Plans also allow registered stockholders to make optional cash purchases of shares of a Fund’s common stock directly through Computershare on a monthly basis, and to deposit certificates representing your RVT and RMT shares with Computershare for safekeeping. (RGT does not issue shares in certificated form). Plan participants are subject to a $0.75 service fee for each voluntary cash purchase under the Plans. The Funds’ investment adviser absorbed all commissions on optional cash purchases under the Plans through December 31, 2015.
How do the Plans work for registered stockholders? Computershare maintains the accounts for registered stockholders in the Plans and sends written confirmation of all transactions in the account. Shares in the account of each participant will be held by Computershare in non-certificated form in the name of the participant, and each participant will be able to vote those shares at a stockholder meeting or by proxy. A participant may also send stock certificates for RVT and RMT held by them to Computershare to be held in non-certificated form. RGT does not issue shares in certificated form. There is no service fee charged to participants for reinvesting distributions. If a participant elects to sell shares from a Plan account, Computershare will deduct a $2.50 service fee from the sale transaction. The Funds’ investment adviser absorbed all commissions on optional sales under the Plans through December 31, 2015. If a nominee is the registered owner of your shares, the nominee will maintain the accounts on your behalf. How can I get more information on the Plans? You can call an Investor Services Representative at (800) 221-4268 or you can request a copy of the Plan for your Fund from Computershare. All correspondence (including notifications) should be directed to: [Name of Fund] Distribution Reinvestment and Cash Purchase Plan, c/o Computershare, PO Box 43078, Providence, RI 02940-3078, telephone (800) 426-5523 (from 9:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M.).
14 | 2016 Semiannual Report to Stockholders
Royce Global Value Trust June 30, 2016 (unaudited)
Schedule of Investments Common Stocks – 102.5% SHARES VALUE AUSTRALIA – 1.1%

Austal 1

96,400 $ 86,993

†Cochlear

5,000 453,507

Imdex 2

473,700 73,895

†Seeing Machines 2

1,676,800 64,244

TFS Corporation

143,945 151,529

Webjet

36,772 196,069 Total (Cost $1,095,718) 1,026,237 AUSTRIA – 1.3%

Mayr-Melnhof Karton

7,530 820,538

Semperit AG Holding

11,000 365,978

UBM Development

1,800 58,990 Total (Cost $1,459,521) 1,245,506 BELGIUM – 0.4%

†Roularta Media Group

3,400 96,367

Van de Velde

4,000 266,616 Total (Cost $293,728) 362,983 BERMUDA – 1.0%

Lazard Cl. A

32,600 970,828 Total (Cost $1,010,334) 970,828 BRAZIL – 2.1%

Brasil Brokers Participacoes 2

205,000 102,745

CETIP - Mercados Organizados

53,000 722,495

†OdontoPrev

200,000 828,690

T4F Entretenimento

66,300 136,220

TOTVS

23,000 218,666 Total (Cost $1,929,739) 2,008,816 CANADA – 7.5%

Agnico Eagle Mines 3

5,000 267,500

Cameco Corporation 3

24,500 268,765

Computer Modelling Group

108,000 864,368

Dundee Corporation Cl. A 2

120,000 708,696

E-L Financial

200 106,196

Exco Technologies

10,100 95,375

Franco-Nevada Corporation 3,4

10,200 775,812

Genworth MI Canada

20,000 513,023

Gluskin Sheff + Associates

23,000 296,768

goeasy

10,000 142,343

Intertape Polymer Group

5,900 96,267

Magellan Aerospace

20,900 291,349

Major Drilling Group International 2

110,500 668,842

Morneau Shepell

41,500 569,844

Pan American Silver 3

31,800 523,110

RDM Corporation

30,400 102,357

†Sandstorm Gold 2

32,800 146,288

Solium Capital 2

28,900 132,874

Sprott

280,600 558,181 Total (Cost $8,287,816) 7,127,958 CHINA – 1.3%

Daphne International Holdings 2

1,383,000 214,554

Daqo New Energy ADR 2,3

5,700 128,649

†Haichang Ocean Park Holdings 2

461,100 99,125

TravelSky Technology

345,000 667,193

Xtep International Holdings

205,800 111,102 Total (Cost $1,871,648) 1,220,623 CYPRUS – 0.2%

Globaltrans Investment GDR

42,000 165,461 Total (Cost $212,014) 165,461 DENMARK – 2.7%

Chr. Hansen Holding

11,500 755,146

Coloplast Cl. B

7,500 559,855

Columbus

77,700 97,313

SimCorp

14,000 686,976

Zealand Pharma 2

24,000 430,307 Total (Cost $2,069,990) 2,529,597 FINLAND – 1.0%

BasWare 2

1,600 61,442

Nokian Renkaat

6,000 214,322

Powerflute

116,300 108,900

Vaisala Cl. A

17,500 550,658 Total (Cost $1,151,092) 935,322 FRANCE – 5.5%

†Bigben Interactive 2

13,600 72,394

Cegedim 2

2,500 76,310

Chargeurs

7,700 85,163

†Groupe Crit

1,400 93,395

HighCo

9,700 96,199

†Interparfums

17,600 441,857

†Linedata Services

1,600 72,792

Manutan International

1,400 75,688

Neurones

25,950 568,637

Rothschild & Co

33,000 789,326

†Synergie

3,100 88,566

Thermador Groupe

10,500 907,633

Vetoquinol

28,203 1,149,842

Virbac 2

3,600 655,031 Total (Cost $5,122,292) 5,172,833 GERMANY – 5.6%

ADLER Real Estate 2

9,400 119,091

†ADLER Real Estate (Rights) 1,2

9,400 0

Allgeier

3,700 67,801

Bertrandt

8,500 831,873

†CANCOM

2,400 119,244

Carl Zeiss Meditec

17,500 707,686

CompuGroup Medical

15,000 623,756

Fielmann

7,000 511,655

HolidayCheck Group 2

25,100 65,676

KUKA

4,000 473,693

KWS Saat

1,900 628,224

†MorphoSys 2

7,000 291,961

msg life 2

25,400 68,576

mutares

8,000 115,526

†PNE Wind

45,700 107,603

STRATEC Biomedical

8,000 462,027

VIB Vermoegen

4,200 90,542
THE ACCOMPANYING NOTES ARE AN INTEGRAL PART OF THESE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 2016 Semiannual Report to Stockholders | 15

Royce Global Value Trust

Schedule of Investments (continued) SHARES VALUE GERMANY (continued)

XING

300 $ 56,989 Total (Cost $4,917,259) 5,341,923 GREECE – 0.2%

Aegean Marine Petroleum Network

5,000 27,500

Hellenic Exchanges - Athens Stock Exchange

28,000 133,402

StealthGas 2,3

17,000 64,260 Total (Cost $333,095) 225,162 HONG KONG – 3.3%

Anxin-China Holdings 1,2

2,500,000 18,690

China Metal International Holdings

430,000 138,767

First Pacific

180,000 130,373

†HKBN

126,000 132,588

I.T

438,500 130,448

Le Saunda Holdings

295,460 63,042

Luk Fook Holdings (International)

120,100 267,351

New World Department Store China

1,559,700 203,484

Oriental Watch Holdings

960,000 114,396

Pico Far East Holdings

1,053,300 297,931

Television Broadcasts

54,000 185,446

Texwinca Holdings

302,000 224,414

Value Partners Group

1,080,000 1,002,060

VST Holdings

366,600 104,897

YGM Trading

169,400 87,778 Total (Cost $4,506,505) 3,101,665 INDIA – 1.6%

Bajaj Finance

8,800 1,044,716

†CCL Products India

26,000 95,630

Kewal Kiran Clothing

6,500 175,038

†Manappuram Finance

175,000 179,776 Total (Cost $1,071,718) 1,495,160 INDONESIA – 0.9%

Selamat Sempurna

1,816,700 643,109

Supra Boga Lestari 2

3,945,000 176,431 Total (Cost $860,630) 819,540 IRELAND – 0.6%

Ardmore Shipping 3

8,300 56,191

†Irish Continental Group

15,900 74,396

†Irish Residential Properties REIT

70,100 86,736

Keywords Studios

75,000 271,701

Trinity Biotech ADR Cl. A 2

10,000 113,400 Total (Cost $629,863) 602,424 ISRAEL – 0.2%

Nova Measuring Instruments 2,3

18,200 199,108 Total (Cost $195,540) 199,108 ITALY – 1.4%

Azimut Holding

25,000 407,419

Banca Sistema

58,200 132,206

DiaSorin

11,000 674,987

†Gruppo MutuiOnline

9,000 78,652 Total (Cost $1,372,778) 1,293,264 JAPAN – 12.2%

CRE

9,400 256,122

FamilyMart

8,200 498,099

GCA Savvian

17,400 146,971

Horiba

20,000 874,490

Leopalace21 Corporation

25,400 177,432

Mandom Corporation

2,100 96,153

Meitec Corporation

30,000 1,013,819

MISUMI Group

47,000 841,714

Nihon Kohden

27,500 770,553

†Nippon Kanzai

45,000 710,536

†Omron Corporation

17,500 567,033

Pressance Corporation

2,800 105,339

Relo Holdings

5,500 963,933

Santen Pharmaceutical

77,000 1,200,814

Shimano

6,300 954,795

SPARX Group

76,100 135,599

Sun Frontier Fudousan

13,200 134,095

Takara Leben

13,000 99,047

Trancom

2,600 171,148

Trend Micro

20,000 712,314

USS

62,500 1,025,096

Zuiko Corporation

2,100 89,503 Total (Cost $9,136,270) 11,544,605 MALAYSIA – 0.2%

CB Industrial Product Holding

141,000 71,417

†Kossan Rubber Industries

53,200 90,496 Total (Cost $147,140) 161,913 MEXICO – 0.5%

Bolsa Mexicana de Valores

250,000 385,203

Consorcio ARA

393,300 141,336 Total (Cost $600,705) 526,539 NETHERLANDS – 0.0%

†Constellium Cl. A 2

8,300 38,927 Total (Cost $34,333) 38,927 NEW ZEALAND – 0.7%

Fisher & Paykel Healthcare

75,000 538,349

†New Zealand Refining

43,100 74,838

†Summerset Group Holdings

24,200 75,827 Total (Cost $558,090) 689,014 NORWAY – 1.4%

Ekornes

41,459 452,132

Kongsberg Automotive 2

84,300 55,194

Medistim

13,000 88,464

†Nordic Semiconductor 2

53,000 217,046

†NRC Group 2

12,200 76,874

TGS-NOPEC Geophysical

27,200 444,777 Total (Cost $1,657,050) 1,334,487 PHILIPPINES – 0.3%

†Integrated Micro-Electronics

756,900 90,824

Universal Robina

45,000 199,122 Total (Cost $221,280) 289,946
16 | 2016 Semiannual Report to Stockholders THE ACCOMPANYING NOTES ARE AN INTEGRAL PART OF THESE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
June 30, 2016 (unaudited)
Schedule of Investments (continued) SHARES VALUE POLAND – 0.3%

Warsaw Stock Exchange

33,000 $ 276,904 Total (Cost $459,764) 276,904 SINGAPORE – 1.2%

ARA Asset Management

600,000 617,970

CSE Global

320,000 104,410

XP Power

20,100 416,908 Total (Cost $1,040,946) 1,139,288 SOUTH AFRICA – 0.6%

Coronation Fund Managers

59,000 267,782

JSE

15,000 187,371

Net 1 UEPS Technologies 2

10,500 104,895 Total (Cost $732,552) 560,048 SOUTH KOREA – 0.6%

Eugene Technology

6,036 86,063

†Hanssem

900 124,242

Huvis Corporation

6,400 43,522

ISC

2,609 60,111

Koh Young Technology

5,000 177,802

†Modetour Network

3,400 82,374 Total (Cost $580,680) 574,114 SPAIN – 0.1%

Atento 2,3

9,400 83,754 Total (Cost $127,314) 83,754 SWEDEN – 1.1%

Addtech Cl. B

27,000 338,811

†Bravida Holding

60,000 359,981

†Doro 2

8,000 57,993

Dustin Group

23,900 158,955

Proact IT Group

7,600 97,985 Total (Cost $1,095,899) 1,013,725 SWITZERLAND – 4.8%

Burckhardt Compression Holding

2,150 668,758

dorma+kaba Holding

800 558,143

Inficon Holding

1,700 577,873

LEM Holding

700 630,100

Partners Group Holding

1,600 686,073

VZ Holding

4,925 1,469,370 Total (Cost $3,932,226) 4,590,317 TAIWAN – 1.0%

†Chipbond Technology

50,700 64,961

†Egis Technology 2

22,600 108,819

Flytech Technology

32,780 104,060

Kinik Company

48,500 81,059

Lumax International

87,400 126,286

†Posiflex Technology

16,200 78,112

Shih Her Technologies

85,600 82,205

Sporton International

19,800 102,187

UDE Corporation

85,500 76,676

†United Orthopedic

35,700 99,418 Total (Cost $1,127,916) 923,783 THAILAND – 0.1%

MC Group

204,200 78,055 Total (Cost $78,178) 78,055 TURKEY – 0.4%

Mardin Cimento Sanayii

279,256 384,905 Total (Cost $711,046) 384,905 UNITED KINGDOM – 13.0%

Abcam

40,000 411,312

Ashmore Group

169,000 684,204

Berendsen

37,500 610,933

†BGEO Group

2,200 77,845

BrainJuicer Group

9,400 43,025

Character Group

11,400 72,285

Clarkson

41,300 1,223,975

Computacenter

18,700 185,409

†Connect Group

68,500 135,059

Consort Medical

52,500 732,612

Conviviality

60,600 147,635

Diploma

40,000 445,372

†dotdigital group

206,200 111,033

e2v technologies

150,000 406,833

Elementis

175,000 466,495

†Epwin Group

47,500 69,796

Exova Group

175,000 421,287

†FDM Group Holdings

60,000 360,180

Finsbury Food Group

84,600 122,309

†Hilton Food Group

26,000 191,189

†Inspired Energy

439,500 71,072

ITE Group

325,000 619,498

Jupiter Fund Management

36,000 177,484

†McBride

50,200 104,296

†Micro Focus International

6,900 149,253

Norcros

64,360 146,788

Pendragon

139,900 52,613

Polypipe Group

60,000 210,594

†Rank Group

21,100 60,797

Real Estate Investors

99,300 76,229

Rotork

81,500 233,971

Senior

130,000 357,098

Severfield

142,700 93,834

Spirax-Sarco Engineering

23,500 1,173,072

Stallergenes Greer 2

10,800 265,127

†Treatt

30,400 66,407

Trifast

71,200 130,529

Vertu Motors

66,300 37,178

Victrex

30,000 605,056

Xaar

115,000 641,473

Zeal Network

2,500 87,202 Total (Cost $14,726,817) 12,278,359 UNITED STATES – 26.1%

†Air Lease Cl. A

12,300 329,394

Brooks Automation 3

18,100 203,082

Century Casinos 2

30,000 186,900

†CIRCOR International

12,800 729,472

†Cognex Corporation

17,100 737,010
THE ACCOMPANYING NOTES ARE AN INTEGRAL PART OF THESE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 2016 Semiannual Report to Stockholders | 17
Royce Global Value Trust June 30, 2016 (unaudited)
Schedule of Investments (continued) SHARES VALUE UNITED STATES (continued)

†Coherent 2

5,000 $ 458,900

Commercial Metals

42,000 709,800

†Copart 2

18,600 911,586

Diebold 3,4

28,800 715,104

Diodes 2,3

20,500 385,195

EnerSys 3,4

11,000 654,170

Expeditors International of Washington 3

10,000 490,400

†Federated Investors Cl. B

12,500 359,750

FLIR Systems 3

14,100 436,395

†Gentex Corporation

24,800 383,160

Greif Cl. A 3

8,700 324,249

†IDEXX Laboratories 2

10,400 965,744

Innospec 3

12,457 572,897

†Kadant

7,800 401,778

KBR 3

73,400 971,816

Kirby Corporation 2,3,4

29,400 1,834,266

†Lindsay Corporation

13,700 929,682

†ManpowerGroup

11,000 707,740

†MBIA 2

80,300 548,449

Nanometrics 2,3,4

44,500 925,155

National Instruments 3

19,000 520,600

†Oaktree Capital Group LLC Cl. A

10,400 465,504

†Popular

13,100 383,830

Quaker Chemical 3

8,400 749,280

†Raven Industries

50,000 947,000

Rogers Corporation 2,3

6,000 366,600

Schnitzer Steel Industries Cl. A 3

19,100 336,160

SEACOR Holdings 2

6,000 347,700

SEI Investments 3,4

40,600 1,953,266

Sensient Technologies 3,4

9,500 674,880

Standard Motor Products

11,200 445,536

†Stifel Financial 2,3,4

18,500 581,825

Sun Hydraulics 3

15,139 449,477

Tennant Company 3

11,600 624,892 Total (Cost $25,439,098) 24,718,644 TOTAL COMMON STOCKS (Cost $100,798,584) 97,051,737
REPURCHASE AGREEMENT– 12.6% Fixed Income Clearing Corporation, 0.03% dated 6/30/16, due 7/1/16, maturity value
$11,941,010 (collateralized by obligations of various U.S. Government Agencies, 0.125%
due 4/15/19, valued at $12,181,613) (Cost $11,941,000) $ 11,941,000 TOTAL INVESTMENTS – 115.1% (Cost $112,739,584) 108,992,737 LIABILITIES LESS CASH AND OTHER ASSETS – (15.1)% (14,289,619 ) NET ASSETS – 100.0% $ 94,703,118
† New additions in 2016. 1

Securities for which market quotations are not readily available represent 0.1% of net assets. These securities have been valued at their fair value under procedures approved by the Fund’s Board of Directors. These securities are defined as Level 3 securities due to the use of significant unobservable inputs in the determination of fair value. See Notes to Financial Statements.

2 Non-income producing.

3 All or a portion of these securities were pledged as collateral in connection with the revolving credit agreement at June 30, 2016. Total market value of pledged securities at June 30, 2016, was $13,230,600.

At June 30, 2016, a portion of these securities were rehypothecated in connection with the Fund’s revolving credit agreement in the aggregate amount of $5,942,261.

Securities of Global/International Funds are categorized by the country of their headquarters, with the exception of exchange-traded funds.

Bold indicates the Fund’s 20 largest equity holdings in terms of June 30, 2016, market value.

TAX INFORMATION: The cost of total investments for Federal income tax purposes was $113,338,626. At June 30, 2016, net unrealized depreciation for all securities was $4,345,889, consisting of aggregate gross unrealized appreciation of $8,804,582 and aggregate gross unrealized depreciation of $13,150,471. The primary difference between book and tax basis cost is the timing of the recognition of losses on securities sold.

18 | 2016 Semiannual Report to Stockholders THE ACCOMPANYING NOTES ARE AN INTEGRAL PART OF THESE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
Royce Global Value Trust June 30, 2016 (unaudited)
Statement of Assets and Liabilities ASSETS: Investments at value $ 97,051,737 Repurchase agreements (at cost and value) 11,941,000 Cash and foreign currency 72,680 Receivable for investments sold 519,556 Receivable for dividends and interest 160,480 Prepaid expenses and other assets 31,551 Total Assets 109,777,004 LIABILITIES: Revolving credit agreement 8,000,000 Payable for investments purchased 6,893,357 Payable for investment advisory fee 97,707 Payable for directors’ fees 8,896 Payable for interest expense 709 Accrued expenses 47,094 Deferred capital gains tax 26,123 Total Liabilities 15,073,886 Net Assets $ 94,703,118 ANALYSIS OF NET ASSETS: Paid-in capital - $0.001 par value per share; 10,344,899 shares outstanding (150,000,000 shares authorized) $ 116,929,670 Undistributed net investment income (loss) 367,035 Accumulated net realized gain (loss) on investments and foreign currency (18,815,847 ) Net unrealized appreciation (depreciation) on investments and foreign currency (3,777,740 ) Net Assets (net asset value per share - $9.15) $ 94,703,118 Investments at identified cost $ 100,798,584
THE ACCOMPANYING NOTES ARE AN INTEGRAL PART OF THESE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 2016 Semiannual Report to Stockholders | 19
Royce Global Value Trust
Statement of Changes in Net Assets SIX MONTHS ENDED 6/30/16 (UNAUDITED) YEAR ENDED 12/31/15 INVESTMENT OPERATIONS: Net investment income (loss) $ 591,649 $ 985,324 Net realized gain (loss) on investments and foreign currency (456,191 ) (11,820,601 ) Net change in unrealized appreciation (depreciation) on investments and foreign currency 3,394,100 7,399,963 Net increase (decrease) in net assets from investment operations 3,529,558 (3,435,314 ) DISTRIBUTIONS: Net investment income – (1,029,597 ) Net realized gain on investments and foreign currency – – Total distributions – (1,029,597 ) CAPITAL STOCK TRANSACTIONS: Reinvestment of distributions – 353,733 Total capital stock transactions – 353,733 Net Increase (Decrease) In Net Assets 3,529,558 (4,111,178 ) NET ASSETS: Beginning of period 91,173,560 95,284,738 End of period (including undistributed net investment income (loss) of $367,035 at 6/30/16 and $(224,615) at 12/31/15) $ 94,703,118 $ 91,173,560
20 | 2016 Semiannual Report to Stockholders THE ACCOMPANYING NOTES ARE AN INTEGRAL PART OF THESE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
Royce Global Value Trust Six Months Ended June 30, 2016 (unaudited)
Statement of Operations INVESTMENT INCOME: INCOME: Dividends $ 1,467,927 Foreign withholding tax (105,541 ) Interest 483 Rehypothecation income 530 Total income 1,363,399 EXPENSES: Investment advisory fees 560,982 Interest expense 64,058 Custody and transfer agent fees 49,197 Stockholder reports 36,912 Directors’ fees 15,032 Professional fees 14,980 Administrative and office facilities 9,740 Other expenses 20,853 Total expenses 771,754 Compensating balance credits (4 ) Net expenses 771,750 Net investment income (loss) 591,649 REALIZED AND UNREALIZED GAIN (LOSS) ON INVESTMENTS AND FOREIGN CURRENCY: NET REALIZED GAIN (LOSS): Investments (445,682 ) Foreign currency transactions (10,509 ) NET CHANGE IN UNREALIZED APPRECIATION (DEPRECIATION): Investments and foreign currency translations 3,396,809 Other assets and liabilities denominated in foreign currency (2,709 ) Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments and foreign currency 2,937,909 NET INCREASE (DECREASE) IN NET ASSETS FROM INVESTMENT OPERATIONS $ 3,529,558
THE ACCOMPANYING NOTES ARE AN INTEGRAL PART OF THESE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 2016 Semiannual Report to Stockholders | 21
Royce Global Value Trust Six Months Ended June 30, 2016 (unaudited)
Statement of Cash Flows CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES: Net increase (decrease) in net assets from investment operations $ 3,529,558 Adjustments to reconcile net increase (decrease) in net assets from investment operations to net cash provided by operating activities:

Purchases of long-term investments

(26,912,783 )

Proceeds from sales and maturities of long-term investments

36,633,021

Net purchases, sales and maturities of short-term investments

(10,238,000 )

Net (increase) decrease in dividends and interest receivable and other assets

11,376

Net increase (decrease) in interest expense payable, accrued expenses and other liabilities

(14,036 )

Net change in unrealized appreciation (depreciation) on investments

(3,396,809 )

Net realized gain (loss) on investments and foreign currency

456,191 Net cash provided by operating activities 68,518 CASH FLOWS FROM FINANCING ACTIVITIES: Net increase (decrease) in revolving credit agreement – Distributions – Reinvestment of distributions – Net cash used for financing activities – INCREASE (DECREASE) IN CASH: 68,518 Cash and foreign currency at beginning of period 4,162 Cash and foreign currency at end of period $ 72,680
22 | 2016 Semiannual Report to Stockholders THE ACCOMPANYING NOTES ARE AN INTEGRAL PART OF THESE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
Royce Global Value Trust Financial Highlights This table is presented to show selected data for a share outstanding throughout each period, and to assist stockholders in evaluating the Fund’s performance for the periods presented.
SIX MONTHS ENDED YEARS ENDED 6/30/2016 PERIOD ENDED (UNAUDITED) 12/31/15 12/31/14 12/31/131 Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period $ 8.81 $ 9.25 $ 10.05 $ 9.78 INVESTMENT OPERATIONS: Net investment income (loss) 0.06 0.10 0.13 (0.00 ) Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments and foreign currency 0.28 (0.43 ) (0.77 ) 0.27 Net increase (decrease) in net assets from investment operations 0.34 (0.33 ) (0.64 ) 0.27 DISTRIBUTIONS: Net investment income – (0.10 ) (0.15 ) – Net realized gain on investments and foreign currency – – – – Total distributions – (0.10 ) (0.15 ) – CAPITAL STOCK TRANSACTIONS: Effect of reinvestment of distributions by Common Stockholders – (0.01 ) (0.01 ) – Total capital stock transactions – (0.01 ) (0.01 ) – Net Asset Value, End of Period $ 9.15 $ 8.81 $ 9.25 $ 10.05 Market Value, End of Period $ 7.60 $ 7.45 $ 8.04 $ 8.89 TOTAL RETURN:2 Net Asset Value 3.86 %3 (3.44 )% (6.23 )% 2.76 %3 Market Value 2.01 %3 (6.06 )% (7.86 )% (0.95 )%3 RATIOS BASED ON AVERAGE NET ASSETS: Investment advisory fee expense 1.25 %4 1.25 % 1.25 % 1.25 %4 Other operating expenses 0.47 %4 0.43 % 0.24 % 0.37 %4 Total expenses (net) 1.72 %4 1.68 % 1.49 % 1.62 %4 Expenses excluding interest expense 1.58 %4 1.58 % 1.49 % 1.62 %4 Expenses prior to balance credits 1.72 %4 1.68 % 1.49 % 1.62 %4 Net investment income (loss) 1.32 %4 1.03 % 1.30 % (0.13 )%4 SUPPLEMENTAL DATA: Net Assets End of Period (in thousands) $ 94,703 $ 91,174 $ 95,285 $ 102,684 Portfolio Turnover Rate 34 % 65 % 43 % 7 % REVOLVING CREDIT AGREEMENT: Asset coverage 1284 % 1240 % Asset coverage per $1,000 12,838 12,397 1 The Fund commenced operations on October 18, 2013. 2 The Market Value Total Return is calculated assuming a purchase of Common Stock on the opening of the first business day and a sale on the closing of the last business day of each period. Dividends and distributions are assumed for the purposes of this calculation to be reinvested at prices obtained under the Fund’s Distribution Reinvestment and Cash Purchase Plan. Net Asset Value Total Return is calculated on the same basis, except that the Fund’s net asset value is used on the purchase and sale dates instead of market value.

Net increase (decrease) in interest expense payable, accrued expenses and other liabilities

An “Affiliated Company” as defined in the Investment Company Act of 1940, is a company in which a fund owns 5% or more of the company’s outstanding voting securities at any time during the period. The Fund effected the following transactions in shares of such companies for the six months ended June 30, 2016:

All Directors and Officers may be reached c/o The Royce Funds, 745 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10151

Charles M. Royce, Director1
Age: 76 | Number of Funds Overseen: 23 | Tenure: Since 1982
Non-Royce Directorships: Director of TICC Capital Corp.
Principal Occupation(s) During Past Five Years: Chairman of the Board of Managers of Royce & Associates, LP (“Royce”), the Trust’s investment adviser; Chief Executive Officer (July 2014–June 2016), President (1972-July 2014) of Royce.

Christopher D. Clark, Trustee1, President
Age: 51 | Number of Funds Overseen: 23 | Tenure: Since 2014
Principal Occupation(s) During Past Five Years: Chief Executive Officer (since July 2016), President (since July 2014), Co-Chief Investment Officer (Since January 2014), Managing Director and, since June 2015, a Member of the Board of Managers of Royce, having been employed by Royce since May 2007.

Patricia W. Chadwick, Director
Age: 67 | Number of Funds Overseen: 23 | Tenure: Since 2009
Non-Royce Directorships: Trustee of ING Mutual Funds and Director of Wisconsin Energy Corp.
Principal Occupation(s) During Past 5 Years: Consultant and President of Ravengate Partners LLC (since 2000).

Stephen L. Isaacs, Director
Age: 76 | Number of Funds Overseen: 23 | Tenure: Since 1989
Non-Royce Directorships: None
Principal Occupation(s) During Past Five Years: Attorney and President of Health Policy Associates, Inc., consultants. Mr. Isaacs’s prior business experience includes having served as President of the Center for Health and Social Policy (from 1996 to 2012); Director of Columbia University Development Law and Policy Program and Professor at Columbia University (until August 1996).

Arthur S. Mehlman, Director
Age: 74 | Number of Funds Overseen: 46 | Tenure: Since 2004
Non-Royce Directorships: Director/Trustee of registered investment companies constituting the 18 Legg Mason Funds.
Principal Occupation(s) During Past Five Years: Director of The League for People with Disabilities, Inc.; Director of University of Maryland Foundation (non-profits). Formerly: Director of Municipal Mortgage & Equity, LLC (from October 2004 to April 1, 2011); Director of University of Maryland College Park Foundation (non-profit) (from 1998 to 2005); Partner, KPMG LLP (international accounting firm) (from 1972 to 2002); Director of Maryland Business Roundtable for Education (from July 1984 to June 2002).

David L. Meister, Director
Age: 76 | Number of Funds Overseen: 23 | Tenure: Since 1982
Non-Royce Directorships: None
Principal Occupation(s) During Past Five Years: Consultant. Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of The Tennis Channel (from June 2000 to March 2005). Mr. Meister’s prior business experience includes having served as Chief Executive Officer of Seniorlife.com, a consultant to the communications industry, President of Financial News Network, Senior Vice President of HBO, President of Time-Life Films, and Head of Broadcasting for Major League Baseball.

G. Peter O’Brien, Director
Age: 70 | Number of Funds Overseen: 44 | Tenure: Since 2001
Non-Royce Directorships: Director/Trustee of registered investment companies constituting the 18 Legg Mason Funds; Director of TICC Capital Corp.
Principal Occupation(s) During Past Five Years: Trustee Emeritus of Colgate University (since 2005); Board Member of Hill House, Inc. (since 1999); Formerly: Trustee of Colgate University (from 1996 to 2005), President of Hill House, Inc. (from 2001 to 2005) and Managing Director/Equity Capital Markets Group of Merrill Lynch & Co. (from 1971 to 1999).

Michael K. Shields, Director
Age: 58 | Number of Funds Overseen: 23 | Tenure: Since 2015
Principal Occupation(s) During Past Five Years: President and Chief Executive Officer of Piedmont Trust Company, a private North Carolina trust company (since May 2012). Mr. Shields’s prior business experience includes owning Shields Advisors, an investment consulting firm (from April 2010 to June 2012).

Francis D. Gannon, Vice President
Age: 48 | Tenure: Since 2014
Principal Occupation(s) During Past Five Years: Co-Chief Investment Officer (since January 2014) and Managing Director of Royce, having been employed by Royce since September 2006.

Daniel A. O’Byrne, Vice President
Age: 54 | Tenure: Since 1994
Principal Occupation(s) During Past Five Years: Principal and Vice President of Royce, having been employed by Royce since October 1986.

Peter K. Hoglund, Treasurer
Age: 50 | Tenure: Since 2015
Principal Occupation(s) During Past Five Years: Chief Financial Officer, Chief Administrative Officer, and Managing Director of Royce, having been employed by Royce since December 2014. Prior to joining Royce, Mr. Hoglund spent more than 20 years with Munder Capital Management in Birmingham, MI, serving as Managing Director and Chief Financial Officer and overseeing all financial aspects of the firm. He began his career at Munder as a portfolio manager.

John E. Denneen, Secretary and Chief Legal Officer
Age: 49 | Tenure: 1996-2001 and Since 2002
Principal Occupation(s) During Past Five Years: General Counsel, Managing Director, and, since June 2015, a Member of the Board of Managers of Royce; Chief Legal and Compliance Officer and Secretary of Royce; Secretary and Chief Legal Officer of The Royce Funds.

Lisa Curcio, Chief Compliance Officer
Age: 56 | Tenure: Since 2004
Principal Occupation(s) During Past Five Years: Chief Compliance Officer of The Royce Funds (since October 2004) and Compliance Officer of Royce (since June 2004).

At meetings held on June 2-3, 2016, the Funds’ respective Boards of Directors, including all of the non-interested directors, approved amended and restated investment advisory agreements (each, an “Investment Advisory Agreement” and collectively, the “Investment Advisory Agreements”) between Royce & Associates, LP (formerly Royce & Associates, LLC) (“R&A”) and each of Royce Value Trust, Inc., Royce Micro-Cap Trust, Inc., and Royce Global Value Trust, Inc. (each, a “Fund” and collectively, the “Funds”). The Investment Advisory Agreements were amended and restated to reflect R&A’s change in organizational form from a limited liability company to a limited partnership; the amended and restated agreements are substantially identical to the previously existing agreements. In reaching these decisions, each Board reviewed the materials provided by R&A, which included, among other things, information prepared internally by R&A and independently by Morningstar Associates, LLC (“Morningstar”) containing detailed investment advisory fee, expense ratio, and investment performance comparisons for the Funds with other funds in their respective “peer groups”, information regarding the past performance of the Funds and other registered investment companies managed by R&A and a memorandum outlining the legal duties of each Board prepared by independent counsel to the non-interested directors. R&A also provided the directors with an analysis of its profitability with respect to providing investment advisory services to each of the Funds. In addition, each Board took into account information furnished throughout the year at regular Board meetings, including reports on investment performance, stockholder services, regulatory compliance, brokerage commissions and research, and brokerage and execution products and services provided to the Funds. Each Board also considered other matters it deemed important to the approval process, such as allocation of Fund brokerage commissions, “soft dollar” research services R&A receives and other direct and indirect benefits to R&A and its affiliates, from their relationship with the relevant Fund. The directors also met throughout the year with investment advisory personnel from R&A. Each Board, in its deliberations, recognized that, for many of the Funds’ stockholders, the decision to purchase Fund shares included a decision to select R&A as the investment adviser and that there was a strong association in the minds of Fund stockholders between R&A and each Fund. In considering factors relating to the approval of the Investment Advisory Agreements, the non-interested directors received assistance and advice from, and met separately with, their independent counsel. While all three of the Investment Advisory Agreements were considered at the same Board meetings, the Boards dealt with each Agreement separately. Among other factors, the directors considered the following:

The nature, extent and quality of services provided by R&A: Each Board considered the following factors to be of fundamental importance to its consideration of whether to approve the Investment Advisory Agreement: (i) R&A’s more than 40 years of value investing experience and track record; (ii) the history of long-tenured R&A portfolio managers managing the Funds; (iii) R&A’s focus on mid-cap, small-cap and micro-cap value investing; (iv) the consistency of R&A’s approach to managing the Funds and open-end mutual funds over more than 40 years; (v) the integrity and high ethical standards adhered to at R&A; (vi) R&A’s specialized experience in the area of trading small- and micro-cap securities; (vii) R&A’s historical ability to attract and retain portfolio management talent and (viii) R&A’s focus on stockholder interests as exemplified by expansive stockholder reporting and communications. Each Board also noted that R&A’s compensation policy arrangements strongly encourage portfolio manager investment in each Fund that they manage. Each Board reviewed the services that R&A provides to each Fund, including, but not limited to, managing each Fund’s investments in accordance with the stated policies of each Fund. Each Board considered the fact that R&A provided certain administrative services to the Funds at cost pursuant to the Administration Agreement between the Funds and R&A. Each Board determined that the services to be provided to each Fund by R&A would be the same as those that it previously provided to the relevant Fund. The Boards also took into consideration the histories, reputations and backgrounds of R&A’s portfolio managers for the Funds, finding that these would likely have an impact on the continued success of the Funds. Each Board also noted R&A’s ability to attract and retain qualified and experienced personnel. Lastly, each Board noted that R&A officers, employees, and their families had substantial amounts invested in each Fund. The directors concluded that the investment advisory services provided by R&A to each Fund compared favorably to services provided by R&A to other R&A client accounts, including other funds, in both nature and quality, and that the scope of services provided by R&A would continue to be suitable for the Funds.

Investment performance of the Funds and R&A: In light of R&A’s risk-averse approach to investing, each Board believes that risk-adjusted performance continues to be the most appropriate measure of each Fund’s investment performance. One measure of risk-adjusted performance the Boards use in their review of the Funds’ performance is the Sharpe Ratio. The Sharpe Ratio is a risk-adjusted measure of performance developed by Nobel Laureate William Sharpe. It is calculated by dividing a fund’s annualized excess returns by its annualized standard deviation to determine reward per unit of risk. The higher the Sharpe Ratio, the better a fund’s historical risk-adjusted performance. The Boards attach primary importance to risk-adjusted performance over relatively long periods of time, typically 3 to 10 years. It was noted, however, that Royce Global Value Trust, Inc. (“RGT”) had less than three full calendar years of performance because its inception date was October 18, 2013. Using Morningstar data, the Sharpe Ratio for each of Royce Value Trust, Inc. (“RVT”) and Royce Micro-Cap Trust, Inc. (“RMT”) placed in the 4th quartile within the Small Blend category assigned by Morningstar for the 3-year, 5-year, and 10-year periods ended December 31, 2015. It was noted that RVT’s and RMT’s focus on high quality (e.g., those with solid balance sheets, low leverage, the ability to generate and effectively allocate free cash flow, and strong returns on invested capital) and cyclical companies had hurt their relative performance during the post-2008 market period that has been marked by historically low interest rates and significant U.S. Federal Reserve market intervention as highly leveraged, non-earning companies and yield-oriented securities (e.g., master limited partnerships, real estate investment trusts, and utilities) have generally outperformed their higher quality and cyclical counterparts during this period. In addition, RVT’s and RMT’s use of leverage through preferred stock (prior to November 15, 2012) and borrowings resulted in higher volatility and worse down market performance. The Sharpe Ratio for RGT placed in the 4th quartile within the Foreign Small/Mid Value category assigned by Morningstar for the 1-year period ended December 31, 2015. The Board noted the inherent limitations of a one-year Sharpe Ratio in evaluating RGT’s investment performance.

In addition to each Fund’s risk–adjusted performance, each Board also reviewed and considered each Fund’s absolute total returns, down market performance, and long-term performance records for periods of 10 years and longer for RVT and RMT. Each Board also considered it important to look beyond the current snapshot of performance as of December 31, 2015 and therefore examined extended performance histories for each Fund using monthly rolling average return periods through March 31, 2016. The Boards also took note of recent financial market trends, including widening high yield credit spreads and more difficult/expensive access to capital for many companies. While the Boards recognized that a quarter does not define a trend, it noted that RVT and RGT outperformed (on an NAV basis) the Russell 2000 Index and the Russell Global Small-Cap Index, respectively, for the 3-month and 1-year periods ended March 31, 2016 while RMT outperformed (on an NAV basis) the Russell 2000 Index for the 3-month period ended March 31, 2016.

Each Board noted that R&A manages a number of funds that invest in micro-cap, small-cap, and mid-cap issuers, many of which had outperformed their benchmark indexes and their competitors during the periods prior to the U.S. Federal Reserve’s near zero interest

rate policy and related market interventions. Although each Board recognized that past performance is not necessarily an indicator of future results, it found that R&A had the necessary qualifications, experience and track record in managing micro-cap, small-cap, and mid-cap securities to manage the relevant Fund. The directors determined that R&A continued to be an appropriate investment adviser for the Funds and concluded that each Fund’s performance supported the approval of the relevant Investment Advisory Agreement.

Cost of the services provided and profits realized by R&A from its relationship with the Funds: Each Board considered the cost of the services provided by R&A and profits realized by R&A from its relationship with each Fund. As part of the analysis, each Board discussed with R&A its methodology in allocating its costs to each Fund and concluded that its allocations were reasonable. The RVT Board noted that RVT was not profitable to R&A during the year ended December 31, 2015. The Boards of RMT and RGT concluded that R&A’s profits in respect of RMT and RGT, respectively, were reasonable in relation to the nature and quality of services provided.

The extent to which economies of scale would be realized as the Funds grow and whether fee levels would reflect such economies of scale: Each Board considered whether there have been economies of scale in respect of the management of each Fund, whether each Fund has appropriately benefited from any economies of scale and whether there is potential for realization of any further economies of scale. Each Board noted the time and effort involved in managing portfolios of micro-, small- and mid-cap stocks and that they did not involve the same efficiencies as do portfolios of large-cap stocks. Each Board concluded that the current fee structure for each Fund was reasonable, that stockholders sufficiently participated in economies of scale and that no changes were currently necessary.

Comparison of services to be rendered and fees to be paid to those under other investment advisory contracts, such as contracts of the same and other investment advisers or other clients: Each Board reviewed the investment advisory fee paid by each Fund and compared both the services to be rendered and the fees to be paid under the Investment Advisory Agreements to other contracts of R&A and to contracts of other investment advisers to registered investment companies investing in small- and micro-cap stocks, as provided by Morningstar. Each Board noted the importance of the net expense ratio in measuring a fund’s efficiency, particularly in light of the variations in the fund industry as to which entity is responsible for particular types of expenses. In the case of RVT, its Board noted that it had a 1.00% basic fee that is subject to adjustment up or down (up to 0.50% in either direction) based on its performance versus the S&P 600 SmallCap Index over a rolling period of 60 months. The fee is charged on average net assets over that rolling period. As a result, in a rising market, the fee will be smaller than a fee calculated on the current year’s average net assets, and vice versa. The Board determined that the performance adjustment feature continued to serve as an appropriate incentive to R&A to manage RVT for the benefit of its long-term common stockholders. The Board also noted that the fee arrangement, which also includes a provision for no fee in periods where RVT’s trailing three-year performance is negative, requires R&A to measure RVT’s performance monthly against the S&P 600, an unmanaged index. Instead of receiving a set fee regardless of its performance, R&A is penalized for poor performance. The Board noted that RVT’s net expense ratio placed it in the 1st quartile within its Morningstar peer group for 2015. In the case of RMT, the Board noted that it also had a 1.00% basic fee subject to adjustment up or down based on its performance versus the Russell 2000 Index over a rolling 36 month period. The fee is charged on average net assets over that rolling period. As a result, in a rising market, the fee will be smaller than a fee calculated on the current year’s average net assets, and vice versa. The Board determined that the performance adjustment feature continued to serve as an incentive to R&A to manage RMT for the benefit of its long-term common stockholders. The Board noted that RMT’s net expense ratio of 1.28% placed it in the 3rd quartile when compared against its Morningstar peer group for 2015. The Board further noted that RMT’s net expense ratio was actually 18 basis points lower than the average expense ratio for the 58 non-institutional, non- ETF domestic funds with weighted average market capitalizations of less than $1 billion in the Morningstar peer group. Finally, in the case of RGT, the Board noted that its net expense ratio based on average net assets fell within the 4th quartile of its Morningstar-assigned open-end peer group, 18 basis points above the Morningstar category median. The Board noted, however, that RGT had the second lowest weighted average market capitalization within that category.

The Boards also noted that R&A manages the Funds in an active fashion. The industry accepted metric for measuring how actively an equity portfolio is managed is called “active share.” In particular, active share measures how much the holdings of an equity portfolio differ from the holdings of its appropriate passive benchmark index. At the extremes, a portfolio with no holdings in common with the benchmark would have 100% active share, while a portfolio that is identical to the benchmark would have 0% active share. R&A presented a chart to the Boards which demonstrated that funds with high active share scores had higher expense ratios than funds with lower active share scores due to the resources required for the active management of those funds. The Boards noted that the active shares for RVT, RMT, and RGT were 90%, 95%, and 97%, respectively, for the calendar year ended December 31, 2015.

Each Board also considered fees charged by R&A to institutional and other clients and noted that, given the greater levels of services that R&A provides to registered investment companies such as the Funds as compared to other accounts, the base investment advisory fee for RVT and RMT and the advisory fee for RGT compared favorably to the investment advisory fees charged to those other accounts.

It was noted that no single factor was cited as determinative to the decision of the directors. Rather, after weighing all of the considerations and conclusions discussed above, each entire Board, including all of the non-interested directors, approved the Investment Advisory Agreement, concluding that the amended and restated Agreements with substantially identical terms as the previously existing agreements were in the best interest of the stockholders of the respective Funds and that each investment advisory fee rate was reasonable in relation to the services provided.

The thoughts expressed in this Review and Report concerning recent market movements and future prospects for small company stocks are solely the opinion of Royce at June 30, 2016, and, of course, historical market trends are not necessarily indicative of future market movements. Statements regarding the future prospects for particular securities held in the Funds’ portfolios and Royce’s investment intentions with respect to those securities reflect Royce’s opinions as of June 30, 2016 and are subject to change at any time without notice. There can be no assurance that securities mentioned in this Review and Report will be included in any Royce-managed portfolio in the future. Investments in securities of micro-cap, small-cap and/or mid-cap companies may involve considerably more risk than investments in securities of larger-cap companies. All publicly released material information is always disclosed by the Funds on the website at www.roycefunds.com.

Sector weightings are determined using the Global Industry Classification Standard (“GICS”). GICS was developed by, and is the exclusive property of, Standard & Poor’s Financial Services LLC (“S&P”) and MSCI Inc. (“MSCI”). GICS is the trademark of S&P and MSCI. “Global Industry Classification Standard (GICS)” and “GICS Direct” are service marks of S&P and MSCI.

All indexes referred to are unmanaged and capitalization weighted. Each index’s returns include net reinvested dividends and/or interest income. Russell Investment Group is the source and owner of the trademarks, service marks, and copyrights related to the Russell Indexes. Russell® is a trademark of Russell Investment Group. The Russell 2000 Index is an index of domestic small-cap stocks. It measures the performance of the 2,000 smallest publicly traded U.S. companies in the Russell 3000 Index. The Russell 2000 Value and Growth indexes consist of the respective value and growth stocks within the Russell 2000 as determined by Russell Investments. The Russell Microcap Index includes 1,000 of the smallest securities in the Russell 2000 Index along with the next smallest eligible securities as determined by Russell. The Russell 1000 Index is an index of domestic large-cap stocks. It measures the performance of the 1,000 largest publicly traded companies in the Russell 3000 Index. The Russell Midcap Index measures the performance of the mid-cap segment of the U.S. equity universe. It includes approximately 800 of the smallest securities in the Russell 1000 Index. The Russell Global Small Cap Index is an unmanaged, capitalization-weighted index of global small-cap stocks. The Russell Global ex-U.S. Large Cap Index is an index of global large-cap stocks, excluding the United States. The Russell Global ex-U.S. Small Cap Index is an index of global small-cap stocks, excluding the United States. The S&P 500 and SmallCap 600 are indexes of U.S. large- and small-cap stocks, respectively, selected by Standard & Poor’s based on market size, liquidity, and industry grouping, among other factors. The Nasdaq Composite is an index of the more than 3,000 common equities listed on the Nasdaq stock exchange. The performance of an index does not represent exactly any particular investment, as you cannot invest directly in an index. Returns for the market indexes used in this report were based on information supplied to Royce by Russell Investments.

The Price-Earnings, or P/E, Ratio is calculated by dividing a company’s share price by its trailing 12-month earnings-per share (EPS). The Price-to-Book, or P/B, Ratio is calculated by dividing a company’s share price by its book value per share. The Morningstar Style Map uses proprietary scores of a stock’s value and growth characteristics to determine its placement in one of the five categories listed on the horizontal axis. These characteristics are then compared to those of other stocks within the same market capitalization band. Each is scored from zero to 100 for both value and growth attributes. The value score is subtracted from the growth score to determine the overall style score. For the vertical, market cap axis, Morningstar subdivides into size groups. Giant-cap stocks are defined as those that account for the top 40% of the capitalization of each style zone; large-cap stocks represent the next 30%; mid-cap stocks the next 20%; small-cap stocks the next 7%; micro-cap stocks the smallest 3%. The Royce Funds is a service mark of The Royce Funds. Distributor: Royce Fund Services, Inc.

This material contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), that involve risks and uncertainties, including, among others, statements as to:

This Review and Report uses words such as “anticipates,” “believes,” “expects,” “future,” “intends,” and similar expressions to identify forward-looking statements. Actual results may differ materially from those projected in the forward-looking statements for any reason.

The Royce Funds have based the forward-looking statements included in this Review and Report on information available to us on the date of the report, and we assume no obligation to update any such forward-looking statements. Although The Royce Funds undertake no obligation to revise or update any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, you are advised to consult any additional disclosures that we may make through future stockholder communications or reports.

Authorized Share Transactions
Royce Global Value Trust, Royce Micro-Cap Trust, and Royce Value Trust may each repurchase up to 5% of the issued and outstanding shares of its respective common stock during the year ending December 31, 2016. Any such repurchases would take place at then prevailing prices in the open market or in other transactions. Common stock repurchases would be effected at a price per share that is less than the share’s then current net asset value.

Royce Global Value Trust, Royce Micro-Cap Trust, and Royce Value Trust are also authorized to offer their common stockholders an opportunity to subscribe for additional shares of their common stock through rights offerings at a price per share that may be less than the share’s then current net asset value. The timing and terms of any such offerings are within each Board’s discretion.

Annual Certifications
As required, the Funds have submitted to the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) for the annual certification of the Funds’ Chief Executive Officer that he is not aware of any violation of the NYSE’s listing standards. The Funds also have included the certification of the Funds’ Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer required by section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 as exhibits to the Funds’ form N-CSR for the period ended December 31, 2015, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Proxy Voting
A copy of the policies and procedures that The Royce Funds use to determine how to vote proxies relating to portfolio securities and information regarding how each of The Royce Funds voted proxies relating to portfolio securities during the most recent 12-month period ended June 30 is available, without charge, on The Royce Funds’ website at www. roycefunds.com, by calling (800) 221-4268 (toll-free) and on the website of the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), at www.sec.gov.

Form N-Q Filing
The Funds file their complete schedules of investments with the SEC for the first and third quarters of each fiscal year on Form N-Q. The Funds’ Forms N-Q are available on the SEC’s website at www.sec.gov. The Royce Funds’ holdings are also on the Funds’ website approximately 15 to 20 days after each calendar quarter end and remain available until the next quarter’s holdings are posted. The Funds’ Forms N-Q may also be reviewed and copied at the SEC’s Public Reference Room in Washington, D.C. To find out more about this public service, call the SEC at (800) 732-0330. The Funds’ complete schedules of investments are updated quarterly, and are available at www.roycefunds.com.

1 Any direct Royce Funds IRA investor who chooses eDelivery of prospectuses, financial reports, and Royce Review will be exempt from the $15 annual IRA maintenance fee. (We will continue to also waive the fee for investors with more than $20,000 invested in Royce IRAs at the time the fee is charged, and for new transfer and rollover accounts in their first year.)

Item 3. Audit Committee Financial Expert. Not applicable to this semi-annual report.

Item 4. Principal Accountant Fees and Services. Not applicable to this semi-annual report.

Item 5. Audit Committee of Listed Registrants. Not applicable to this semi-annual report.

Item 7. Disclosure of Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures for Closed-End Management Investment Companies. Not applicable to this semi-annual report.

Item 8. Portfolio Managers of Closed-End Management Investment Companies. Not applicable to this semi-annual report.

Item 9. Purchases of Equity Securities by Closed-End Management Investment Company and Affiliated Purchasers. Not applicable.

Item 10. Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders. Not applicable.

(a) Disclosure Controls and Procedures. The Principal Executive and Financial Officers concluded that the Registrant’s Disclosure Controls and Procedures are effective based on their evaluation of the Disclosure Controls and Procedures as of a date within 90 days of the filing date of this report.

(b) Internal Control over Financial Reporting. There were no significant changes in Registrant’s internal control over financial reporting or in other factors that could significantly affect this control subsequent to the date of the evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses during the second fiscal quarter of the period covered by this report.

Item 12. Exhibits. Attached hereto.
(a)(1) Not applicable to this semi-annual report.

(a)(2) Separate certifications by the Registrant’s Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer as required by Rule 30a-2(a) under the Investment Company Act of 1940.

(b) Separate certifications by the Registrant’s Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and required by Rule 30a-2(b) under the Investment Company Act of 1940.

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Investment Company Act of 1940, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.

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