This report shows public data only. Is this your organisation? If so, login here to view your full report.

Colonial First State Global Asset Management (including First State Investments)

PRI reporting framework 2016

Export Public Responses
Pdf-img

You are in Direct - Listed Equity Active Ownership » (Proxy) voting and shareholder resolutions » Outputs and outcomes

Outputs and outcomes

LEA 23. Percentage of (proxy) votes cast

23.1. For listed equities where you and/or your service provider have the mandate to issue (proxy) voting instructions, indicate the percentage of votes cast during the reporting year.

Votes cast (to the nearest 1%)

99 %

Specify the basis on which this percentage is calculated

23.2. If there are specific reasons why you did not vote certain holdings, explain these, and if possible, indicate the percentage of holdings affected by these factors. [Optional]

We do not vote in share blocking markets, however we are implementing a process change which would allow a portfolio manager to vote shares in share blocking markets if they do not intend to trade the stock during the blockout period. 

Our smart beta team Realindex have very diversified portfolios which distort the voting numbers for the remainder of teams as they were responsible for 68% of total votes in 2015.

Realindex and our Multi Asset Team's vote in line with the recommendations of our proxy advisor in most instances.

Due to our current policy of not voting in share blocking markets the Realindex team's unvoted shares account for 95% of all unvoted shares. 

For these reason we have excluded RealIndex and Multi Asset from the above voting figure, had we included them the number would have been 93%,

23.3. Additional information. [Optional]


LEA 24. Proportion of ballot items that were for/against/abstentions

24.1. Indicate if you track the voting instructions that you and/or your third party have issued on your behalf.

24.2. Of the voting instructions that you and/or third parties have issued on your behalf, indicate the proportion of ballot items that were:

Voting instructions
Breakdown as percentage of votes cast
For (supporting) management recommendations
94 %
Against (opposing) management recommendations
5 %
Abstentions
1 %
100%

24.3. For the reporting year, describe your approach towards voting on shareholder resolutions.

Each team vote all resolutions individually and on their merits. In 2015 we supported 25% of shareholder resolutions.

24.4. Additional information. [Optional]

"For" votes do not always mean supporting management recommendations as implied by the question, as 'for' is a vote in favour of a resolution which management may not support. In the cases of shareholder resolutions management often recommends voting 'against' the resolution and so a vote 'for' would be voting against management's recommendation. Additionally for some other resolutions management will recommend not to vote, abstain or are silent. 

For the purposes of answering the question we have included votes where we voted 'for' or 'against' the resolution.


LEA 25. Shareholder resolutions

25.1. Indicate if your organisation directly or via a service provider filed or co-filed any shareholder resolutions during the reporting year.

25.6. Additional information. [Optional]


LEA 26. Examples of (proxy) voting activities

26.1. Provide examples of the (proxy) voting activities that your organisation and/or service provider carried out during the reporting year.

Topic or ESG issue
          Hyundai Mobis - Election of Directors
        
Decision made by
Objectives

Vote against directors not acting independently

Scope and Process

Board failed to veto US$10bn purchase of property from the government last year, which is not related to its core business.

Outcomes

Vote against board members which was against management's recommendation. 

Topic or ESG issue
          NEXTDC Limited - Remuneration report
        
Decision made by
Objectives

Remove inappropriate remuneration practices

Scope and Process

The CEO’s total pay package, which is predominately cash based, is too large to support. In FY15 his cash pay accounted for ~41% of the total executive KMP cash expense and his total pay accounted for ~10% of the group employee benefits expense.

Outcomes

We have voted AGAINST the remuneration report which was against management and the proxy advisor's recommendation. 

Topic or ESG issue
          Gold Road Resources Limited - Grant of options to directors
        
Decision made by
Objectives

Prevent inappropriate grants to directors

Scope and Process

Resolutions are asking for the grant of options to non-executive directors, which can impair independence. If these options are granted, the entire board will be classified by this report as non-independent. 

Outcomes

Voted against which was against management and proxy advisor's recommendation. 

Topic or ESG issue
          Great-West Lifeco Inc.- Director election
        
Decision made by
Objectives

Require director attendance

Scope and Process

Director had less than 75% attendance and serves on too many boards 

Outcomes

Voted against director relection which was against management's recommendation. 

Topic or ESG issue
          Hokkaido Electric Power Co. Inc - Shareholder Proposal Regarding Individual Compensation Disclosure
        
Decision made by
Objectives

Better disclosure of remuneration

Scope and Process

Information provided by this proposal could allow shareholders to better determine whether an individuals' compensation is reasonable. 

Outcomes

Voted for the resolution which was against management's recommendation.

Topic or ESG issue
          Diligent Board Member Services Inc. - Director election
        
Decision made by
Objectives

Elect more independent directors

Scope and Process

The company has neither appointed an independent chairman nor a independent lead. The director is the most senior member of the nominations committee elected by common shareholders, we feel he bears responsibility to the shareholders of the Company's common stock to ensure some form of independent leadership on the board. 

Outcomes

Against the election of teh director which was against management's recommendation. 

Topic or ESG issue
          Lundin Mining Corp. - Director election
        
Decision made by
Objectives

Retain valuable directors. 

Scope and Process

We acknowledge the proxy advisors concerns regarding directors attendance and will raise this directly with the company, although do not believe it warrants withholding a vote for a valuable contributor to the overall governance of this company. 

Outcomes

Voted for the director which was against proxy advisor's recommendation. 

Topic or ESG issue
          Trevali Mining Corp - director elections
        
Decision made by
Objectives

Ensure directors are contributing appropriately to the board.

Scope and Process

The team engaged with the company on the matters of director X's (attendance <75%) and Y's (overboarded).  the team was satisfied with the company’s responses and therefore are voting for their re-elections to the board. 

Outcomes

Voted for the directors' election whiach was against the proxy advisor's recommendation. 

Topic or ESG issue
          News Corp - Advisory Vote on Executive Compensation
        
Decision made by
Objectives

Vote against excessive remuneration 

Scope and Process

Executive pay is to high for the actual operating businesses fully owned and run.

Outcomes

Voted against which was against management and proxy advisor's recommendation. 

Topic or ESG issue
          Highfield Resources Limited - Remuneration Report
        
Decision made by
Objectives

Vote against excessive remuneration 

Scope and Process

Executives receive consultancy fees (with $556,147 worth of reimbursement expenses and allowances, paid primarily to the CEO, not included in the audited remuneration table) and options which generally vest after one year or less – there is no long-term performance linked element. Non-executive directors also receive options in addition to their cash fees.

Outcomes

Vote against which was against management and proxy advisor's recommendation. 

26.2. Additional information. [Optional]

We have selected the above examples to demontsrate the careful consideration and independance of the investment teams when voting. We publish our full proxy voting record biannually which can be downloaded from our webiste at:  http://www.firststateinvestments.com/uploadedFiles/Content/About_Us/Responsible_investment/RI_reports/CFSGAM-RI-Report-15.12-Proxy%20voting_30-Jun-2015_FULL.pdf


Top