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

Edinburgh Partners Limited

PRI reporting framework 2017

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

(Proxy) voting and shareholder resolutions

Overview

LEA 17. Voting policy & approach

New selection options have been added to this indicator. Please review your prefilled responses carefully.

17.1. Indicate whether your organisation has a formal voting policy.

17.2. Indicate what your voting policy covers:

17.3. Attach or provide a URL to your voting policy. [Optional]

URL

Attach document


17.4. Provide a brief overview of your organization’s approach to (proxy) voting.

Edinburgh Partners uses an independent service provider to assist it in determining Edinburgh Partners Proxy Voting Policy and in implementing its proxy voting decisions. The provider Edinburgh Partners uses is ISS Group.  Specifically ISS Group assists Edinburgh Partners in the proxy voting and corporate governance oversight process by developing and updating the ISS Group proxy voting guidelines, and by providing research and analysis, recommendations regarding votes, operational implementation and record keeping and reporting services. 

Edinburgh Partners decision to retain ISS Group is based principally on the view the services that ISS Group provides, subject to Edinburgh Partners oversight, will generally result in proxy voting decisions which are favourable to shareholder’s interests. In addition, portfolio managers will review the ISS Group recommendations and may cast votes which differ from these where they have good reason to believe it is in the best interests of the shareholders.  In these instances full documentation is maintained of any variation from the recommended course of action and reported to the relevant clients.

17.5. Provide an overview of how you ensure your voting policy is adhered to, giving details of your approach when exceptions to the policy are made (if applicable).

We determine our responsibilities for voting at the point we take on new clients. The IMA is reviewed and the requirements are identified. Where the requirement is to secure voting rights and exercise them in line with our standard policy, we work with our outsourced supplier to secure access to the ballots and include them within the relevant client group. All ballots are reconciled prior to votes being instructed to ensure they are in line with expectations. Our default is to vote in line with the ISS recommendations. However, as described in our response to Q18, our standard policy allows our analysts to vote in a manner other than in line with the ISS voting recommendations. While this is not deemed an exception to our policy, we do systematically retain full documentation of the rationale for any variation from the ISS recommended course of action and report this to the relevant clients.


Process

LEA 18. Typical approach to (proxy) voting decisions

18.1. Indicate how you typically make your (proxy) voting decisions.

Approach

Based on

          Based on a service provider which we have worked closely with to develop and update their voting policy.
        

18.2. Additional information.[Optional]

   We have engaged ISS to assist us in the proxy voting and corporate governance oversight process by developing and updating their own proxy voting guidelines and by providing research and analysis, recommendations regarding votes, delivery of proxy instructions, recordkeeping and reporting services. Our decision to retain ISS is based principally on the view that the services ISS provides, subject to Edinburgh Partners’ oversight, will generally result in proxy voting decisions which are favourable to shareholders’ interests. Portfolio managers will review the ISS recommendations and may elect to cast votes in a manner other than in line with those recommendations, where they have good reason to believe it is in the best interests of shareholders to do so. 


LEA 19. Percentage of voting recommendations reviewed (Not Applicable)


LEA 20. Confirmation of votes (Private)


LEA 21. Securities lending programme (Private)


LEA 22. Informing companies of the rationale of abstaining/voting against management

New selection options have been added to this indicator. Please review your prefilled responses carefully.

22.1. Indicate whether you or the service providers acting on your behalf raise any concerns with companies ahead of voting

22.2. Indicate whether you and/or the service provider(s) acting on your behalf, communicate the rationale to companies, when , you abstain or vote against management recommendations.

22.3. Additional information. [Optional]

        


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%)

100 %

Specify the basis on which this percentage is calculated

23.2. Explain your reason(s) for not voting certain holdings

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 service provider on your behalf have issued.

24.4. Additional information. [Optional]

        


LEA 25. Shareholder resolutions (Private)


LEA 26. Examples of (proxy) voting activities (Private)


Communication

LEA 27. Disclosing voting activities

27.1. Indicate if your organisation proactively discloses information on your voting activities.

provide URL

27.2. Indicate if the information disclosed to the public is the same as that disclosed to clients/beneficiaries.

27.3. Indicate the voting information your organisation proactively discloses to the public.

Indicate how much of your voting record you disclose

Indicate what level of explanation you provide

27.4. Indicate how frequently you typically report voting information to the public.

27.5. Indicate the voting information your organisation proactively discloses to clients/beneficiaries.

Indicate how much of your voting record you disclose

Indicate what level of explanation you provide

27.6. Indicate how frequently you report voting information to clients/beneficiaries.

27.7. Describe any other differences in the information being disclosed. [Optional]

27.8. Additional information. [Optional]

Edinburgh Partners discloses high level voting decisions publicly. We disclose a more detailed report to our clients. 


Top