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

Christian Brothers Investment Services, Inc.

PRI reporting framework 2017

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


LEA 18. Typical approach to (proxy) voting decisions

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


Based on

18.2. Additional information.[Optional]

CBIS has developed a customized set of proxy voting guidelines based upon the teachings of the Catholic Church, and we use the guidelines to inform our proxy voting decisions. We endeavor to vote ballots consistent with our guidelines at all times. 

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

LEA 20. Confirmation of votes

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

20.1. Describe your involvement in any projects to improve the voting trail and/or to obtain vote confirmation .

          We assess at year-end our votes that were not able to be cast, and discuss potential changes/improvements and the resources needed to improve those numbers.

20.2. Additional information. [OPTIONAL]


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]

In 2014 and years prior, CBIS wrote to companies where we voted against Board members due to a lack of diversity. This was a massive initiative since it entailed many companies, given the size of our portfolios.

We suspended that activity in 2015, because we began to get deluged with responses from companies which required much more time to respond to them and in some cases engage with them. This took many more resources than we had anticipated.

One of our learnings was that this type of activity needs to be managed much more carefully, so that we are sure we have the resources to adequately respond when companies answer those letters. That can be quite a time consuming activity.

We are looking to see whether a more limited strategy should be developed for 2017. We only communicated our votes to the board in rare cases in 2016.