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

West Midlands Pension Fund

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]

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

The Fund uses the proxy voting agency Pension & Investment Research Consultants (PIRC) and their Corporate Governance Service for analysis of governance issues and executing its proxy voting rights across all markets in which it invests.

The Fund has its own detailed UK Corporate Governance voting guidelines which aim to deal with issues that are either not covered by the UK Corporate Governance Code, require greater emphasis or are specifically left open for shareholders to resolve with company boards.  To ensure a risk-based approach PIRC's Corporate Governance Ratings form a primary underpin to our voting policy.

For the remaining markets in which we invest, we currently endorse the international voting guidelines of PIRC. 

The Fund has an active stock lending policy and procedures to recall stock for particularly material shareholder resolutions.

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).

Our voting is executed on our behalf by a third party service provider. We cannot analyse every resolution or every report issued on equity securities with voting rights, so we have employed a risk-based procedure to ensure we cover the resolutions attached to the largest positions, largest active positions, and companies with most material ESG risks. Through this analysis we undertake quality checks of the underlying data and determine whether our votes are set to be cast in line with our policies and guidelines. This is used as a representative sample for all our votable shares. We are satisfied with the outcomes of these quality checks and that our voting policies are being successfully applied.


Process

LEA 18. Typical approach to (proxy) voting decisions

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

Approach

Based on

          Combination of our own voting policy (UK market) and the voting policy of the service provider which is signed off by us
        

18.2. Additional information.[Optional]

The Fund follows the voting advice of PIRC for European US, Japanese, Pacific region and Emerging Markets companies.  However, note that the Fund has developed a bespoke template for voting at UK meetings.


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]

The Fund's proxy voting provider PIRC provides a draft copy of their voting recommendations to companies in advance of the AGM for their comments (select markets).

When LAPFF issues voting alerts, the alerts contain the rationale for the vote recommended.


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. 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.

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

Voting instructions
Breakdown as percentage of votes cast
For (supporting) management recommendations
65.9 %
Against (opposing) management recommendations
34.1 %
Abstentions
0 %
100%

24.3. Describe the actions you take after voting against management recommendations.

          Depending on the circumstance (i.e. is it part of an ongoing engagement, is it a material holding, is it a material thematic issue) we will write to the company to explain our decision and in some cases ask for a meeting to discuss.
        

24.4. Additional information. [Optional]


LEA 25. Shareholder resolutions (Private)


LEA 26. Examples of (proxy) voting activities (Not Completed)


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 and/or to clients/beneficiaries.

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.

27.8. Additional information. [Optional]


Top