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

LocalTapiola Asset Management Ltd

PRI reporting framework 2017

Export Public Responses
Pdf-img

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.

LocalTapiola Asset Management Ltd provides asset management services to institutional and retail clients. Threfore we are not an asset owner and don't have our own voting policy. The LocalTapiola mutual funds have a policy for active ownership which covers guidelines for attending the AGMs and voting. When voting on behalf of the Mutual funds we adhere to their guidelines. As to the discretionary clients, we adhere to the client's voting policies. Voting action is taken on behalf of our clients only if they so request. If we vote on behalf of a client, the vote is conducted according to the client's guidelines or specific instructions.

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).

The voting policy for LocalTapiola Mutual funds states that the AGMs will be attended to only if the Fund's ownership stake in the company is meaningful. Currently the focus is on AGMs of the Finnish companies. Also, when deemed beneficial we may attend companies' general meetings on behalf of LocalTapiola mutual funds and our other clients and cast votes on issues (if voting is organized), which we find important and relevant to the investment case. We do not actively use proxy voting services.


Process

LEA 18. Typical approach to (proxy) voting decisions

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

Approach

Based on

18.2. Additional information.[Optional]

LocalTapiola mutual funds or our other clients rarely have a major ownership stake in one specific company. However, when deemed beneficial we attend companies' general meetings on our clients' or funds' behalf and cast votes on issues, which we find important and relevant to the investment case.


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]

If we were to vote against management recommendations, we would in most cases discuss with the company our rationale behind the decision in advance.


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%)

0 %

Specify the basis on which this percentage is calculated

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

          At the meetings we attended, there was no voting, ie. all resolutions were passed without voting activities.
        

23.3. Additional information. [Optional]

Our clients or LocalTapiola Mutual funds rarely have a major ownership stake in one specific company. However, when deemed beneficial we attend companies' general meetings on behalf of our clients and funds and cast votes on issues, which we find important, if there are any resolutions that require voting. We do not actively use proxy voting services. During 2016 we attended 12 AGMs, all in Finland. None of these AGM's had resolutions that would have required voting, or where voting would have been demanded. Ie we did not cast any votes. In one of the AGM's our representative (portfolio manager) was elected as the Scrutinizer of the Minutes.


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]

We do not buy (proxy) voting services or use any third parties.


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