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

Afena Capital (Pty) Limited

PRI reporting framework 2019

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

(Proxy) voting and shareholder resolutions

LEA 12. Typical approach to (proxy) voting decisions

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

Approach

Based on

12.2. 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.

Voting in contradiction to Afena Policy - Afena Cap[ital acknowledges tha fact that there will be instances where adherence to the guidelines contained herein will not be appropirate, due for example, to company's developmental stage, ownership strsucture or competitive environment. A vote in contradiction to our policy will always be accmpanied by an explanation (justification) thereof

12.3. Additional information.[Optional]

We use our own research primarily but also ESG / Proxy Voting research provided by the sell side.


LEA 13. Percentage of voting recommendations reviewed (Not Applicable)


LEA 14. Securities lending programme (Private)


LEA 15. Informing companies of the rationale of abstaining/voting against management

15.1. Indicate the proportion of votes where you or the service providers acting on your behalf have raised concerns with companies ahead of voting.

15.3. Additional information. [Optional]


LEA 16. Informing companies of the rationale of abstaining/voting against management

16.1. Indicate the proportion of votes participated in within the reporting year in which, you and/or the service provider(s) acting on your behalf, have communicated to companies the rationale for abstaining or voting against management recommendations.

16.4. Additional information. [Optional]


LEA 17. Percentage of (proxy) votes cast

17.1. 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

17.3. Additional information. [Optional]


LEA 18. Proportion of ballot items that were for/against/abstentions

18.1. Indicate if you track the voting instructions that you and/or your service provider on your behalf have issued.

18.2. 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
77 %
Against (opposing) management recommendations
23 %
Abstentions
0 %
100%

18.3. In cases where your organisation voted against management recommendations, indicate the percentage of companies you have engaged.

60

18.4. Additional information. [Optional]


LEA 19. Proportion of ballot items that were for/against/abstentions

19.1. Indicate whether your organisation has a formal escalation strategy following unsuccessful voting.

19.3. Additional information. [Optional]


LEA 20. Shareholder resolutions

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

20.6. Describe whether your organisation reviews ESG shareholder resolutions filed by other investors.

We have not reviewed ESG shareholder resolutions filed by other investors

20.7. Additional information. [Optional]


LEA 21. Examples of (proxy) voting activities

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

ESG Topic
Executive Remuneration|Company leadership issues|General ESG
Conducted by
Objectives

WOOLWORTHS HOLDINGS LIMITED (WHL)  (AGM)  - 11/30/2018. Approval of the Remuneration Policy

Scope and Process

WOOLWORTHS HOLDINGS LIMITED (WHL)  (AGM)  - 11/30/2018. The remuneration report has made reference to the alignment of remuneration policy with business strategy explicitly, but the clarity of this alignment is undermined by the fact that it is mostly contained in the discretionary portion of the STI and lackso see increased independent representation on the board.

 

 

 

 

 

Outcomes
ESG Topic
Company leadership issues
Conducted by
Objectives

SPAR GROUP (SPP)  (AGM) - 2/12/2019. Election of the members of the Audit Committee: Harish Mehta

Scope and Process

SPAR GROUP (SPP)  (AGM) - 2/12/2019. Mehta cannot be deemed independent given his tenure on the board.  We would like to see increased independent representation on the board.

Outcomes

21.2. Additional information. [Optional]


Top