Public HTML RI reports - PRI reporting framework 2019

VanEck

PRI reporting framework 2019

Basic information [OO 01 - 09] Asset class implementation gateway indicators [OO 10 - 12] Peering questions [OO LE 01 - HF 01]

Strategy and Governance

Investment policy [SG 01 - 04] Objectives and strategies [SG 05 - 06] Governance and human resources [SG 07 - 08] Promoting responsible investment [SG 09 - 11] Outsourcing to fiduciary managers and investment consultants [SG 12] ESG issues in asset allocation [SG 13 - 15] Communication [SG 19]

Direct - Listed Equity Incorporation

ESG incorporation in actively managed listed equities [LEI 01 - 10] Implementation processes [LEI 01 - 10] (A) Implementation: Screening [LEI 04 - 06] (C) Implementation: Integration of ESG factors [LEI 08 - 10] ESG incorporation in passively managed listed equities [LEI 11]

Direct - Listed Equity Active Ownership

Overview [LEA 01] Engagement [LEA 02 - 08] Outputs and outcomes [LEA 09 - 11]

Direct - Fixed Income

ESG incorporation in passively managed fixed income [FI 13] Outputs and outcomes [FI 17 - 18]

Confidence building measures

Confidence building measures [CM1 01 - 07]

Export Public Responses

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

We use our own research or voting team and make voting decisions without the use of service providers.

We hire service provider(s) who make voting recommendations and/or provide research that we use to guide our voting decisions.

Based on

the service provider voting policy we sign off on

our own voting policy

our clients' requests or policies

other, explain

We hire service provider(s) who make voting decisions on our behalf, except for some pre-defined scenarios where we review and make voting decisions.

We hire service provider(s) who make voting decisions on our behalf.

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.

VanEck intends to vote all proxies in accordance with applicable rules and regulations, and in the best interests of clients without influence by real or apparent conflicts of interest. To assist in its responsibility for voting proxies and the overall voting process, it has engaged an independent third party proxy voting specialist, Glass Lewis & Co., LLC. The services provided by Glass Lewis include indepth research, global issuer analysis, and voting recommendations as well as vote execution, reporting and recordkeeping.

While it is VanEck’s policy to generally follow the Glass Lewis Proxy Guidelines, it retains the right, on any specific proxy, to vote differently from those guidelines, if it believes it is in the best interests of its clients. Any such exceptions will be documented by VanEck and reviewed by its Chief Compliance Officer.

The portfolio manager or analyst covering the security is responsible for making proxy voting decisions.

12.3. Additional information.[Optional]

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

LEA 14. Securities lending programme (Not Completed)

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.

100%

99-75%

74-50%

49-25%

24-1%

Neither we nor our service provider(s) raise concerns with companies ahead of voting

15.2. Indicate the reasons for raising your concerns with these companies ahead of voting.

Vote(s) for selected markets

Vote(s) for selected sectors

Vote(s) relating to certain ESG issues

Vote(s) on companies exposed to controversy on specific ESG issues

Vote(s) for significant shareholdings

On request by clients

Other

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.

100%

99-75%

74-50%

49-25%

24-1%

We do not communicate the rationale to companies

Not applicable because we and/or our service providers do not abstain or vote against management recommendations

16.2. Indicate the reasons your organisation would communicate to companies, the rationale for abstaining or voting against management recommendations.

Votes for selected markets

Votes for selected sectors

Votes relating to certain ESG issues

Votes on companies exposed to controversy on specific ESG issues

Votes for significant shareholdings

On request by clients

Other

16.3. In cases where your organisation does communicate the rationale for the abstention or the vote against management recommendations, indicate whether this rationale is made public.

Yes

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.

We do track or collect this information

Votes cast (to the nearest 1%)

99 %

Specify the basis on which this percentage is calculated

of the total number of ballot items on which you could have issued instructions

of the total number of company meetings at which you could have voted

of the total value of your listed equity holdings on which you could have voted

We do not track or collect this information

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

Shares were blocked

Notice, ballots or materials not received in time

Missed deadline

Geographical restrictions (non-home market)

Cost

Conflicts of interest

Holdings deemed too small

Administrative impediments (e.g., power of attorney requirements, ineligibility due to participation in share placement)

Client request

Other

Insufficient information on which to make a voting decision

17.3. Additional information. [Optional]

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

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.

Yes

19.3. Additional information. [Optional]

LEA 20. Shareholder resolutions (Not Completed)

LEA 21. Examples of (proxy) voting activities (Not Completed)

Previous Section Next Section