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

MN

PRI reporting framework 2019

Export Public Responses
Pdf-img

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.

For the executing of its voting rights, MN makes use of the services of Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS). ISS gives a voting advice for each voting item that is placed on an agenda of a general meeting on the basis of the customized voting policy. Issues where our policy guidelines mention a case-by-case approach are implemented in our custom policy in line with the ISS recommendations. Note that MN can choose not to follow this voting advice and is able to vote differently. In cooperation with Eumedion, MN attends and votes at several general meetings per year. In all other cases votes are submitted electronically and on the website of MN and the client’s website there is a reporting tool on all the votes that have been submitted by MN. Every year we take a sample test to assess if casted votes comply with our custom policy.

12.3. Additional information.[Optional]

All of MN's clients have adopted a custom voting policy which deviates from the standard ISS-policy. MN is the initiator for this policy but policy is undersigned by our clients. ISS also votes automatically, except in the case of companies with whom we have an engagement program, or when an agenda contains specific items that we would like to review on beforehand. We review the recommendations and vote on a regular basis.


LEA 13. Percentage of voting recommendations reviewed

13.1. Of the voting recommendations that your service provider made in the reporting year, indicate the percentage reviewed by your organisation, giving reasons.

Percentage of voting recommendations your organisation reviewed

Reasons for review

13.2. Additional information [Optional]

Service provider recommendations are based on our own customized voting policy, not on the standard policy of the service provider. Thus the necessity of reviewing their recommendations is low. We do however test whether the votes our service provider casts are in compliance with our policy.


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]

All submitted votes are disclosed on the website of MN and the relevant client’s website via a reporting tool. Also, our voting policy is published on our website.


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.

16.3. 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.

16.4. Additional information. [Optional]

Publicly available on our website for all voting decisions


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%)

95 %

Specify the basis on which this percentage is calculated

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

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
70 %
Against (opposing) management recommendations
26 %
Abstentions
4 %
100%

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

1

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 (Private)


LEA 21. Examples of (proxy) voting activities (Private)


Top