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

SPOV (Delisted)

PRI reporting framework 2019

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.


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.

We use a proxy advisor for casting our votes. Initially the advisor instructs a meeting along the lines of our policy. The instructions are then reviewed (and can be amended) by the portfoliomanager equities at SPF Beheer. In exceptional cases we can divert from our policy. In such situation we must provide a rationale why we do so. Exceptions are only made in case of 'grey' areas. For example, according to our policy we will vote against proposals where the total remuneration for the CEO of a company exceeds that of the sector median. However, when the difference is small, the performance of the company is better than that of the sector median, ánd the entire compensation package does not contain any undesired components (high bonus levels, unchallenging bonus targets, etc.) we can decide to support the proposal.

The portfoliomanager equities confirms the instructions that our proxy advisor send us or issues a new instruction on a specific item, including rationale. Then, the instructions are forwarded to the rest of the portfoliomanagers (including the portfoliomanager ESG) and analysts. One of them approves the final instructions and casts the votes. In the spirit of transparency, each quarter the votes casts are published on the website of our clients.

Other external managers vote based on their policy.

12.3. Additional information.[Optional]

The voting recommendations made by the service provider are all reviewed by the portfoliomanagers at SPF Beheer. The situation occurs that, due to external factors and circumstances, they take a different decision.

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.

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

15.3. Additional information. [Optional]

Our policy is to never abstain from voting, if possible we will always take the decision of either voting yes or no. When we vote against management recommendation we will provide an explanation as needed.

We are always willing to talk with companies and explain our voting position to companies upon request.

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.

16.2. Indicate the reasons your organisation would communicate 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]

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]

We have the intention to vote on all meetings of the companies in our portfolio. For one of the externally managed mandates, however, it was decided not to vote on all company meetings. This is a portfolio with many rather small positions in emerging market companies. The costs of voting are relatively high while the expected influence is limited (due to our small shareholding in the company).

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
84 %
Against (opposing) management recommendations
15.5 %
0.5 %

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

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 (Not Completed)