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

LGPS Central

PRI reporting framework 2020

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 that your agreed-upon voting policy is adhered to, giving details of your approach when exceptions to the policy are made.

For UK listed companies, we vote our shares in accordance with a set of bespoke UK Voting Principles. For other markets, we consider the recommendations and advice of our Stewardship service provider. EOS at Federated Hermes provides us with voting recommendations based on our voting policy which are input on the voting platform prior to the vote deadline. The voting recommendations are then cast as voting instructions if there is no further intervention, except in the case of share-blocking votes.

We establish a "Voting Watch List" annually that consists of between 70 - 100 companies that represent our biggest holdings across equities strategies. The list serves several purposes, including being a sample that tests whether our votes are cast in alignment with our Voting Principles. In the majority of cases we have voted in direct alignment with the voting recommendations from our Stewardship service provider. In a minority of cases we have taken a different view to their recommendation. Our voting principles do allow room for interpretation and we have found no evidence that our Stewardship service provider recommends votes that run contrary to our core beliefs of good governance as expressed in our Voting Principles. 

During 2019, our Stewardship provider established a set of Global Voting guidelines, supplementing various regional voting policies across key markets. LGPS Central provided input to these guidelines and several of our comments reflected in the final guidelines. 

12.3. Additional information.[Optional]

LGPS Central’s voting decisions are arrived at through a collegiate approach, incorporating the views of members of the Responsible Investment & Engagement (“RI&E”) Team and fund managers as appropriate for the company in question. The Company’s votes are executed in compliance with its Conflicts of Interest policy.


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 participated in within the reporting year in which where you or the service providers acting on your behalf raised concerns with companies ahead of voting.

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

Explain

          In order to help progress engagement (driving change), as well as to help clarify matters at hand to inform better voting decisions
        

15.3. Additional information. [Optional]

Our voting recommendation and engagement provider EOS at Federated Hermes interacted with companies at around 1000 meetings in 2019. This would usually be ahead of meetings and as a result of concerns around the vote or an anticipated vote against management.


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

16.1. Indicate the proportion of votes where you, and/or the service provider(s) acting on your behalf, communicated the rationale to companies for abstaining or voting against management recommendations. Indicate this as a percentage out of all eligible votes.

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

Explain

          In order to help progress engagement (driving change), as well as to help clarify matters at hand to inform better voting decisions.
        

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

16.4. Additional information. [Optional]

Our voting recommendation and engagement provider EOS at Federated Hermes interacted with companies at around 1000 meetings in 2019. This would usually be ahead of meetings and as a result of concerns around the vote or an anticipated vote against management.


LEA 17. Percentage of (proxy) votes cast

17.1. For listed equities in which you 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%)

99 %

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]

Our service provider EOS at Federated Hermes submits vote recommendations on all listed equity covered by its proxy voting service. On occasion LGPS Central submits votes directly via electronic system (ISS ProxyExchange). 


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.

19.2. Indicate the escalation strategies used at your organisation following abstentions and/or votes against management.

19.3. Additional information. [Optional]

We will engage a selection of companies following voting over contentious issues, in order to explain the rationale for our voting and to set expectations for the next proxy season. This is one way of making sure that the voting matters and that we will persist on issues that are of critical importance to us as long-term shareholders. 


LEA 20. Shareholder resolutions (Private)


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


Top