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

Fidelity International

PRI reporting framework 2020

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

Information to inform the voting process is derived from a variety of sources and includes material provided by the company, proxy voting advisory services, internal and external research. Discussions may also be held with investee companies themselves. All votes are cast in accordance with Fidelity’s established voting policies after consultation with the relevant portfolio manager where appropriate.

We seek to vote all equity securities where possible. In certain special situations we may determine not to submit a vote where the cost in our view outweighs the associated benefits. We will also take account of the particular circumstances of the investee company concerned and of prevailing local market best practice. Fidelity’s approach and policy with regard to the exercise of voting rights are in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations as well as being consistent with the respective investment objectives of the various portfolios.

Fidelity International’s voting decisions are made in accordance with our policies and voting guidelines after consultation with the relevant portfolio managers where appropriate. We also have a set of customised voting policies with our voting agent Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS). Our proxy voting agent provides general meeting notifications, processes our voting instructions, and records this activity for subsequent reporting purposes. Additionally, we subscribe to a number of corporate governance and voting advisory services, including products supported by ISS and Glass Lewis.

Corporate Finance is responsible for monitoring possible conflicts of interest with respect to proxy voting. In instances where a fund holds an investment in more than one party to a transaction we will always act in the interests of the specific fund in question and in instances where there is a conflict with Fidelity’s own interests, we will either vote in accordance with the recommendation of our principal third party research provider or if no recommendation is available we will either abstain or not vote. We do not vote at shareholder meetings of any Fidelity funds unless specially instructed to do so by a client.

We encourage boards to consult with investors in advance rather than risk putting forward resolutions at general meetings which may be voted down. Subject to the size of our investment, where our views differ from those of the board we will seek to engage with the board at an early stage to try and resolve differences. Where this is not successful and we decide to abstain or vote against a company, for all of our larger holdings we will generally ensure that management understands the reason for our opposition. We abstain when we have insufficient information to form our view, and where there are restrictions that do not permit us to cast our vote, but in some markets we also abstain where we wish to give a cautionary message to a company. Our guiding principle is that voting rights should always be exercised in the best interest of our clients.

It is not our usual policy to attend general meetings but if circumstances warrant we will on occasion vote in person and may additionally make a statement explaining our position. In exceptional circumstances we may also submit a resolution for a shareholder vote at a general meeting. We encourage those companies that still undertake voting by a show of hands to move towards implementing poll voting.

We disclose our voting record for the preceding 12 months on our website and this information is updated on a quarterly basis. Quarterly voting reports are provided to institutional clients as well as a more in-depth annual governance and engagement report.

Fidelity operates a limited stock lending programme through a third-party provider and stock may be lent up to agreed thresholds. We regard our votes as valuable and whilst we will not recall stock for routine votes where the revenue from our lending activities is deemed to be of more value to the client than the ability to vote, we will recall stock when it is in clients’ interest to do so. This may include votes of significant economic or strategic importance, votes which are anticipated to be close or controversial, votes where we disagree with management or votes where we do not have sufficient forward visibility to make a timely and informed judgement. We do not borrow stock for the purpose of gaining additional votes.

12.3. Additional information.[Optional]


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.

15.3. Additional information. [Optional]


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.

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]


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%)

97 %

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 (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]

On occasion our views may differ from those of management or the Board and this may give rise to an escalation in our engagement. Factors taken into account prior to an escalation include an assessment of the materiality of the matter in dispute, the size of our shareholding, the timeframe of the investment thesis and the ownership profile of the business in question. Escalation can also occur when we become aware of differences between directors. Our specific response will always be determined on a case by case basis and there will be instances when we choose to sell our shares.

When escalation is deemed appropriate, our first step is often to make contact with other significant shareholders to determine whether they share our views or concerns. Following these conversations, we will speak to the company’s advisers and/or independent directors for a further exchange of views. Our strong preference is to achieve our objectives in a consensual and confidential manner but when differences with a company remain, we may consider joint engagement with other shareholders, escalating concerns, if necessary, to regulators and more public forms of dissent, although as a general policy we do not favour using the media to help achieve our objectives. If differences with a company remain unresolved, we may vote against the Board in a general meeting or even requisition an extraordinary general meeting to enable all investors to vote on the matter in dispute. We would not normally intervene on an operational matter but topics which have given rise to escalation in the past include the need for management and/or Board change, strategy, capital structure, M&A, protection of shareholder rights, remuneration and other ESG-related issues.


LEA 20. Shareholder resolutions (Private)


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


Top