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

Marathon Asset Management LLP

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.

Portfolio managers have always voted their own proxies at Marathon, as we consider the ability to influence management to be an integral part of the investment management function. Votes are made on a case-by-case basis, rather than relying solely on formulaic rules, outside services, or a box-ticking process. Marathon subscribes to advice from ISS, but portfolio managers are directly responsible for proxy voting decisions, on the basis of their in-depth knowledge and assessment of company management and business models. Marathon’s individual proxy votes are published on our website, plus aggregated data across all votes.

https://www.marathon.co.uk/stewardship/proxy-voting-dashboard/

12.3. Additional information.[Optional]

Marathon’s voting records are provided to clients on a quarterly basis. Separately, the firm’s voting track record is publicly disclosed on the firm’s website (with a 180-day lag). Further disclosures are made in the Stewardship Code statement, also found on our website. On an annual basis, Marathon will update this policy and identify any significant matters that have arisen in connection with voting activity during the previous twelve months.


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.

Explain

          Company requests information.
        

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%)

100 %

Specify the basis on which this percentage is calculated

17.3. Additional information. [Optional]

Please refer to the link below for the most recent numbers:

https://www.marathon.co.uk/stewardship/proxy-voting-dashboard/


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.

19.3. Additional information. [Optional]


LEA 20. Shareholder resolutions (Private)


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


Top