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

Northern Ireland Local Government Officers' Superannuation Committee

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.

 

NILGOSC will vote in accordance with its voting policy while taking into consideration company explanations for deviation from best practice, as well as recommendations provided by the service provider where appropriate. Recommendations and advice from other sources, such as investment managers, may also be considered.

Where a decision is made to accept a company's explanation for non-compliance, the reason for the decision is noted and will be reviewed again before the Company's next meeting.

 

12.3. Additional information.[Optional]

NILGOSC has appointed a specialist corporate governance partner, Minerva Analytics, to coordinate its corporate governance and voting activities. NILGOSC avails of Minerva's corporate governance research service, which provides detailed information and financial analysis for each of its actively managed UK and global equity holdings. This information is used by the Investment Officer at NILGOSC to make informed voting decisions at each investee company based on NILGOSC’s own voting policies.

For passively managed equities, votes are cast by NILGOSC’s passive fund manager, Legal & General, according to its own voting policies. The manager reports to NILGOSC on its voting activities on a quarterly basis. 
 


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]

NILGOSC is keen to improve its engagement with companies and, where practical, a letter is sent to those companies where NILGOSC has not voted in accordance with management recommendations, providing a brief explanation for the voting decisions. Where possible, the letter is sent in advance of the meeting being voted on. It is hoped that by providing this explanation, the flow of information between companies and their shareholders can be improved. Currently, this policy applies to UK and European listed company AGMs only in NILGOSC's actively managed equity portfolios. The figures above are based on the number of companies where an engagement letter was sent prior to the AGM date, as a proportion of the total number of meetings voted on during the year ending 31 March 2019. For passively managed equities, votes are cast by NILGOSC's passive fund manager, Legal & General, according to its own voting policies. The manager reports to NILGOSC on its voting activities on a quarterly basis.


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]

NILGOSC is keen to improve its engagement with companies and, where practical, a letter is sent to those companies where NILGOSC has not voted in accordance with management recommendations, providing a brief explanation for the voting decisions. It is hoped that by providing this explanation, the flow of information between companies and their shareholders can be improved. Currently, this policy applies to UK and European listed company AGMs only in NILGOSC's actively managed equity portfolios. The figures above are based on the number of companies where an engagement letter was sent, as a proportion of the total number of meetings voted on during the year ending 31 March 2019. For passively managed equities, votes are cast by NILGOSC's passive fund manager, Legal & General, according to its own voting policies. The manager reports to NILGOSC on its voting activities on a quarterly basis.


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]


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 (Private)


Top