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

SBI Funds Management Private Limited

PRI reporting framework 2020

You are in Direct - Listed Equity Active Ownership » (Proxy) voting and shareholder resolutions


LEA 12. Typical approach to (proxy) voting decisions

12.1. (委任状による)議決権行使を通常どのように決定しているかを明示して下さい。



12.2. 合意された議決権ポリシーがどのように遵守されているかを概観し、ポリシーの例外が適用された場合(該当する場合)のアプローチの詳細を示してください。

SBIFMPL considers voting to be an important shareholder right and a valuable tool in the engagement process and endeavours to vote on all board resolutions of investee companies, which are critical for protecting and enhancing the investors' interests. Although, the AMC uses proxy voting advisory services from reputed service providers to help analyse company proxy materials and statements, all votes are confirmed in house by the analyst team, in discussion with the portfolio manager/s. These voting decisions and the process undertaken to arrive at the decision is uploaded on the AMC's website.

SBIFMPL has adopted general guidelines for voting proxies which are documented in our Proxy Voting Policy available on our website. Corporate Governance issues are various and continuously evolving. The guideline set are not and cannot be a comprehensive survey of the proxy voting guidelines as all kinds of issues cannot be anticipated. Therefore, the guidelines rather reflect some of the principles that are generally supported by the AMC. However, the AMC may exercise its discretion and act accordingly in some instances when it determines that based on the facts, it is in the best interest of the fund as a shareholder. Once the proxy advisers submit their decisions and the supporting reasons, the investment team analysts study them and provide their inputs on the actual condition of the company and digressing views (if any). The analysts refer to the Guidelines while making any kind of recommendations on the voting decisions. Our proxy advisers have a set methodology, which has been previously discussed with them and is largely aligned with the principles SBIFMPL believes in. Their methodology is publicly available and all the reasons for a particular recommendation are provided by the proxy advisor. In case, SBIFMPL does not agree with any recommendation, we ask for additional details, peer-comparison etc. from the service provider.

At times, we may see a need for making an exception. In such cases, we identify if there is a need to make changes in the proxy voting policy. The exceptions are never made ad-hoc, but are rather principle based, and corresponding changes are made in the Policy to make the framework more robust. The decisions are never based on importance of the company, analyst bias, or in order to accommodate a company. While making an exception, detailed discussions are conducted with the Chief Investment Officer and Head of Research. The resultant recommendations are then sent to the Proxy Voting Committee.


12.3. 補足情報[任意]

LEA 13. Percentage of voting recommendations reviewed (Not Applicable)

LEA 14. Securities lending programme (Not Completed)

LEA 15. Informing companies of the rationale of abstaining/voting against management

15.1. 報告年度内に関与した議決権行使のうち、貴社、または貴社の代理を務めるサービスプロバイダーが議決権行使に先立って企業に懸念を表明したものの割合を示してください。

15.2. これらの企業に対し、議決権行使に先立って懸念を表明した理由を示してください。

15.3. 補足情報 [任意]

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

16.1. 貴社または貴社の代理を務めるサービスプロバイダーが、議決権行使を棄権する場合、または経営陣の提案に反対票を投じる場合に、当該企業にその根拠を伝えた議決権の割合を示してください。これは行使可能な全議決権の中で占める割合とします。

16.2. 貴社が議決権行使を棄権する場合、または経営陣の提案に反対票を投じる場合に、企業にその根拠を伝える理由を示してください。

16.3. 貴社が議決権行使を棄権するまたは経営陣の提案に反対票を投じる根拠を伝える場合、この根拠を公表しているか示してください。

16.4. 補足情報[任意]

LEA 17. Percentage of (proxy) votes cast

17.1. 貴社やサービスプロバイダーが(代理)投票の指示を発行するマンデートを有している上場株式について、報告年度中に行った投票の割合を記載してください。


91 %


17.2. 一定の株式保有分について議決権を行使しない理由を説明して下さい:

17.3. 補足情報[任意]

LEA 18. Proportion of ballot items that were for/against/abstentions

18.1. 貴社または貴社の代理を務めるサービスプロバイダーが出した議決権行使に係る指示を追跡しているか示してください。

18.2. 貴社または貴社の代理を務める第三者が出した議決権行使に係る指示のうち、各投票項目の占める割合を示してください。

80 %
11 %
9 %

18.3. 貴社が経営陣の提案に対する反対票を投じたケースにおいて、貴社がエンゲージメントを行った企業の占める割合を示してください。


18.4. 補足情報 [任意]

IMPORTANT NOTE: We have referred to the voting data from March 2019 to December 2019. Voting data for current financial quarter (Jan to Mar 2020) is not yet available in the public domain)

LEA 19. Proportion of ballot items that were for/against/abstentions

19.1. 不首尾に終わった議決権行使後の正式なエスカレーション戦略が貴社にあるか示してください。

19.3. 補足情報 [任意]

While we do not have a formal escalation strategy following unsuccessful voting, we do have a policy on intervention, which includes escalation as a measure of intervention. This is mentioned in our Stewardship Code available on our website:

  1. Engagement: Sending letters to individual investee companies, one-to-one meetings with the management team, engagement with specific teams etc. to resolve any concerns including steps to be taken to mitigate such concerns.
  2. Re-Engagement: In the event the management of the investee company fails to undertake constructive steps to resolve the concerns raised by SBIFMPL within a reasonable timeframe, the AMC shall take all reasonable steps to re-engage with the management to resolve its concerns.
  3. Collaboration: The AMC shall also consider collaboration with other institutional investors, professional associations like AMFI, regulators, and any other entities it deems necessary for a collective engagement or joint representation with the investee company.
  4. Escalation: In case there is no progress despite the above three steps, SBIFMPL may engage with the Board of the investee company (through a formal written communication) and elaborate on the concerns. Further, the AMC may take appropriate steps to resolve the concerns including exiting its investments.
  5. Voting: SBIFMPL will vote against or abstain from voting in case the governance practices of the investee company are improper.
  6. Legal Recourse: SBIFMPL may take a legal recourse against a company if deemed necessary instead of exiting its investment.
  7. Blanket Bans: SBIFMPL may consider extending a blanket ban on a section of companies or create a list of black-listed companies as required if there is no engagement or improvement from the companies’ side. 

LEA 20. Shareholder resolutions

20.1. 貴社が報告年度中に、直接もしくはサービスプロバイダーを介して、ESG株主決議を提出または共同提出したか示してください。

20.7. 補足情報[任意] 

LEA 21. Examples of (proxy) voting activities

21.1. 報告年度に貴社またはサービスプロバイダーが実行した(委任状による)議決権行使の例を提供してください。

Other governance

The proposal was to vote regarding continuation of a Board Member on the board who had already been on the board for 24 years. SBIFMPL Voted Against.


The Board Member for whose continuation on board, the resolution was submitted, was 86 years old, a Solicitor and Advocate. He had been on the board for about 24 years. Recent changes in SEBI’s LODR require directors having attained the age of 75 to be re-approved by shareholders through a special resolution. In line with this regulatory change, his directorship as Independent Director required shareholder ratification. SBIFMPL believed that the length of tenure is inversely proportionate to the independence of a director. We classified him as non-independent due to his long association with the company. If the company believed that it would benefit from his serving on the board, it must propose his continuation as a Non-Executive Non-Independent Director. 

Executive Remuneration

Voting Resolution to Re-appoint an individual as the Managing Director for a period of 5 years from 10th October, 2019 and fix his remuneration. SBIFMPL Voted For.


The Individual in question belonged to the promoter group. While the absolute remuneration as compared to peers was at a higher-level a) profits increased 54% versus a 45% increase in remuneration b) remuneration was at 3% of profits and hence at acceptable levels c) most importantly a large part of remuneration was variable in nature. Hence, we voted for the resolution in coherence with our pay framework.


21.2. 補足情報[任意]