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

Cape Ann Asset Management Limited

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.


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.

Cape Ann's custodian holds all securities for the benefit of the Unitholders in Cape Ann’s various commingled funds. Cape Ann has directed Northern Trust to outsource certain of its proxy processing responsibilities to ISS, a leading provider of proxy voting.  ISS provides Cape Ann with meeting notification and ballot delivery services, agenda summaries, detailed agenda content including original source documents, translation services, recordkeeping and custom reports and vote instruction processing services. Meeting notifications are provided according to an agreement in place between the Cape Ann and ISS.  Cape Ann does not outsource any part of its proxy voting decision making process to ISS or Northern Trust.  Separate arrangements may be in place for the custodians appointed by any permanent separately managed account relationships.

Following receipt of proxy voting materials from ISS, Cape Ann’s administration group prepares a “Proxy Voting Summary Form”.  The form includes the details of the number of shares held by a Client and a deadline for the response.  If only standard issues are included on the proxy, one authorised person will decide on how to vote the proxy and sign the proxy voting summary form.  If material issues are included, enhanced procedures apply.  The issue will be discussed with two or more authorised personnel and they will assess the potential impact that the issues may have on the portfolio company, and decide on how to vote the proxy in question.  The proxy voting summary form will then be approved and the proxy vote processed.

Cape Ann's proxy voting process is also subject to periodic internal risk monitoring review conducted by the compliance.

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.


          We would seek to raise an issue with company management ahead of a vote where we consider it would benefit the portfolio company’s Board to hear the views of minority shareholders with respect to contentious proposals.  There is We consider there is merit in a portfolio company understanding the position of shareholders who are considering a vote against prior to the meeting taking place, in certain circumstances.

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.


          There are occasions where we consider progress might be made by through contacting company management to explain our rationale for voting against or abstaining.  We would typically hope to speak directly with management and seek to explain our position, and what we would hope to see change in future votes, and how we believe this would benefit the company.

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]

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

18.1. Indicate whether you track the voting instructions that you or your service provider on your behalf have issued.

18.2. Of the voting instructions that you and/or third parties on your behalf have issued, indicate the proportion of ballot items that were:

Voting instructions
Breakdown as percentage of votes cast
For (supporting) management recommendations
87 %
Against (opposing) management recommendations
13 %
0 %

18.3. In cases where your organisation voted against management recommendations, indicate the percentage of companies which you have engaged.

18.4. Additional information. [Optional]

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]

LEA 20. Shareholder resolutions (Private)

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