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

Lyxor Asset Management

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.

In 2019, the voting scope was the following:

- French Funds (Fonds Communs de Placement – FCP), French and Luxembourgish SICAV (*)

- European issuers

- Issuers selection criteria: to prevent excess cost resulting by the voting process, Lyxor votes only where its consolidated holdings represent at least 0.10% of the company‘s equity capital. 

* Except the vehicles using a method of synthetic replication which are designed to track a financial exposure through a performance swap. Therefore, the returns of the vehicles do not depend on the return on the shares held by these funds.

The following are the key cases which are excluded from Lyxor’s voting process:

  • Voting in countries that require share blocking.
  • Voting in markets with excessive administrative burdens/costs.
  • Voting on loyalty shares.
  • Voting in countries for which custodians used by Lyxor do not offer proxy voting services. 

In terms of controls:

1/ LYXOR's proxy advisor send us quarterly some KPIs:

- platform availability

- research statistic 

- votes rejected

2/ Each year, the LYXOR SRI Team meet the ISS' teams to ensure that they correctly understand the evolutions of the LYXOR's Voting & Engagement Policy.

3/ LYXOR has set up a quarterly control system to verify the correct application by our proxy advisor of our own voting policy. This sampling control is completed by the analyst in charge of the vote and is validated by the SRI team manager and recorded in the compliance tools of LYXOR.

4/ On a specific scope of issuers, updated quarterly, the LYXOR SRI Team review each item submitted to the vote and if there is a vote not in line with our voting policy, we change manually the votes in the platform.

5/ On remuneration items, the provider does not send recommendation to LYXOR. All the research is made internally through a proprietary methodology.

12.3. Additional information.[Optional]


LEA 13. Percentage of voting recommendations reviewed

13.1. Of the voting recommendations that your service provider made in the reporting year, indicate the percentage that was reviewed by your organisation, giving the reasons.

Percentage of voting recommendations your organisation reviewed

Reasons for review

13.2. Additional information. [Optional]

On a specific scope of issuers, the LYXOR SRI Team review each item submitted to the vote and if there is a vote not in line with our voting policy, we change manually the votes in the platform.

On remuneration items, the provider does not send recommendation to LYXOR. All the research is made internally through a proprietary methodology.


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%)

71 %

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

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
77.3 %
Against (opposing) management recommendations
20.3 %
Abstentions
2.4 %
100%

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

45

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)


Top