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

Orbis Investments

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.

Our proxy voting administrator works with our investment teams to ensure they adhere to our voting policy. The most common circumstances in which we don't vote is when we have sold the company's shares prior to the meeting date.

12.3. Additional information.[Optional]

Just as we would never delegate stockpicking to a third party, we believe that an investment manager should not delegate its voting decision. Our guiding principle in voting is to act in what we believe are the best long-term economic interests of the Orbis Funds and their investors. We will consider all aspects of proposals being put to the vote. We do not outsource any of the decision-making to a third party proxy adviser, we have no predetermined rules and we do not just "tick the boxes". Our analysts review proxy voting material prior to voting on shares owned by the Orbis Funds. They determine whether or not each of the proposals to be voted on is in the best interest of the Orbis Funds and their investors. We take an all-inclusive view, including assessing the impact of our actions on our ability to communicate effectively with management. Our analysts also have access to detailed proxy research from Glass Lewis, the leading independent governance analysis firm which covers over 18,000 companies worldwide.

Following the review, the responsible analyst will make voting recommendations. Where the analyst or our internal proxy administrator considers it appropriate, the head of the investment team will review these recommendations prior to Orbis giving voting instructions. Where the responsible analyst concludes that our vote is immaterial to the company's prospects, they may refrain from voting. We may also abstain in instances where corporate governance is not directly relevant to the investment process. However, our internal proxy administrator reviews all proposals to be voted on, and in situations where we believe a proposal significantly affects the interests of our clients, we may vote regardless of the size of our holding in the company or the relevance of governance to the investment decision.


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]

Unless doing so is not felt to be in the interests of our Funds (or would otherwise be inappropriate given market practice or applicable legal requirements), analysts consider informing the company's representatives in advance of their intention to vote against any of management's recommendations, especially if the Orbis Funds (in the aggregate) hold a material position in a company. This often creates an opportunity for the analyst to explain to the company's directors why they believe a resolution is not in shareholders' interests and to hear their side of the story. Such engagement can contribute to making an analyst's ongoing relationship with company management more constructive, for example, by the company seeking our opinion on important matters in future. 

Also, as signatories to the Japan Stewardship Code, we aim to arrive at a common understanding with investee companies and work to solve problems through constructive engagement. Consistent with this objective, we typically write to the management of Japanese companies held in the Orbis Funds to express our intention to vote against proposals at shareholder meetings. When doing so, we typically explain our rationale for doing so and, where appropriate, make additional recommendations. 

We do not typically communicate our voting rationale publicly as we generally consider engaging with companies privately to be more constructive. If however private engagement appears to be ineffective, we may make our concerns known publicly. 


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]

Unless doing so is not felt to be in the interests of our Funds (or would otherwise be inappropriate given market practice or applicable legal requirements), analysts consider informing the company's representatives of their rationale for voting against any of management's recommendations, especially if the Orbis Funds (in the aggregate) hold a material position in a company. This allows the opportunity for the analyst to explain to the company's directors why they believe a resolution is not in shareholders' interests and to hear their side of the story. Such engagement can contribute to making an analyst's ongoing relationship with company management more constructive, for example, by the company seeking our opinion on important matters in future.


Also, as signatories to the Japan Stewardship Code, we aim to arrive at a common understanding with investee companies and work to solve problems through constructive engagement. Consistent with this objective, we typically write to the management of Japanese companies held in the Orbis Funds to express our rationale for voting against proposals at shareholder meetings and, where appropriate, made additional recommendations.


We do not typically communicate our voting rationale publicly as we generally consider engaging with companies privately to be more constructive. If however private engagement appears to be ineffective, we may make our concerns known publicly.


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 17.1 - Orbis’ percentage of votes cast during the reporting year are for a representative account in the Orbis Global Equity Strategy.


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
93 %
Against (opposing) management recommendations
6 %
Abstentions
1 %
100%

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

75

18.4. Additional information. [Optional]

Our approach has been consistent with our proxy voting policy. Please refer to LEA 01.

LEA 18.2 and 18.3 - a breakdown of Orbis’ voting instructions issued are for a representative account in the Orbis Global Equity Strategy.


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]

While we do not have a formal escalation strategy following unsuccessful voting, when an analyst has material concerns about the strategy, sustainability or governance of a company, they would typically aim to engage with management to express these concerns. We generally consider engaging with companies privately to be more constructive than public engagement but if private engagement appears to be ineffective, we may make our concerns known publicly. 


LEA 20. Shareholder resolutions (Private)


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


Top