Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 409

Why investment stewardship matters for long-term investors

Each year in the lead-up to company reporting season, individuals who invest directly in publicly listed companies receive notifications informing them of their right to vote at a company’s upcoming Annual General Meeting (AGM). The notification also describes the list of resolutions that would be put to a vote as part of the AGM. A person who directly holds shares in a large number of companies can expect a crowded inbox during the peak of proxy voting season, which is during October and November for many Australian companies.

But for the growing number of investors who invest only in managed funds or exchange-traded funds (ETFs), they don’t receive these letters even though they own a portion of the companies.

Instead, the fund managers cast votes (known as ‘proxy’ votes) at company meetings as part of the 'investment stewardship' service - and obligation - that fund managers carry out on behalf of the funds’ investors. While each fund manager does this differently, the professionals in a properly-resourced investment stewardship team have broad financial market experience and deep expertise in areas of corporate governance, policy, regulation, and social and environmental risk analysis.

The why and the how

Proxy voting is not the only activity that occurs as part of the investment stewardship process, and for many managers, it may not even be the most important. The role of fund managers as stewards or trustees of the shares is primarily to be a voice for investors acting in their best interests.

This is a fiduciary responsibility that good fund managers take very seriously and includes actively meeting (or 'engaging') with companies on a regular basis, voting on shareholder resolutions (a vote put forward by an owner of the shares rather than by the company’s management) and, where appropriate, taking part in public advocacy activities.

The aim is to ultimately hold companies accountable for delivering long-term investment returns to investors. This approach seeks to ensure that companies in a portfolio have robust strategies that not only position them for growth and success, but are actively managing risks that are financially material, or entail risks that may lead to short-term gains but impede the company’s long-term performance or value.

For example, investment stewardship teams often place great emphasis on the composition of a company’s board, including factors such as whether the board is sufficiently independent from management and suppliers, and whether it has a suitable mix of skills and experience, and whether the board is appropriately diverse.

Investment stewardship teams also analyse and vote on companies’ executive remuneration practices. Over the long run, company shareholders stand to benefit when executive remuneration plans incentivise a company’s long-term value creation and outperformance versus its industry peers.

Over the past decade, long-term investors have been placing greater focus on the board’s oversight of company strategy and risks, including social and environmental risks. This can include workplace culture issues, treatment of community stakeholders, corporate fraud and financial crimes, large-scale industrial incidents that result in reputational damage, or other practices that pose a threat to people’s health, safety, or dignity. If such risks are not properly managed and overseen, they can erode shareholder value.

The most widespread example of this today, across virtually all industry sectors, relates to climate change risks and how companies are planning to manage their business in response to the increasingly urgent pressure to transition to a low carbon economy over coming decades.

Passive management does not mean passive ownership

Critics of large index fund managers often believe that a 'passive' approach to fund management equates to a passive approach to investment stewardship. In other words, that these fund managers merely invest as directed by the index and have little concern for material environmental, social and governance (ESG) risk.

For Vanguard, the opposite is true. Index funds are designed to buy and hold the shares of the companies in their appointed benchmark in virtual perpetuity (or as long as the shares are included in the index). The funds can’t use discretion to buy more shares of companies deemed to be promising or sell out of companies that may be bad actors.

Issues that are financially material to the long-term investment returns will regularly be on the agenda for index funds and will remain so long after shorter term investors have sold out of their positions. The investment stewardship tools of proxy voting, engagement, and public advocacy are the most important levers that index funds have to ensure that companies are acting in the best interests of their longest-term investors.


Register here to receive the Firstlinks weekly newsletter for free

Why it matters

People choose to invest through managed funds, index funds, and ETFs for a variety of reasons, including low costs, diversification and ease of implementation. And for those who prefer to keep their investments at arm’s length, it is easy to dismiss this process as unimportant or too complicated to bother engaging with or reading up about.

But while investment stewardship outcomes may not be apparent in a daily share price or a quarterly statement, these teams work relentlessly to promote and safeguard shareholder value over the course of years and decades.

If you care about how your investment performs over the long term and whether it will deliver the returns you reasonably expect, it’s worth the extra step to ensure that the fund’s investment stewardship team is taking a stand on behalf of its investors.

 

Lisa Harlow is Head of Vanguard Investment Stewardship, Asia Pacific. Vanguard Australia is a sponsor of Firstlinks. This article is for general information and does not consider the circumstances of any individual.

For articles and papers from Vanguard, please click here.

 

RELATED ARTICLES

Worries over the planned proxy rule changes in Australia

Voting your shares: it’s worth the effort

Investor downside when management controls access to the board

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

10 reasons wealthy homeowners shouldn't receive welfare

The RBA Governor says rising house prices are due to "the design of our taxation and social security systems". The OECD says "the prolonged boom in house prices has inflated the wealth of many pensioners without impacting their pension eligibility." What's your view?

House prices surge but falls are common and coming

We tend to forget that house prices often fall. Direct lending controls are more effective than rate rises because macroprudential limits affect the volume of money for housing leaving business rates untouched.

Survey responses on pension eligibility for wealthy homeowners

The survey drew a fantastic 2,000 responses with over 1,000 comments and polar opposite views on what is good policy. Do most people believe the home should be in the age pension asset test, and what do they say?

100 Aussies: five charts on who earns, pays and owns

Any policy decision needs to recognise who is affected by a change. It pays to check the data on who pays taxes, who owns assets and who earns the income to ensure an equitable and efficient outcome.

Three good comments from the pension asset test article

With articles on the pensions assets test read about 40,000 times, 3,500 survey responses and thousands of comments, there was a lot of great reader participation. A few comments added extra insights.

The sorry saga of housing affordability and ownership

It is hard to think of any area of widespread public concern where the same policies have been pursued for so long, in the face of such incontrovertible evidence that they have failed to achieve their objectives.

Latest Updates

Superannuation

The 'Contrast Principle' used by super fund test failures

Rather than compare results against APRA's benchmark, large super funds which failed the YFYS performance test are using another measure such as a CPI+ target, with more favourable results to show their members.

Property

RBA switched rate priority on house prices versus jobs

RBA Governor, Philip Lowe, says that surging house prices are not as important as full employment, but a previous Governor, Glenn Stevens, had other priorities, putting the "elevated level of house prices" first.

Investment strategies

Disruptive innovation and the Tesla valuation debate

Two prominent fund managers with strongly opposing views and techniques. Cathie Wood thinks Tesla is going to US$3,000, Rob Arnott says it's already a bubble at US$750. They debate valuing growth and disruption.

Shares

4 key materials for batteries and 9 companies that will benefit

Four key materials are required for battery production as we head towards 30X the number of electric cars. It opens exciting opportunities for Australian companies as the country aims to become a regional hub.

Shares

Why valuation multiples fail in an exponential world

Estimating the value of a company based on a multiple of earnings is a common investment analysis technique, but it is often useless. Multiples do a poor job of valuing the best growth businesses, like Microsoft.

Shares

Five value chains driving the ‘transition winners’

The ability to adapt to change makes a company more likely to sustain today’s profitability. There are five value chains plus a focus on cashflow and asset growth that the 'transition winners' are adopting.

Superannuation

Halving super drawdowns helps wealthy retirees most

At the start of COVID, the Government allowed early access to super, but in a strange twist, others were permitted to leave money in tax-advantaged super for another year. It helped the wealthy and should not be repeated.

Sponsors

Alliances

© 2021 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.

Disclaimer
The data, research and opinions provided here are for information purposes; are not an offer to buy or sell a security; and are not warranted to be correct, complete or accurate. Morningstar, its affiliates, and third-party content providers are not responsible for any investment decisions, damages or losses resulting from, or related to, the data and analyses or their use. Any general advice or ‘regulated financial advice’ under New Zealand law has been prepared by Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892) and/or Morningstar Research Ltd, subsidiaries of Morningstar, Inc, without reference to your objectives, financial situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide (AU) and Financial Advice Provider Disclosure Statement (NZ). You should consider the advice in light of these matters and if applicable, the relevant Product Disclosure Statement before making any decision to invest. Past performance does not necessarily indicate a financial product’s future performance. To obtain advice tailored to your situation, contact a professional financial adviser. Articles are current as at date of publication.
This website contains information and opinions provided by third parties. Inclusion of this information does not necessarily represent Morningstar’s positions, strategies or opinions and should not be considered an endorsement by Morningstar.

Website Development by Master Publisher.