Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 412

Worries over the planned proxy rule changes in Australia

The Australian Treasury recently issued a consultation paper on changes to proxy advice that mirror some of the proposals issued under the US Trump administration. To us, the new rules are founded on a misguided notion that the proxy voting sector lacks transparency.

We believe that the rule changes would, if anything, undermine the rights of asset owners to vote as they wish and give companies undue influence on proxy recommendations and outcomes.  

We recently made a submission to the Treasury consultation outlining our concerns as to why this is not in the best interests of our clients or the market more broadly. We outline the key points of our submission below.

Proxy voting is a core element of our active ownership approach

We have long believed that it is our job as fiduciaries to make a stand where we see an issue which could detract from good governance, sustainability, and investor outcomes. Annual General Meeting (AGM) season (typically October to December in Australia) is a critical time to re-emphasise our stance regarding a board’s progress on ESG matters through engagement and the voting of proxies.

In order to vote proxies for our clients, we do our own internal assessments of boards and management with a comprehensive investment process which includes our actions taken in relation to voting for AGMs and shareholder resolutions. We supplement this with the input of external providers to provide additional insight to company financial accounts, AGM resolutions and assessment of directors who are up for re-election.

Unlike what is being suggested by the Treasury rules, we do not agree with the premise that institutional investors that use proxy advisors are overly influenced by the research provided by them.

The reality is that we frequently disagree with the views of our proxy advisors. In 2020, we voted differently to the proxy advice provided in 12% of resolutions. And where we did agree, it was often for different reasons than those stated in the proxy advisor report. Ultimately, our voting is undertaken based on an assessment in the best interests of our clients.

Sharing recommendations with companies in advance may compromise independence 

The Treasury has suggested a number of changes, one is that proxy advisors should provide their report containing the research and voting recommendations to the relevant company before investors.

We do not agree with this approach.

Directing the distribution of independent research recommendations to issuers in advance of its release compromises the expectation that this research will be independent of the issuer. 

We also do not want to see undue costs and time delays added to the process of proxy advisors. Independent researchers should be able to rely on a company’s public documents and meetings with company executives, without any requirement to provide them with draft research in advance. 

Increased costs from additional regulation will impact returns for investors. Given the Government and regulator focus on affordable, low-cost superannuation, we are concerned about the increased costs of proxy regulation.

The ASX is already established as a forum to enable issuers to provide continuous disclosure to an informed equity market. A company can make an announcement on its website or via the ASX and does not require the proxy adviser to do so.

Proxy advisors are already well regulated

Proxy advisors are in a competitive industry. Our preferred advisors engage regularly with ASX-listed companies and include the issuer’s views on AGM proposals. We also value the fact that our Australian proxy advisor has an Australian Financial Services licence (AFSL) as it relates to providing credible insights regarding the company’s financial accounts and AGM resolutions.

What we expect is for ASIC to continue to regulate the proxy advisors such that if a proxy advisor is found to not show professional conduct or independent research, then in a manner similar to other regulated entities, the license to operate is reviewed and remediation actions are taken.

To require additional licensing would be regulatory overkill. The best analysis is driven by excellent financial research and each analysis of resolutions at AGMs or EGMs always contains opinion about the company’s historical or forward-looking financials.

We also note that the ASIC review of proxy adviser engagement practices in June 2018 was extensive, and concluded that:

“voting allows shareholders to express their views on important issues as well as hold the Board to account for the company’s performance”.

This is central to why we have our own investment team and access to multiple proxy advisors who can add valuable and independent insight.

Inertia and increased influence of company directors on proxy recommendations

Finally, one of our key issues with this consultation paper is that it is focussed on the wrong issues.

The extremely low 4-7% ‘Vote Against Management’ average by shareholders for ASX company resolutions[1] highlights that inertia, exacerbated by the shift to passive investment management, is a bigger issue than a so-called lack of transparency from proxy advisors.

Our challenge as an institutional investor is to hold boards and management to account. This can only be done via independent research and good financial accounting insight. In 2020, we voted against management in 12% of resolutions[2], well above the ASX historical average. Our team also conducts over 1,000 meetings with company management each year, and our long history of constructive engagement between our investors and management teams places us in a strong position to be proactive and effect change.

Our biggest concern is that the implementation of the Australian Treasury’s change could instead exacerbate influence of company directors on proxy recommendations, the reverse of the consultation paper’s objectives.

We do not want to see any change that increases the ability of company directors to prevent independent scrutiny of their governance practices and behaviours.

 

Will Baylis is a Portfolio Manager at Martin Currie Australia. Martin Currie is the manager for the Legg Mason Martin Equity Income Fund, also available as an Active ETF (Managed Fund) ASX:EINC. Martin Currie is a Franklin Templeton specialist investment manager, and Franklin Templeton is a sponsor of Firstlinks. This article is general information and does not consider the circumstances of any individual. Past performance is not a guide to future returns.

For more articles and papers from Franklin Templeton and specialist investment managers, please click here.

 

[1] Source: Martin Currie Australia, ASIC; as of 31 December 2020. Average against vote by resolution type by ASX 200 company shareholder, simple average of each type. 5% in 2016, 4% in 2017, 7% in 2018 (based on Figure 6 in ASIC REP 609 Annual general meeting season 2018.)

[2] Source: Martin Currie Australia. In 2020, for the 972 resolutions for stock holdings in portfolios managed by the Martin Currie Australia team, we voted against management in 116 resolutions.

 

RELATED ARTICLES

Why investment stewardship matters for long-term investors

Voting your shares: it’s worth the effort

Investor downside when management controls access to the board

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

Three steps to planning your spending in retirement

What happens when a superannuation expert sets up his own retirement portfolio using decades of knowledge? He finds he can afford much more investment risk in his portfolio than conventional thinking suggests.

Finding sustainable dividend stocks on the ASX

There is a small universe of companies on the ASX which are reliable dividend payers over five years, are fairly valued and are classified as ‘negligible’ or ‘low’ on both ESG risk and carbon risk.

Retirement income promise relies on spending capital

The Government has taken the next step towards encouraging retirees to live off their capital, and from 1 July 2022 will require super funds - even SMSFs - to address retirement income and protect longevity risk.

Among key trends in Australian banks, one factor stands out

The Big Four banks look similar but they are at fundamentally different stages as they move to simpler business models. Amid challenges from operating systems, loan growth and neobank threats, one factor stands tall.

Why mega-tech growth are the best ‘value’ stocks in the market

They are six of the greatest businesses ever and should form part of the global portfolios of all investors. The market sees risk in inflation and valuations but the companies are positioned for outstanding growth.

How inflation impacts different types of investments

A comprehensive study of the impact of inflation on returns from different assets over the past 120 years. The high returns in recent years are due to low inflation and falling rates but this ‘sweet spot’ is ending.

Latest Updates

Superannuation

Retirement income promise relies on spending capital

The Government has taken the next step towards encouraging retirees to live off their capital, and from 1 July 2022 will require super funds - even SMSFs - to address retirement income and protect longevity risk.

Superannuation

How retirees might find a retirement solution in future

Superannuation funds need to establish a framework that offers retirees a retirement income solution that lasts a lifetime. It will challenge trustees to find a way to engage that their members understand and trust.

Investment strategies

Dividend investors, your turn is coming

Dividend payments from listed companies, depended on by many in retirement, have lagged the rebound in share prices over the past year. Better times are ahead but sources of dividends will differ from previous years.

Investment strategies

Four tips to catch the next 10-bagger in early-stage growth

Small cap investors face less mature companies with zero profit that need significant capital for growth. Without years of financial data to rely on, investors must employ creative ways to value companies.

Investment strategies

Investing in Japan: ready for an Olympic revival?

All eyes are on Japan and the opportunity to win for competing athletes. After disappointing investors for many years, Japan is also in focus for its value, diversification and the safe haven status of its currency.

Fixed interest

Five lessons for bond investors from the Virgin collapse

The collapse of Virgin Australia not only hit shareholders, but their bond investors received between 9 and 13 cents in the $1. A widely-diversified portfolio can tolerate losses better than a concentrated one.

Investment strategies

The 60:40 portfolio ... if no longer appropriate, then what is?

The traditional 60/40 portfolio might deliver only 1.5% above inflation in future without diversification benefits. Knowing an asset’s attributes rather than arbitrary definitions is better for investors.

Retirement

Two factors that can transform retirement investing

Retirees want better returns but they have limited appetite to dial up their risk exposure in order to achieve it. Financial advice and protection strategies in portfolios can enhance investment outcomes.

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.