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

The danger in Labor's new franking credit proposal

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

Where Baby Boomer wealth will end up

By 2028, all Baby Boomers will be eligible for retirement and the Baby Boomer bubble will have all but deflated. Where will this generation's money end up, and what are the implications for the wealth management industry?

Are term deposits attractive right now?

If you’re like me, you may have put money into term deposits over the past year and it’s time to decide whether to roll them over or look elsewhere. Here are the pros and cons of cash versus other assets right now.

Uncomfortable truths: The real cost of living in retirement

How useful are the retirement savings and spending targets put out by various groups such as ASFA? Not very, and it's reducing the ability of ordinary retirees to fully understand their retirement income options.

How retiree spending plummets as we age

There's been little debate on how spending changes as people progress through retirement. Yet, it's a critical issue as it can have a significant impact on the level of savings required at the point of retirement.

Meg on SMSFs: $3 million super tax coming whether we’re ready or not

A Senate Committee reported back last week with a majority recommendation to pass the $3 million super tax unaltered. It seems that the tax is coming, and this is what those affected should be doing now to prepare for it.

How much do you need to retire comfortably?

Two commonly asked questions are: 'How much do I need to retire' and 'How much can I afford to spend in retirement'? This is a guide to help you come up with your own numbers to suit your goals and needs.

Latest Updates

Economy

Is 'The Great Australian Dream' a sham?

Peter Dutton has made housing a key issue for the next election, pledging to “restore the Australian dream” of home ownership. It got me thinking about what this dream represents, how it originated, and whether it’s still relevant today.

Superannuation

Clime time: Taxing unrealised capital gains – is there a better idea?

The efficacy and fairness of establishing an unrealised gains tax regime will hopefully be hotly debated at the next election. We need better ideas on how to use the strategic and unique benefits of our massive super funds.

Retirement

How long will you live?

We are often quoted life expectancy at birth but what matters most is how long we should live as we grow older. It is surprising how short this can be for people born last century, so make the most of it.

Investment strategies

What poker can teach us about investing

So-called ‘resulting’ is what poker players call the tendency to judge a decision based on its outcome rather than its quality. It's something that happens a lot in investing, though should be avoided at all costs.

Latest from Morningstar

Should you buy and hold an Artificial Intelligence portfolio?

For those with the patience to own an investment as volatile as the AI sector, buying and holding a stock basket might make sense. However, based on internet stocks’ history, you need not rush to do so.

Strategy

The bull market in commodities may be just starting

The world is entering a higher cost environment which will hit the profits of companies in many sectors. A key beneficiary will be commodities, where supply shortages are meeting increasing demand from AI and green energy.

Shares

The challenges facing electric vehicles

Slowing demand and profit warnings from the EV manufacturers has seen analysts revise down their EV penetration forecasts. What's behind the slowdown, and are the issues a blip or something more serious?

Sponsors

Alliances

© 2024 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. To the extent any content is general advice, it has been prepared for clients of Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892), without reference to your financial objectives, situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide. 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.