Asset managers have come under fire from a report by ShareAction found asset managers were likely to vote with company management rather than provide a neutral perspective at annual meetings.
An article in the «Financial Times», said the report by ShareAction was based on an analysis of voting records during 2018. The records revealed that in the instance of a controversial vote – involving compensation, for example – asset managers sided with company management in apparent disregard for whether the resolution was in the best interests of the business, or indeed, the asset manager’s shareholders.
U.S.-Aussie fund manager Janus Henderson and U.K. manager Jupiter were both found wanting for failing to provide a natural counter to the decisions made by those with the most vested interest in them - the company’s management.
Twenty Resolutions
The report focussed specifically on managers who marketed themselves as environmental, social and governance (ESG) managers and found that these claims, asset managers either did not participate or did not disclose their votes in twenty resolutions that were controversial and had bearing on ESG.
In particular, Janus Henderson sided with management in twelve such resolutions, voting against in only six. Its support extended to signing off on a pay package for Jeff Fairburn, then chief executive of Persimonn who had already received a 75 million pounds bonus.
