Proxy Voting Services

General
1

Hi - does anyone actively track/vote on eVoting for company matters ?

Here is what I found

  1. Most of the oppositition is to compensation of MD/CEO. Its really strange that people vote against a 5 crore package for a CEO who is a Wharton MBA and son of promoter. Just because they can - though the resolution got passed.
  2. Maximum opposition is on reappointment of non-exec directors
  3. Lot of related party transactions get flagged. For example - LT Foods promoter trying to get remuneration from subsidiary got voted down by 98%.
  4. Some auditor appointment gets objected to

This along with credit rating is a gold mine for research apart from tools like Tijori/Screener.

3 Likes
2

There are 3 proxy voting advisors/providers.

  • InGovern (founded mid-2010)
  • Stakeholders’ Empowerment Services (SES)
  • Institutional Investors Advisory Service (IIAS)

They seem to track top 500-1000 companies in general.

3

I do track it, yes. The pattern you’re observing is typical: promoter-linked remuneration and RPTs face quick opposition, but investors don’t mind high compensation if performance warrants it. Because they frequently come before accounting problems, auditor objections are also worth keeping an eye on.

4

So I realized that there are votings not only for companies but industry associations, housing societies etc also on CDSL, NSDL, LinkinTime, KFintech etc - there is so much of content in public domain that people hardly ever look at.

1 Like
5

or mutual funds in India, it is now mandatory to vote on all resolutions of investee companies and to disclose these votes to unitholders in prescribed formats. For AIFs, SEBI’s stewardship code requires a clear voting policy and disclosure of voting activity, but the exact manner and frequency of disclosure can differ by fund and is typically set out in the fund’s own voting policy.​

Mutual funds (MFs)

  • SEBI’s Master Circular for Mutual Funds (most recently updated in June 2024) requires all mutual funds, including passive schemes, to compulsorily cast votes on resolutions of their investee companies.​
  • AMCs must disclose, on their websites and in annual reports, how each scheme voted, along with the rationale, in specified spreadsheet formats and within defined timelines (for example, quarterly disclosures within 10 working days of quarter-end).​

So your understanding is correct for MFs: voting is mandatory and the voting details must be disclosed to unitholders.

Alternative Investment Funds (AIFs)

  • SEBI has extended the Stewardship Code to all categories of AIFs with listed equity investments, which includes a principle on having a clear voting policy and disclosing voting decisions and use of proxy advisors.​
  • In practice, AIF voting policies state that the fund will send its general voting policy with the annual report and disclose actual proxy votes and summaries of votes cast (for, against, abstain) to investors, typically in the annual report and sometimes on the website.​

So, while both MFs and AIFs are expected to exercise voting rights in the interest of investors and to disclose those votes, the mutual fund requirements are more prescriptive (mandatory voting on all resolutions and standardised public disclosures), whereas AIF disclosure mechanics are more policy-driven within the SEBI stewardship framework

6

Guideline - Draft.pdf (120.1 KB)

These are the general guidelines on voting. Collected from various sources and references.

1 Like