Comments on: ICI Study of Mutual Fund Votes http://proxydemocracy.wordpress.com/2008/07/24/ici-study-of-mutual-fund-votes/ Sat, 24 Oct 2009 18:59:33 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: proxdemoc http://proxydemocracy.wordpress.com/2008/07/24/ici-study-of-mutual-fund-votes/#comment-78 proxdemoc Tue, 26 Aug 2008 15:57:32 +0000 http://proxydemocracy.wordpress.com/?p=31#comment-78 Jackie, thanks for these points. Your map of filers in 2007 is great and useful for getting a different sense of the distribution of filings (and also the names of the big individual filers!). I agree with you that the sections looking at the identity of the filers were clearly designed to make shareholder resolutions seem suspect and frivolous. Jackie, thanks for these points. Your map of filers in 2007 is great and useful for getting a different sense of the distribution of filings (and also the names of the big individual filers!). I agree with you that the sections looking at the identity of the filers were clearly designed to make shareholder resolutions seem suspect and frivolous.

]]> By: Jackie Cook http://proxydemocracy.wordpress.com/2008/07/24/ici-study-of-mutual-fund-votes/#comment-77 Jackie Cook Wed, 20 Aug 2008 17:39:38 +0000 http://proxydemocracy.wordpress.com/?p=31#comment-77 I agree with each of the points you make and found your review of the report very interesting. The focus on the filers of shareholder sponsored resolutions seems a diversion from the main theme of the report, clearly aimed at undermining the relevance of shareholder-sponsored resolutions generally. There are a large number of filers: individuals, pension funds, unions, charitable organizations, faith-based organizations, asset managers and socially responsible investment funds (see: <a href='http://www.fundvotes.com/tagcloud.php?year=2007&tagtype=2&weight=1' rel="nofollow">Fund Votes' Filer Breakdown for 2007</a>. And each resolution has passed the SEC's criteria for inclusion on the proxy ballot. Some issues start small and within a few years are earning majority support and changing board practice for the better. Consider the 13 resolutions calling for majority support for director nominees in 2004, earning an average of 18 percent support from shareholders and bearly 7 of mutual fund votes, compared to 50 resolutions earning 53% support from shareholders in 2007 and 61% of the votes of mutual funds. Were United Brotherhood of Carpenters Pension Fund capturing the proxy process for their own interests in 2004 or promoting corporate governance best practice in the US? I agree with each of the points you make and found your review of the report very interesting.

The focus on the filers of shareholder sponsored resolutions seems a diversion from the main theme of the report, clearly aimed at undermining the relevance of shareholder-sponsored resolutions generally. There are a large number of filers: individuals, pension funds, unions, charitable organizations, faith-based organizations, asset managers and socially responsible investment funds (see: Fund Votes’ Filer Breakdown for 2007. And each resolution has passed the SEC’s criteria for inclusion on the proxy ballot. Some issues start small and within a few years are earning majority support and changing board practice for the better. Consider the 13 resolutions calling for majority support for director nominees in 2004, earning an average of 18 percent support from shareholders and bearly 7 of mutual fund votes, compared to 50 resolutions earning 53% support from shareholders in 2007 and 61% of the votes of mutual funds. Were United Brotherhood of Carpenters Pension Fund capturing the proxy process for their own interests in 2004 or promoting corporate governance best practice in the US?

]]>