Voting FAQ

The voting statistics graph shows the distribution of votes cast by ATP, based on the direction of the vote cast.

The vast majority of votes are either cast for or against proposals.

The “did not vote” outcome is a result of proxy contests in selected companies. During a proxy contest a shareholder proposes an alternative ballot for voting. Typically, the majority of the proposals on the ballots are identical, with only a few proposals being contentious. However, as a shareholder ATP is only allowed to vote on one of the ballots, meaning that for the other ballot, we are required to not vote. In principle, the “did not vote” column also covers actual unvoted ballots, but ATP votes all meetings, so there are no actual unvoted ballots.

“One year” refers to votes on say-on-pay frequency in the US. ATP votes for “one year” instead of every other or third year, because we believe that shareholders should be able to vote on pay packages every year. 

This figure shows the percentage of proposals where ATP votes in the same direction as management. 

The left-hand figure shows the distribution of proposals sponsored by management on subject areas. The columns represent the absolute number of proposals in the specific categories. The right-hand side shows similar statistics for the distribution of proposals sponsored by shareholders.

The map shows where the meetings ATP have voted on are held. The meetings are held in the country where the companies are incorporated. 

The chart shows what sort of meetings have been held during the year. It is naturally predominantly annual general meetings, but there are also special meetings, combined meetings, and meetings with proxy contests. 

The meetings by sector figure shows the distribution of meetings based on the company sectors. Note that the distribution is based on the number of meetings and not exposure. So, while 10% of the meetings may be in the Information Technology (IT) sector, this does not necessarily equate to 10% of ATP’s public equity exposure being in IT. This would only be the case if all positions across the portfolio where of equivalent nominal size.

Rationales for voting against management are included where applicable. Note that the rationales are to be interpreted as guidance to the reason behind ATP’s votes. They are meant as quick references and selected from a library of rationales. The library deals with the most common rationales, so any individual ballots may contain points not explained in the rationale.

If you have any questions regarding ATP’s proxy voting or the vote disclosure site please contact:
cgf-esg@atp.dk.