30 September 2019



Poor retail voter turnout is often accepted as ‘the norm’ and put down to reasons such as lack of retail investor interest to lack of company engagement. While these factors may partly contribute to poor retail voting, there is one structural cause that is relatively unknown and therefore not addressed by companies, investors or regulators.

To understand the structural impediments to voting it’s worth first reflecting on who retail shareholders are and how they came to own shares.

According to a 2017 ASX/Deloitte Access Economics study¹ approximately 37% of Australian adults, or 6.9 million people, hold investments that are available through a financial exchange. And around 60% of all investors use some form of professional advice (financial planner, full-service stockbroker, accountant, and/or lawyer) to help them make investment decisions.

Advised investment by holding structure (Source: Deloitte Access Economics)

A recent analysis by FIRST Advisers’ shareholder engagement team found that, contrary to expectation, it was this latter group (retail investors who use some form of professional advice) who were the laggards when it came to voting.

So what is going on here? Surely, if you are a well-advised and a relatively wealthy investor, you are going to care about your investment and vote, right?

Unfortunately, it is not as simple as retail disinterest impacting a desire to vote. There are structural problems with the way retail investor portfolios, that are not directly held, are managed and around half of all advised investment is not held directly. This means that, like Institutional Investors, the registered holder of almost 50% of all retail shares is a:

  • Custodian,
  • broker or platform account,
  • other financial intermediary (such as an outsourced SMSF administrator),
  • company, or
  • some or all of the above.

While institutional shareholders have evolved mechanisms to vote through these holding structures, at the retail level, this is not the case and the financial incentives of advisers and registered holder (custodians), are not designed to facilitate retail investor voting.

On the one hand the registered holder or administrator of the shares is incentivized to focus on efficiency and minimizing cost while the financial adviser remains focused on investment returns and risk.

When this structure is applied to retail voting, the financial conflict becomes apparent. While voting is arguably a valuable right that contributes to long term wealth creation, it is neither in the custodian’s nor advisers’ immediate financial interests to facilitate their clients’ voting or to care about ESG matters. And often they both pass  the buck to  the other as the party responsible for facilitating voting.

But where does this passing off of responsibility take us when both custodian and adviser are part of the same financial intermediary? Surely fault cannot be laid upon the investor or company, when the investor was never made aware of a vote, nor advised how to vote.

For example, in a recent solicitation campaign, FIRST Advisers found that approximately 9.94% of the listed entity’s securities were held by retail investors and registered in the accounts of a large investment bank’s custodian. Under the custodial agreements, despite the significant and potential deciding influence of their retail clients’ votes, the custodian was not required to, and did not, send a single Proxy form or Notice of Meeting to any of their retail clients, (other than to a retail investor who was also a member of the C-suite of the company that was subject of the vote and individuals who had a holding in excess of 5% of the issued shares). Further, that custodian had no facility online or offline to enable their clients to directly participate in the vote.

In this circumstance, it was up to each retail investor to engage with their financial adviser, about a meeting they were never told about by their custodian. They then had to get their adviser to facilitate their vote, something for which the adviser received zero remuneration. After all of this, the custodian still said that they would not vote any shares for the retail clients, despite the custodian being a substantial registered holder collectively.

Needless to say, voting turnout from this large retail group was nil.

And unfortunately, this situation is not restricted to just that financial institution, or that listed entity. We see it replicated across almost all entities in the ASX All Ordinaries Index, and is the one of the major drivers of low retail voter turnout.

It could be argued that in these circumstances, financial advisers are poorly servicing their clients. However, when we see this pattern occur broadly across the market, it becomes clear there is a structural deficiency in the market itself. And it is a deficiency that retail investor intermediaries are not financially incentivized to care about, and one the regulator appears not to be aware of or not to appreciate how much it impacts investors or their investee companies.

So the lesson from this situation is two-fold.

Firstly, financial intermediaries can do a much better job at assisting their clients to vote. Buck passing helps no-one. And if there is structural reform required, perhaps now (in the Post-Hayne era) is the ideal time for the regulator to do more.

And secondly, for the listed entity, merely communicating with shareholders in the minimum fashion will likely mean you are not communicating at all with a large segment of your retail shareholder base. Starting early to better understand the composition, identity and structure of your retail shareholder base through analytics will place you in a position to bypass the structural impediments between you and your shareholders.

[1]  https://www.asx.com.au/education/2017-asx-investor-study.htm

4 June 2019

Time for Proxy Advisors

GILES RAFFERTY, Corporate Communications and Media Advisor AGM season may seem a long way off for many ASX listed companies but June and July are prime time for engaging with proxy advisors in advance of the peak months of proxy season, between August and October. Proxy advisors play a vital role in helping inform investment […]

Read More
31 January 2019

The importance of being purposeful

A well understood and expressed corporate purpose drives long term value. This is why purpose, as a driver of profitability, was a central theme of the 2019 letter from Larry Fink, CEO of Blackrock, the world’s largest investment manager, to the Board’s and senior managers of companies Blackrock has holdings in. It has also been the […]

Read More
2 October 2018

Make AGMs great again!

Giles Rafferty, Corporate Communications Annual General Meetings (AGMs) have to happen, it’s the law.  Consequently, the AGM is a regular fixture in a listed company’s financial calendar when the Board can be sure stakeholders are looking their way. This also makes the AGM a valuable communication moment. There are, of course, a number of necessary […]

Read More
3 September 2018

Deal Flow – Retail Investors Have a Point of View

Victoria Geddes, Executive Director Post results reporting season is a time when investment banks start engaging their clients, in advance of the year’s end, to get mergers, spin-offs and takeovers off and running. Witness the recent TPG and Vodafone merger as well as the Coles spin-off from Wesfarmers. The merits of engaging in Proxy Solicitation […]

Read More
5 April 2018

Engaging Retail investors – work smarter not harder

It is generally accepted, at least in the Australian equity market, that Retail Investors play an important role in the construction of a balanced shareholder register. The characteristics that make them attractive are that they generally invest for the long term, are volatility averse and focus on a company’s fundamentals. However these traits can also […]

Read More
3 July 2017

How to Engage with Passive Investors this Reporting Season

David Whittaker, Senior Investor Relations Adviser The growth in passive investing is one of the biggest shifts occurring in global capital markets. Passive funds now hold as much as 40% of total US equity market assets, up from around 20% a decade ago*. However, very few companies are adjusting their IR strategy to take account […]

Read More
9 June 2017

What content should I have on my IR Website?

NIRI Annual Conference 2017 Ben Rebbeck, Executive Director At FIRST Advisers we are often asked to assess the content of our clients’ Investor Relations websites for the appropriateness of its content and structure and assist them implement or rebuild their IR websites. The overriding imperative is to ensure the IR website meets the information needs of […]

Read More
9 May 2017

When to Publish the Annual Report – A New Benchmark is Emerging

VICTORIA GEDDES, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Ten years ago I can remember marvelling at those companies that managed to get it together and release their full, glossy annual report on the same day as reporting their full year results. You could count them on the fingers of one hand. More commonly, three to four months after the […]

Read More