Industry funds flex investor muscle on bank bonuses

19 December 2018
| By Mike |
image
image
expand image

The major industry superannuation funds who are members of the Australian Council of Superannuation Investors (ACSI) have used their voting power in delivering first strikes to the remuneration reports of both National Australia Bank and ANZ.

The industry funds are also considering whether the rules around bank executive remuneration should be changed to ensure the views of investors were implemented before bonuses were actually paid.

ACSI chief executive, Louise Davidson issued a statement today stating investors had sent a strong message to the boards of the two banks which had joined Westpac in receiving first strikes against their remuneration reports.

She noted that investors in NAB had registered the highest-ever vote against a remuneration report, with more than 88 per cent of shareholders voting to oppose the report.

“The unprecedented size of the vote against the NAB remuneration report reflects the fact that investors take issue with the payment of executive bonuses in a year when the Royal Commission highlighted systemic breaches of the law and mistreatment of customers within the banks,” she said.

Davidson said ACSI had been expressing concern for some time about the NAB’s new incentive structure and welcomed the decision announced by the Chair Ken Henry to rethink the scheme.  

“However, it was the decision of the board to award such significant bonuses to the executive team that led to such a strong vote against the report,” she said. “Reducing short-term bonuses, rather than zeroing them, was a hollow gesture and failed to meet investor and community expectations about accountability.”

Davidson noted that ACSI supported the ‘two-strikes’ rule on remuneration but noted that it placed shareholders in a position of only being able to express a view on bonuses that had already been paid.

“Perhaps the time has come to consider whether shareholders should have a greater opportunity to prevent outcomes like this, through the introduction of a binding vote on pay.  For example, companies in the UK must give shareholders a binding vote on pay policy, and may not make any payments that are outside of that policy.”  

AUTHOR

 

Recommended for you

 

MARKET INSIGHTS

sub-bg sidebar subscription

Never miss the latest news and developments in wealth management industry

Squeaky'21

My view is that after 2026 there will be quite a bit less than 10,000 'advisers' (investment advisers) and less than 100...

5 days 22 hours ago
Jason Warlond

Dugald makes a great point that not everyone's definition of green is the same and gives a good example. Funds have bee...

5 days 23 hours ago
Jasmin Jakupovic

How did they get the AFSL in the first place? Given the green light by ASIC. This is terrible example of ASIC's incompet...

6 days 22 hours ago

AustralianSuper and Australian Retirement Trust have posted the financial results for the 2022–23 financial year for their combined 5.3 million members....

9 months 1 week ago

A $34 billion fund has come out on top with a 13.3 per cent return in the last 12 months, beating out mega funds like Australian Retirement Trust and Aware Super. ...

9 months ago

The verdict in the class action case against AMP Financial Planning has been delivered in the Federal Court by Justice Moshinsky....

9 months 1 week ago

TOP PERFORMING FUNDS

ACS FIXED INT - AUSTRALIA/GLOBAL BOND