SEC Proposed Rule:
Disclosure of Proxy Voting Policies and Proxy Voting Records by Registered Management Investment Companies
and
Proxy Voting by Investment Advisers
[Release Nos. 33-8131, 34-46518, IC-25739; File No. S7-36-02] File No. S7-36-02]
and
[Release No. IA-2059; File No. S7-38-02]
The following information on Type Letter B, or variation thereof, was submitted by
143 individuals.
Subject: Proxy Voting
Form Type Letter B:
Re: File Numbers S7-36-02 and
S7-38-02
Mr. Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary
Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street NW,
Washington, DC 20549-0609
Dear Secretary Katz:
I am writing in support of the
Security and Exchange Commission's recently proposed rules regarding proxy
voting guidelines and vote disclosure by mutual funds and investment advisers,
File Numbers S7-36-02 and S7-38-02. I congratulate the agency for instituting
meaningful disclosure that will surely bolster confidence in the equity
markets, and strongly support the recommendations set forth in these proposed
rules.
The rules are a major step forward
in providing greater transparency to investors whose proxy assets are held
in mutual funds or entrusted to investment advisers. The SEC is making a
clear statement that proxy voting is a fiduciary duty and should be exercised
with the best interests of fund holders in mind. This is consistent with
the fiduciary standard already applied to private pension plans under the
1974 Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).
Mutual funds and advisers have
enormous potential to shape corporate governance and social policies at
portfolio companies. Yet since the 1970s, fund participants and regulators
have noted a tendency among mutual funds and advisers to automatically vote
with management, wondering whether this tendency was influenced in part
by a desire to win profitable 401(k) and other business from companies where
proxies are being cast. It is time this potential conflict of interest was
eliminated.
Greater disclosure of proxy-voting
policies and practices would pressure fund managers and advisers to refrain
from unilateral rubberstamping of management's decisions, and would provide
investors additional tools to distinguish among funds in the market. Indeed,
the proposed rules would not only help investors identify those funds and
advisers that carefully examine proxy proposals before voting on them, but
also those who emphasize strong corporate governance or high standards of
corporate social responsibility. The amendments would also allow for fund
owners to be alerted when fund managers vote counter to established voting
guidelines, and in essence, would pressure mutual funds and investment advisers
to take seriously their voting duties.
In 1999, Domini Social Investments,
manager of the Domini Social Equity Fund, became the first mutual fund in
America to begin posting its proxy votes and guidelines on its web site.
(That same year, the California Public Employees Retirement System, the
largest public pension fund in the world, also began posting its votes and
guidelines.) Since then, several dozen mutual funds, advisers, and other
institutional investors have instituted such disclosures--through posting
their votes or articulating detailed voting policies on their web sites.
It is time such disclosure be made by every mutual fund and investment adviser
whose fiduciary duties include the voting of proxies on behalf of their
investors.
Engaged proxy voting helps bring
increased managerial accountability and social responsibility to many companies,
and there is mounting academic evidence that progress on social, environmental,
and corporate governance issues is linked to positive, long-term corporate
performance. When all mutual funds and investment advisers reveal how they
cast proxy votes, enabling shareholders to know what is being done in their
name, we can expect corporate governance and accountability to greatly improve.
Thank you for the opportunity
to comment on the proposed rules.
Sincerely,
http://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed/s73602/s73602s73802ltrb.htm