The Australian Council of Superannuation Investors (ACSI) will individually scrutinise remuneration reports from companies that face a 'second strike' this annual general meeting season and assess them based on merit - regardless of whether the outcome causes a board spill resolution.
Any spill resolution would also be considered on its merits, although ACSI would not adopt a fixed policy to support or oppose spill resolutions, it said.
"But nor will we be holding back from recommending a strong protest vote where circumstances require," ACSI chief executive Ann Byrne said.
Twelve companies from the S&P/ASX200 are on their second strike under the Australian Securities and Investments Commission's two-strike rule and should "expect to cop the consequences if they ignore their shareholders' legitimate interests," Byrne said.
She named BlueScope Steel and Pacific Brands as concrete board responses to shareholder concerns.
ACSI said that although a number of chief executives had refused annual bonuses this year due to underperformance, the bonus should not have been put on the table to begin with.
"When there is underperformance, investors question why bonuses were available for CEOs to forego in the first place," ACSI chief executive Ann Byrne said.
In light of the Australian Securities and Investment Commission's two strike rule, ACSI said it expected to see an improvement on last year's statutory requirements to disclose detailed summaries of performance-based remuneration - a statutory requirement that only 21 per cent of the S&P/ASX50 performed during the 2011 AGM season, according to ACSI.
Jim Chalmers has defended changes to the Future Fund’s mandate, referring to himself as a “big supporter” of the sovereign wealth fund, amid fierce opposition from the Coalition, which has pledged to reverse any changes if it wins next year’s election.
In a new review of the country’s largest fund, a research house says it’s well placed to deliver attractive returns despite challenges.
Chant West analysis suggests super could be well placed to deliver a double-digit result by the end of the calendar year.
Specific valuation decisions made by the $88 billion fund at the beginning of the pandemic were “not adequate for the deteriorating market conditions”, according to the prudential regulator.