The Australian Council of Superannuation Investors (ACSI) has requested the Australian Securities Exchange (ASX) Rights Issues Modernisation Proposal include disclosure on boards' rationales for the choice of one capital raising mechanism over another.
It wanted particular attention paid to pro-rata mechanisms in order to level the playing field and enhance the take up of pro-rata raisings such as renounceable rights issues and benefit members across the board, ACSI said in its submission to the ASX.
But the council did support the ASX's proposal to reduce the timetable for rights issues from the current standard of approximately 26 days to 16 days.
It said, in principle, ACSI supported working to reduce the timeframe further upon consultation around details including the mooted introduction of a retrospective record date to determine eligibility to participate in rights issues.
ACSI said reducing the time it takes to implement a rights issue aligned with its policy to protect the pre-emptive rights of existing shareholders.
Rights issues would become more attractive to companies who would also be able to undertake renounceable rights issues, according to ACSI, which said underwriting and management fees should also decrease with the introduction of the standards.
"We also look forward to further productive discussions with the ASX on broader aspects of Australia's capital raising system, where we believe that even more improvements can be made," ACSI chief executive Ann Byrne said.
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.