"Vanguard fund shareholders encouraged to vote as proxy campaign gets under way."

Discuss all general (i.e. non-personal) investing questions and issues, investing news, and theory.
spookyfudge
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2017 1:15 pm

Re: "Vanguard fund shareholders encouraged to vote as proxy campaign gets under way."

Post by spookyfudge » Sat Aug 19, 2017 5:07 am

Prop 7 has nothing to do with investing. If you dont want to invest in companies that dont conform to your ideals, then sell the fund. I am voting NO to prop 7 and I am concerned it even got on the proxy. This type of question makes me question Vangaurd fund managers.

Angelus359
Posts: 755
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 12:56 am

Re: "Vanguard fund shareholders encouraged to vote as proxy campaign gets under way."

Post by Angelus359 » Sat Aug 19, 2017 5:38 am

Is there a fund that exclusively buys nasty evil companies that do crimes against humanity, and then generates shareholder votes towards positive goals?

You don't fix evil by avoiding it. You fix evil by addressing it.
IT-DevOps System Administrator

AlohaJoe
Posts: 2553
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 2:00 pm
Location: Saigon, Vietnam

Re: "Vanguard fund shareholders encouraged to vote as proxy campaign gets under way."

Post by AlohaJoe » Sat Aug 19, 2017 5:56 am

Dead Man Walking wrote:
Sat Aug 19, 2017 12:08 am
What exactly are crimes against humanity?

[...]
My point is that this is an extremely slippery slope.
I read Article 7(1) of the Rome Statute. I'm not seeing the slippery slope that you're so afraid of.
For the purpose of this Statute, "crime against humanity" means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:
(a) Murder;
(b) Extermination;
(c) Enslavement;
(d) Deportation or forcible transfer of population;
(e) Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law;
(f) Torture;
(g) Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity;
(h) Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court;
(i) Enforced disappearance of persons;
(j) The crime of apartheid;
(k) Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health;
Your example doesn't count as a crime against humanity. Pretty open and shut.

student
Posts: 1329
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2015 6:58 am

Re: "Vanguard fund shareholders encouraged to vote as proxy campaign gets under way."

Post by student » Sat Aug 19, 2017 7:02 am

I voted as per Vanguard's funds board of trustees' recommendation.

selters
Posts: 441
Joined: Thu Feb 27, 2014 9:26 am

Re: "Vanguard fund shareholders encouraged to vote as proxy campaign gets under way."

Post by selters » Sat Aug 19, 2017 7:36 am

AlohaJoe wrote:
Sat Aug 19, 2017 5:56 am
Dead Man Walking wrote:
Sat Aug 19, 2017 12:08 am
What exactly are crimes against humanity?

[...]
My point is that this is an extremely slippery slope.
I read Article 7(1) of the Rome Statute. I'm not seeing the slippery slope that you're so afraid of.

Your example doesn't count as a crime against humanity. Pretty open and shut.
I'm sure crime against humanity has a legal definition. But what makes you think proponents of ethical filters in index funds will be content with excluding only companies that allegedly contribute to crimes against humanity?

For example, quite a few European index fund providers have adopted the ethical guidelines of the $900 billion Norwegian Government Pension Fund, which exclude almost 200 of the 2300 companies that MSCI classify as large caps, including household names such as Boeing and Walmart. The cumulative underperformance of these funds since 2002 has been about 200 basis points before costs.

aristotelian
Posts: 3005
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 8:05 pm

Re: "Vanguard fund shareholders encouraged to vote as proxy campaign gets under way."

Post by aristotelian » Sat Aug 19, 2017 8:36 am

I was surprised to see this on the ballot as well. I am personally sympathetic to the goals but I do not like the idea of any groups of investors enforcing their norms on all of Vanguard investors. Existing indices should be sufficient for investors who wish to select for their personal values.

User avatar
rustymutt
Posts: 3645
Joined: Sat Mar 07, 2009 12:03 pm
Location: Oklahoma

Re: "Vanguard fund shareholders encouraged to vote as proxy campaign gets under way."

Post by rustymutt » Sat Aug 19, 2017 9:17 am

Yeah, I voted my proxies yesterday and received a thank you email for doing so.
Knowledge is knowing that the Tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is knowing better than to put the tomato in a fruit salad.

User avatar
rustymutt
Posts: 3645
Joined: Sat Mar 07, 2009 12:03 pm
Location: Oklahoma

Re: "Vanguard fund shareholders encouraged to vote as proxy campaign gets under way."

Post by rustymutt » Sat Aug 19, 2017 9:18 am

Angelus359 wrote:
Sat Aug 19, 2017 5:38 am
Is there a fund that exclusively buys nasty evil companies that do crimes against humanity, and then generates shareholder votes towards positive goals?

You don't fix evil by avoiding it. You fix evil by addressing it.

Amen!
Knowledge is knowing that the Tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is knowing better than to put the tomato in a fruit salad.

Nate79
Posts: 1346
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2016 6:24 pm
Location: Portland, OR

Re: "Vanguard fund shareholders encouraged to vote as proxy campaign gets under way."

Post by Nate79 » Sat Aug 19, 2017 10:28 am

Fix the index, not the index fund. Their beef is with the wrong company. They should address this with the companies that create the indexes.

jcerickson
Posts: 21
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2016 11:08 am

Re: "Vanguard fund shareholders encouraged to vote as proxy campaign gets under way."

Post by jcerickson » Sat Aug 19, 2017 12:49 pm

Random Poster wrote:
Fri Aug 18, 2017 7:20 pm
As a passive investor, I'm conflicted about being asked to actively vote.
:D

User avatar
arcticpineapplecorp.
Posts: 2300
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2012 9:22 pm

Re: "Vanguard fund shareholders encouraged to vote as proxy campaign gets under way."

Post by arcticpineapplecorp. » Sat Aug 19, 2017 3:43 pm

selters wrote:
Wed Aug 16, 2017 4:33 pm
Engineer250 wrote:
Wed Aug 16, 2017 4:08 pm
I agree they should be following the index.

But I am a bit dismayed opposing genocide is "political" or something to do with being "politically correct" rather than basic human rights. :|

I don't think anyone is "for" genocidal activities,
but the framing of the question is dishonest and manipulative if you ask shareholders "do you want to fund companies' engagements in genocidal activities?"
I'm pretty sure those committing genocide and other attrocities against humanity are in fact "for" such activities.
"Invest we must." -- Jack Bogle | “The purpose of investing is not to simply optimise returns and make yourself rich. The purpose is not to die poor.” -- William Bernstein

User avatar
triceratop
Moderator
Posts: 3615
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2015 8:20 pm
Location: la la land

Re: "Vanguard fund shareholders encouraged to vote as proxy campaign gets under way."

Post by triceratop » Sat Aug 19, 2017 4:11 pm

spookyfudge wrote:
Sat Aug 19, 2017 5:07 am
Prop 7 has nothing to do with investing. If you dont want to invest in companies that dont conform to your ideals, then sell the fund. I am voting NO to prop 7 and I am concerned it even got on the proxy. This type of question makes me question Vangaurd fund managers.
Why would it make you question the fund managers? Surely they had no role in suggesting it. Vanguard recommends voting against it. A curious group of people to blame, in my view.
"To play the stock market is to play musical chairs under the chord progression of a bid-ask spread."

stvyreb
Posts: 22
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2016 8:57 pm

Re: "Vanguard fund shareholders encouraged to vote as proxy campaign gets under way."

Post by stvyreb » Sat Aug 19, 2017 4:57 pm

Nutmeg wrote:
Fri Aug 18, 2017 4:39 pm
Can someone please provide an example of a listed U.S. corporation that contributes to genocide or crimes against humanity?
Most of the big "US" corporations, are now "multinationals", I'd venture to guess.

I read through all the posts here, and I don't feel any closer to any facts or research or science on voting for anything. I like to see pros and cons and other case references, say where this has been done, and had intended effects or not, not just random opinions. Not dismiliar to our our local elections, in California, there used to be a pros/cons handout, so one was making an somewhat informed decision. Sad IMHO. Can't vote on anything without information, that's my objection.

I'm afraid this whole thread is too close, to being illegal on BH, but the "US" has done plenty towards "genocide" in this world, again IMHO, (and this will be my only post).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Saro- ... utch_Shell
https://www.earthrights.org/legal/alien-tort-statute

I would agree, that 'the devil is in the details' , and again, who will be writing up the rules, on implementation , etc ..... Long ago I had a 'social fund', but I don't know if this is moving that direction, or a one off thing like 'divestment in apartheid' , which apparently Did have some effect.

pkcrafter
Posts: 12098
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 12:19 pm
Location: CA
Contact:

Re: "Vanguard fund shareholders encouraged to vote as proxy campaign gets under way."

Post by pkcrafter » Sat Aug 19, 2017 5:10 pm

BD w/ Kung-Fu Grip wrote:
Wed Aug 16, 2017 7:51 am
user76586 wrote:
Tue Aug 15, 2017 5:04 pm
And finally, how exactly did this get proposed? If it's Vanguard, I find it disturbing that they want to inject politics into their investment decisions.
From the look of it, any shareholder can propose pretty much anything. I wrote to the secretary requesting details on the proponents (the letter says they will provide names and shareholdings). I'm interested to see if this is a drive-by; that is, someone who bought a few shares solely for the purpose of proposing this idea.
Yes, how did this ever get into the proposal????

There are a lot of funds that would be modified. If Vanguard wants to offer another socially responsible fund, that is fine, but to change all of these funds? Ridiculous! They currently offer Vanguard FTSE Social Index Fund
This proposal applies to the following Vanguard funds: 500 Index Fund;
Capital Opportunity Fund; Developed Markets Index Fund; Dividend
Appreciation Index Fund; Emerging Markets Stock Index Fund; Energy
Fund; Energy Index Fund; Equity Income Fund; European Stock Index Fund;
Extended Market Index Fund; FTSE All-World ex-US Index Fund; FTSE
Social Index Fund; Global Equity Fund; GNMA Fund; Growth Index Fund;
Health Care Fund; Inflation-Protected Securities Fund; Institutional Index
Fund; Intermediate-Term Bond Index Fund; Intermediate-Term Treasury
Fund; International Explorer Fund; International Growth Fund; International
Value Fund; LifeStrategy Moderate Growth Fund; Long-Term Treasury Fund;
Mid-Cap Index Fund; Mid-Cap Value Index Fund; Morgan Growth Fund;
Municipal Money Market Fund; Pacific Stock Index Fund; Precious Metals
and Mining Fund; Prime Money Market Fund; REIT Index Fund; Short-Term
Bond Index Fund; Short-Term Tax-Exempt Fund; Short-Term Treasury Fund;
Small-Cap Growth Index Fund; Small-Cap Index Fund; Small-Cap Value
Index Fund; STAR Fund; Tax-Managed Small-Cap Fund; Total Bond Market
Index Fund; Total International Stock Index Fund; Total Stock Market Index
Fund; Value Index Fund; Balanced Portfolio of the Vanguard Variable
Insurance Fund; Wellington Fund; Windsor Fund; and Windsor II Fund
If this were passed, it would ruin Vanguard, and I suspect that is exactly the reason it was proposed. Probably proposed by a group of unhappy active managers. :confused
When times are good, investors tend to forget about risk and focus on opportunity. When times are bad, investors tend to forget about opportunity and focus on risk.

TIAX
Posts: 851
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 12:19 pm

Re: "Vanguard fund shareholders encouraged to vote as proxy campaign gets under way."

Post by TIAX » Sat Aug 19, 2017 5:12 pm

Here is Vanguard's recommendation AGAINST proposal 7:
The trustees’ response to the shareholder proposal and recommendation
The trustees of the Funds recommend that you vote against this proposal.
While the humanitarian issues on which this proposal is ultimately focused are
of consequence and deep concern, meaningful long-term solutions to these
issues require diplomatic and political resources to come together to implement
change. Importantly, your Funds are compliant with all applicable U.S. laws
on this matter. In addition, the proposal would interfere with the advisors’
fiduciary duty to manage your Funds in line with their investment objectives
and strategies. Finally, we believe that the divestment contemplated by the
proposal would be an ineffective means to implement the social change
it seeks.

Vanguard is fully compliant with all applicable U.S. laws and regulations.
The United States government, through its policymakers, has established
a clear legal framework wherein investments in companies that are owned or
controlled by the government of Sudan, among other countries, are prohibited.
The proposal does not take into account that the Funds are compliant with
these laws.

As an investment firm with a very large client base, Vanguard is periodically
asked by clients to modify our investments for a variety of reasons—from
environmental and social issues to humanitarian and political concerns. We
simply cannot manage the Funds in an effective manner that would address
all of these issues as well as, or better than, policymakers while fulfilling our
fiduciary obligation to shareholders.

The addition of further investment constraints is not in Fund
shareholders’ best interests.

Placing additional and specifically prescriptive constraints on a portfolio
manager’s investable universe, based on factors unrelated to a Fund’s stated
investment objective and/or investment strategies, could interfere with the
Fund’s obligation to its investors. Each of the Vanguard funds is required to
invest shareholders’ assets pursuant to a given fund’s stated objective. In the
case of actively managed funds, which seek to provide varying degrees of
current income and/or long-term capital appreciation, they are managed in
adherence to tightly prescribed parameters related to the geography, size,
sector, and/or style (e.g., growth vs. value) of the companies in which they
invest. Constraints imposed by third-parties could impair the ability of portfolio
managers to provide Fund shareholders investment returns that are competitive
with similar funds. Index funds typically seek to track the performance of a
benchmark index that represents either the broad market or a subset of the
market based on geography, size, sector, and/or style. As such, limiting a Fund’s
ability to invest in all of the constituent companies in its benchmark index could
introduce deviation (i.e., tracking error) between the Fund’s performance and
that of its benchmark index, which would be detrimental to the Fund’s
shareholders.

Divestment is an ineffective means to implement social change.
The trustees believe that divestment—especially in cases where a company
bears no direct relation to the issue at hand—is a particularly ineffective remedy.
Selling a company’s shares into the secondary market (i.e., not back to the
subject company itself) has no direct impact on the company’s capitalization,
and it simply puts the shares into the hands of another owner (one perhaps
with less concern for the underlying issues). Additionally, as investors in publicly
traded companies, the Funds are not well poised to influence matters that
extend well beyond the operations of their portfolio companies. While we
understand the concerns of shareholders who have submitted the proposal,
we believe that ending genocide requires diplomatic and political solutions.

pkcrafter
Posts: 12098
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 12:19 pm
Location: CA
Contact:

Re: "Vanguard fund shareholders encouraged to vote as proxy campaign gets under way."

Post by pkcrafter » Sat Aug 19, 2017 5:40 pm

TIAX wrote:
Sat Aug 19, 2017 5:12 pm
Here is Vanguard's recommendation AGAINST proposal 7:
The trustees’ response to the shareholder proposal and recommendation
The trustees of the Funds recommend that you vote against this proposal.
While the humanitarian issues on which this proposal is ultimately focused are
of consequence and deep concern, meaningful long-term solutions to these
issues require diplomatic and political resources to come together to implement
change. Importantly, your Funds are compliant with all applicable U.S. laws
on this matter. In addition, the proposal would interfere with the advisors’
fiduciary duty to manage your Funds in line with their investment objectives
and strategies. Finally, we believe that the divestment contemplated by the
proposal would be an ineffective means to implement the social change
it seeks.

Vanguard is fully compliant with all applicable U.S. laws and regulations.
The United States government, through its policymakers, has established
a clear legal framework wherein investments in companies that are owned or
controlled by the government of Sudan, among other countries, are prohibited.
The proposal does not take into account that the Funds are compliant with
these laws.

As an investment firm with a very large client base, Vanguard is periodically
asked by clients to modify our investments for a variety of reasons—from
environmental and social issues to humanitarian and political concerns. We
simply cannot manage the Funds in an effective manner that would address
all of these issues as well as, or better than, policymakers while fulfilling our
fiduciary obligation to shareholders.

The addition of further investment constraints is not in Fund
shareholders’ best interests.

Placing additional and specifically prescriptive constraints on a portfolio
manager’s investable universe, based on factors unrelated to a Fund’s stated
investment objective and/or investment strategies, could interfere with the
Fund’s obligation to its investors. Each of the Vanguard funds is required to
invest shareholders’ assets pursuant to a given fund’s stated objective. In the
case of actively managed funds, which seek to provide varying degrees of
current income and/or long-term capital appreciation, they are managed in
adherence to tightly prescribed parameters related to the geography, size,
sector, and/or style (e.g., growth vs. value) of the companies in which they
invest. Constraints imposed by third-parties could impair the ability of portfolio
managers to provide Fund shareholders investment returns that are competitive
with similar funds. Index funds typically seek to track the performance of a
benchmark index that represents either the broad market or a subset of the
market based on geography, size, sector, and/or style. As such, limiting a Fund’s
ability to invest in all of the constituent companies in its benchmark index could
introduce deviation (i.e., tracking error) between the Fund’s performance and
that of its benchmark index, which would be detrimental to the Fund’s
shareholders.

Divestment is an ineffective means to implement social change.
The trustees believe that divestment—especially in cases where a company
bears no direct relation to the issue at hand—is a particularly ineffective remedy.
Selling a company’s shares into the secondary market (i.e., not back to the
subject company itself) has no direct impact on the company’s capitalization,
and it simply puts the shares into the hands of another owner (one perhaps
with less concern for the underlying issues). Additionally, as investors in publicly
traded companies, the Funds are not well poised to influence matters that
extend well beyond the operations of their portfolio companies. While we
understand the concerns of shareholders who have submitted the proposal,
we believe that ending genocide requires diplomatic and political solutions.
Thanks for posting Vanguard's stance on this issue.

Paul
When times are good, investors tend to forget about risk and focus on opportunity. When times are bad, investors tend to forget about opportunity and focus on risk.

scottinmet
Posts: 26
Joined: Fri Dec 25, 2015 11:27 am

Re: "Vanguard fund shareholders encouraged to vote as proxy campaign gets under way."

Post by scottinmet » Sat Aug 19, 2017 6:24 pm

Proposal 7—
A shareholder proposal to institute transparent procedures to avoid holding investments in companies that, in management’s judgement, substantially contribute to genocide or crimes against humanity, the most egregious violations of human rights.
pkcrafter wrote:
Sat Aug 19, 2017 5:10 pm

This proposal applies to the following Vanguard funds: 500 Index Fund;
Capital Opportunity Fund; Developed Markets Index Fund; Dividend
Appreciation Index Fund; Emerging Markets Stock Index Fund; Energy
Fund; Energy Index Fund; Equity Income Fund; European Stock Index Fund;
Extended Market Index Fund; FTSE All-World ex-US Index Fund; FTSE
Social Index Fund; Global Equity Fund; GNMA Fund; Growth Index Fund;
Health Care Fund; Inflation-Protected Securities Fund; Institutional Index
Fund; Intermediate-Term Bond Index Fund; Intermediate-Term Treasury
Fund; International Explorer Fund; International Growth Fund; International
Value Fund; LifeStrategy Moderate Growth Fund; Long-Term Treasury Fund;
Mid-Cap Index Fund; Mid-Cap Value Index Fund; Morgan Growth Fund;
Municipal Money Market Fund; Pacific Stock Index Fund; Precious Metals
and Mining Fund; Prime Money Market Fund; REIT Index Fund; Short-Term
Bond Index Fund; Short-Term Tax-Exempt Fund; Short-Term Treasury Fund;
Small-Cap Growth Index Fund; Small-Cap Index Fund; Small-Cap Value
Index Fund; STAR Fund; Tax-Managed Small-Cap Fund; Total Bond Market
Index Fund; Total International Stock Index Fund; Total Stock Market Index
Fund; Value Index Fund; Balanced Portfolio of the Vanguard Variable
Insurance Fund; Wellington Fund; Windsor Fund; and Windsor II Fund
If this were passed, it would ruin Vanguard, and I suspect that is exactly the reason it was proposed. Probably proposed by a group of unhappy active managers. :confused
I read further up this thread that they were specifically targeting foreign companies in regards to the Sudan. If it is only foreign companies, then why would it affect the 500 index fund? What company on the S&P 500 supports genocide? Something seems very fishy with this proposal.

SLHI
Posts: 19
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2016 10:40 am

Re: "Vanguard fund shareholders encouraged to vote as proxy campaign gets under way."

Post by SLHI » Sat Aug 19, 2017 8:35 pm

What I feel very uninformed about is who to vote for for the board of trustees in proposal 1 -- their short blurbs don't really say all that much about them or why they are fit for the position over the others. I don't really feel fine with blindly voting yes for all of them--guess I'll have to do some googling :D
Last edited by SLHI on Sun Aug 20, 2017 5:24 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
saltycaper
Posts: 2127
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2014 8:47 pm
Location: The Tower

Re: "Vanguard fund shareholders encouraged to vote as proxy campaign gets under way."

Post by saltycaper » Sun Aug 20, 2017 1:21 am

I was going to vote "no" on prop 7, and I think Vanguard's reasons behind their recommendations are well explained.

Then I read this thread.

Now I feel obligated to vote "yes" on prop 7, in opposition.

Woe, may I find the peace and wisdom necessary to respond rightly to this matter.
"I guess I should warn you, if I turn out to be particularly clear, you've probably misunderstood what I've said." --Alan Greenspan

User avatar
LadyGeek
Site Admin
Posts: 41043
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 5:34 pm
Location: Philadelphia
Contact:

Re: "Vanguard fund shareholders encouraged to vote as proxy campaign gets under way."

Post by LadyGeek » Sun Aug 20, 2017 7:26 am

This thread has run its course and is locked (not actionable). See: Non-actionable (Trolling) Topics
If readers can't do anything with the content of a topic other than argue about it, it does not belong here. Examples include:
  • US or world economic, political, tax, health care and climate policies
  • conspiracy theories of any type
  • discussions of the crimes, shortcomings or stupidity of other people, whether they be political figures, celebrities, CEOs, Fed chairmen, subprime mortgage borrowers, lottery winners, federal "bailout" recipients, poor people, rich people, etc. Of course, you are welcome to talk about the stupid financial things you have done.
To some, the glass is half full. To others, the glass is half empty. To an engineer, it's twice the size it needs to be.

gkaplan
Posts: 7034
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:34 pm
Location: Portland, Oregon

Vanguard Proxy Proposals

Post by gkaplan » Tue Aug 22, 2017 8:06 pm

[Thread merged into here, see below --admin LadyGeek]

Harry Sit (the Finance Buff) discusses and give his thoughts on the Vanguard proxy proposals.


The Finance Buff discusses and gives his thoughts on the Vanguard proxy proposals.
Gordon

gkaplan
Posts: 7034
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:34 pm
Location: Portland, Oregon

Re: Vanguard Proxy Proposals

Post by gkaplan » Tue Aug 22, 2017 8:20 pm

I just remembered that Lady Geek deleted many similar threads yesterday, so this particular thread may not last long.
Gordon

User avatar
LadyGeek
Site Admin
Posts: 41043
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 5:34 pm
Location: Philadelphia
Contact:

Re: "Vanguard fund shareholders encouraged to vote as proxy campaign gets under way."

Post by LadyGeek » Tue Aug 22, 2017 8:49 pm

^^^ Thread merged into here, which was locked - not removed.

(Thread remains locked.)
To some, the glass is half full. To others, the glass is half empty. To an engineer, it's twice the size it needs to be.

zimrod
Posts: 28
Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2017 1:41 pm

Vanguard Vote By Proxy

Post by zimrod » Thu Aug 24, 2017 11:48 am

[Thread merged into here, see below. --admin LadyGeek]

So I voted on these measures and voted against everything. Am I wrong to think that this is a legal, backdoor way on the part of Vanguard Management to take the Index out of Index Funds and incorporate active management into them?

Not trying to be paranoid here. It just seems this is what's going, to me anyways.

Broken Man 1999
Posts: 801
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 11:31 am

Re: Vanguard Vote By Proxy

Post by Broken Man 1999 » Thu Aug 24, 2017 12:22 pm

zimrod wrote:
Thu Aug 24, 2017 11:48 am
So I voted on these measures and voted against everything. Am I wrong to think that this is a legal, backdoor way on the part of Vanguard Management to take the Index out of Index Funds and incorporate active management into them?

Not trying to be paranoid here. It just seems this is what's going, to me anyways.
Which one(s) of the proposals did you find disturbing, and why? Hard to respond intelligently with so little info! :confused

Broken Man 1999
“If I cannot drink Bourbon and smoke cigars in Heaven than I shall not go. " -Mark Twain

User avatar
triceratop
Moderator
Posts: 3615
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2015 8:20 pm
Location: la la land

Re: Vanguard Vote By Proxy

Post by triceratop » Thu Aug 24, 2017 12:43 pm

From the proxy statement for proposal #7:
For the reasons set forth after the Proposal, the board of trustees recommends a vote “AGAINST” the proposal. No fund is responsible for the contents of the proposal or the supporting statements.
It would seem that Vanguard, through the fund board of trustees, is against this proposal. So, no, Vanguard is not trying to take the "index" out of "index fund".

Did you read the proxy statement?
"To play the stock market is to play musical chairs under the chord progression of a bid-ask spread."

User avatar
jhfenton
Posts: 2173
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 11:17 am
Location: Ohio

Re: Vanguard Vote By Proxy

Post by jhfenton » Thu Aug 24, 2017 12:53 pm

zimrod wrote:
Thu Aug 24, 2017 11:48 am
So I voted on these measures and voted against everything. Am I wrong to think that this is a legal, backdoor way on the part of Vanguard Management to take the Index out of Index Funds and incorporate active management into them?

Not trying to be paranoid here. It just seems this is what's going, to me anyways.
You voted against everything?

I saw no reason to vote against anything except Proposal 7, which was not proposed by and was opposed by Vanguard. I voted against Proposal 7. (I don't own any of the REIT fund, so I couldn't vote on those two proposals, but I would have voted for them.) I did vote for the board members and the other proposals. I thought they were entirely unobjectionable and in no way "took the index out of index funds."

not4me
Posts: 167
Joined: Thu May 25, 2017 3:08 pm

Re: Vanguard Vote By Proxy

Post by not4me » Thu Aug 24, 2017 3:03 pm

zimrod wrote:
Thu Aug 24, 2017 11:48 am
So I voted on these measures and voted against everything. Am I wrong to think that this is a legal, backdoor way on the part of Vanguard Management to take the Index out of Index Funds and incorporate active management into them?

Not trying to be paranoid here. It just seems this is what's going, to me anyways.
It seems to me that others have felt similar things when they saw Prop 7. I think lots of folks aren't used to doing proxies, especially for individual companies. I don't have any statistics, but know some companies have had similar measures brought up. Usually, any shareholder (may have only 1 share) has a path to get an issue voted on by all shareholders. There are other "causes" out there that make the rounds with similar tactics.

I've been interested in the reaction. I may be wrong, but I expect many would be like me & not notice if a country was removed from the index. And I would not be surprised to find out that some countries possible in the index did not have a company included in the actual portfolio.

SimplepathtoBogle
Posts: 39
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2017 4:07 pm

Re: Vanguard Vote By Proxy

Post by SimplepathtoBogle » Thu Aug 24, 2017 3:14 pm

I didn't see anything remotely objectionable other than the proposal the board recommended a vote "against" as mentioned above. I usually pass on voting in these things, but I am glad I looked it over and agreed with their recommendations on the No vote. I have no idea who any of the guys I voted for on the board are or what their record is (good or bad), but it seems to be pretty insignificant as it relates to the funds I own.

student
Posts: 1329
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2015 6:58 am

Re: Vanguard Vote By Proxy

Post by student » Thu Aug 24, 2017 4:03 pm

Here is a related thread.

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=225702

User avatar
DaftInvestor
Posts: 3103
Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2014 10:11 am

Re: Vanguard Vote By Proxy

Post by DaftInvestor » Thu Aug 24, 2017 7:02 pm

OP: apparently a set of shareholders (not Vanguard) managed to get #7 added. I'm going to vote for the sole purpose of voting against it (folks that want to have judgements made about what companies should and shouldn't be included in an index fund based upon someone opinion about what is and what isn't responsible should simply invest in a socially repsonsible index fund rather than attempt to turn all index funds into social funds).

User avatar
triceratop
Moderator
Posts: 3615
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2015 8:20 pm
Location: la la land

Re: Vanguard Vote By Proxy

Post by triceratop » Thu Aug 24, 2017 7:07 pm

not4me wrote:
Thu Aug 24, 2017 3:03 pm
zimrod wrote:
Thu Aug 24, 2017 11:48 am
So I voted on these measures and voted against everything. Am I wrong to think that this is a legal, backdoor way on the part of Vanguard Management to take the Index out of Index Funds and incorporate active management into them?

Not trying to be paranoid here. It just seems this is what's going, to me anyways.
It seems to me that others have felt similar things when they saw Prop 7. I think lots of folks aren't used to doing proxies, especially for individual companies. I don't have any statistics, but know some companies have had similar measures brought up. Usually, any shareholder (may have only 1 share) has a path to get an issue voted on by all shareholders. There are other "causes" out there that make the rounds with similar tactics.

I've been interested in the reaction. I may be wrong, but I expect many would be like me & not notice if a country was removed from the index. And I would not be surprised to find out that some countries possible in the index did not have a company included in the actual portfolio.
It isn't actually about removing a country from the index, though the mention of PetroChina re: Darfur may be a pretext for much grander designs on excluding countries. I wouldn't know.

Anyway, Vanguard mentions in the proposal a means to determine who and how influential these shareholders are; it's good that we have a means for transparency in this process. I've already inquired with Vanguard and I hope they respond soon.

edit: Vanguard responded (only partially, as yet). Here is the number of shares backing each proposal:

Vanguard Small Cap Value Index Fund (2 shareholders): 11,667 shares, ~$350,000
Vanguard Emerging Markets Stock Index Fund (3 shareholders): 4,445 shares, ~$125,000
Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund (8 shareholders): 40,070 shares, ~$2.5MM
Vanguard FTSE All World Ex US Small Cap Index Fund (?? shareholders): ??? shares (Vanguard needs to get back to me about this one still)
Last edited by triceratop on Fri Sep 01, 2017 12:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: added response from Vanguard
"To play the stock market is to play musical chairs under the chord progression of a bid-ask spread."

User avatar
LadyGeek
Site Admin
Posts: 41043
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 5:34 pm
Location: Philadelphia
Contact:

Re: "Vanguard fund shareholders encouraged to vote as proxy campaign gets under way."

Post by LadyGeek » Thu Aug 24, 2017 8:52 pm

I moved zimrod's thread into here. As noted earlier,
LadyGeek wrote:
Sun Aug 20, 2017 7:26 am
This thread has run its course and is locked (not actionable). See: Non-actionable (Trolling) Topics
If readers can't do anything with the content of a topic other than argue about it, it does not belong here. Examples include:
  • US or world economic, political, tax, health care and climate policies
  • conspiracy theories of any type
  • discussions of the crimes, shortcomings or stupidity of other people, whether they be political figures, celebrities, CEOs, Fed chairmen, subprime mortgage borrowers, lottery winners, federal "bailout" recipients, poor people, rich people, etc. Of course, you are welcome to talk about the stupid financial things you have done.
Also, please do not start another discussion. See: Locked Topics
if a topic is locked, please do not start up another thread to continue the discussion,
To some, the glass is half full. To others, the glass is half empty. To an engineer, it's twice the size it needs to be.

jmk
Posts: 283
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2011 7:48 pm

Proxy Issues 2 3 for Index Funds?

Post by jmk » Sat Aug 26, 2017 11:15 am

I was curious about folks feelings about the "manager of manager" arrangement as it applied to index funds. I noticed some of my index funds were affected, and can't figure out why they would need this:
2Approve a manager of managers arrangement with third-party investment advisors.
3Approve a manager of managers arrangement with wholly-owned subsidiaries of Vanguard.

FTSE All-World ex-US Small-Cap Index
Small-Cap Value Index
Total Bond Market Index
How would a manager of manager be needed for an index fund such as Total Bond Market?

TIAX
Posts: 851
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 12:19 pm

Re: Proxy Issues 2 3 for Index Funds?

Post by TIAX » Sat Aug 26, 2017 11:57 am

Agreed; aren't all Vanguard index funds managed in-house?

User avatar
LadyGeek
Site Admin
Posts: 41043
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 5:34 pm
Location: Philadelphia
Contact:

Re: "Vanguard fund shareholders encouraged to vote as proxy campaign gets under way."

Post by LadyGeek » Sun Aug 27, 2017 3:13 pm

I moved jmk's post and reply into here. The thread remains locked based on prior experience (earlier posts).
To some, the glass is half full. To others, the glass is half empty. To an engineer, it's twice the size it needs to be.

User avatar
KlingKlang
Posts: 468
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 3:26 pm

Vanguard Trustee Elections

Post by KlingKlang » Wed Sep 06, 2017 3:38 pm

While there has been extensive discussion of the proposals in the current Vanguard Proxy voting, nothing seems to have been discussed concerning the trustees that are up for election.

As an example, Deanne Mulligan has served as the CEO of the Guardian Life Insurance Company of America. Guardian is infamous for denying claims and horrible customer service. Is this a person that we want as a Vanguard trustee?

Any other input?

User avatar
LadyGeek
Site Admin
Posts: 41043
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 5:34 pm
Location: Philadelphia
Contact:

Re: Vanguard Trustee Elections

Post by LadyGeek » Wed Sep 06, 2017 7:47 pm

KlingKlang wrote:
Wed Sep 06, 2017 3:38 pm
While there has been extensive discussion of the proposals in the current Vanguard Proxy voting, nothing seems to have been discussed concerning the trustees that are up for election.

As an example, Deanne Mulligan has served as the CEO of the Guardian Life Insurance Company of America. Guardian is infamous for denying claims and horrible customer service. Is this a person that we want as a Vanguard trustee?

Any other input?
I moved your post into here. As noted earlier, see: Non-actionable (Trolling) Topics
If readers can't do anything with the content of a topic other than argue about it, it does not belong here. Examples include:
  • US or world economic, political, tax, health care and climate policies
  • conspiracy theories of any type
  • discussions of the crimes, shortcomings or stupidity of other people, whether they be political figures, celebrities, CEOs, Fed chairmen, subprime mortgage borrowers, lottery winners, federal "bailout" recipients, poor people, rich people, etc. Of course, you are welcome to talk about the stupid financial things you have done.
Also, please do not start another discussion. See: Locked Topics
if a topic is locked, please do not start up another thread to continue the discussion,
(Thread remains locked.)
To some, the glass is half full. To others, the glass is half empty. To an engineer, it's twice the size it needs to be.

Locked