Comments on: Voting on Vanguard’s Proxy Proposals

By: Larry H

Larry H — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 04:02:28 +0000

The mere fact proposals have been made to invest my index, bond and money market funds in such speculative markets has cause me to:

1. Withhold votes for all trustees and vote no on Proposal Number 2.
2. Loose all confidence in Vanguard
3. Begin looking for a safer place to invest my money
4. Send an email to Vanguard stating the above

I can not afford to loose the rest of my money to high risk investment strategies. My vote is to take what is left of my investments after the banking industry had their way with them, and run.

Concerning the way in which telephone proxy voting solicitation is being handled, I believe a letter to the SEC is justified.

By: greg r

greg r — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 17:33:12 +0000

I just had the bizarre experience of voting on these issues over the phone. the phone agent not only steered me repeatedly to ratify the board’s recommendations he didn’t know, or pretended not to know, how to register votes any other way. a vanguard colleague, melinda, was on the recorded line and helped me register my votes.

vanguard must be concerned about this because they are calling shareholders encouraging them to vote, and steering them to the phone where they a) can get a glimpse into the votes and b) steer people toward their preferred outcomes.

Not the way a clean and proper proxy vote should be handled.

By: TFB

TFB — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 07:09:56 +0000

Theoretically yes, in practice, no. While I know there are socially responsible funds and websites that help you choose one, I know of no fund that advertises that it cannot issue senior securities for example. If I really want one, I’ll be going through prospectus after prospectus. Not realistic.

By: Chris J.

Chris J. — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 05:02:19 +0000

Just as an investor can choose to invest in socially responsible funds, an investor can also choose to invest in funds on the basis of the strictness of their fundamental policies.

By: TFB

TFB — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 21:27:57 +0000

@Chris J. – Can you explain how the policies in Proposal 2 could also have been handled at the investor level?

By: Chris J.

Chris J. — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 18:40:31 +0000

I think it is interesting that an application of your Proposal 2 arguments to Proposal 3 would lead an investor to vote for Proposal 3:

“But the proposed new [Proposal 2] policies all go toward the lowest common denominator. They impose the least restriction. Basically as long as it’s legal, the funds are permitted to do it. That’s not cool.”

In effect, you are saying that you favor tighter restrictions on things as mundane as making loans and purchasing commodities; but when it comes to contributing to genocide, you favor looser restrictions. The policies in Proposal 2 could also have been handled at the investor level.

By: TFB

TFB — Tue, 26 May 2009 20:06:41 +0000

Kath – Whoever created Proposal #3 did not make it apply to all the funds. It sounds like you own a fund to which it doesn’t apply. Vanguard properly indicated so on your proxy form.

By: Kath

Kath — Tue, 26 May 2009 19:25:45 +0000

No matter how you feel about Proposal #3, Vanguard did not handle the issue in a professional manner.

Am I the only one who noticed that, although the proxy booklet says the Board recommends voting against Proposal #3, on the written proxy form Vanguard does not allow the voters to make a choice and has only NOT APPLICABLE in the voting space.

This is not indicative of the consumer-friendly Vanguard I began investing in years ago.

By: Jed

Jed — Wed, 13 May 2009 23:28:04 +0000

I’m in favor of proposal 3. I’m unsure about the technical aspects of making it work in an index fund. Any ideas?

By: Mary

Mary — Wed, 13 May 2009 02:21:15 +0000

I appreciated the info regarding the policy changes. BUT I voted FOR the shareholder proposal (we should put as much pressure on all companies, including the mutual fund companies, to stop condoning and even supporting genocide.