Our listed company has received an offer from Manifest (providers of proxy governance research and data) to provide one of their AGM Corporate Governance reports for the company. The company would have to pay for this, and would also be required to subscribe for Manifest’s services. Do other companies subscribe for Manifest’s services and do they find the Manifest AGM Corporate Governance report to be of use?
We don’t for all the good reasons already articulated.
Absolutely not, and having checked with our NEDs, that was the position being taken elsewhere.
No and I echo the snetiments expressed in by other respondents.
We too decided not to subscribe for the reasons stated but also because our brokers confirmed that ISS have by far the largest market share, followed by Glass Lewis and the ABI. They tell me that usage by the UK FTSE 250 is as fpllows:
33% had internal procedures
45% subscribed to ISS
0.4% subscribed to Glass Lewis
16% subscribed to both ISS and Glass Lewis
2% subscribed to the ABI
0.4% subscribed to PIRC
De minimis subscribed to Manifest
We do not subsribe for all the reasons above and told them so when they rang. I do have some sympathy with their case if Co Secs are passing on their reports to advisors etc who would normally be expected to subscibe in order to receive the reports which was their reason for going to the subscition basis.
We don’t subscribe either for all the reasons stated. Manifest have very little influence on our shareholder voting. The ABI and RREV/ISS are the institutional bodies we concern ourselves with.
We don’t subscribe for the good reasons already listed below
In 2012, when Manifest sought to charge for their AGM reports, the board decided not to subscribe, relying on the AGM reports from ABI and RREV/ISS which offer a more balanced view. They have not changed their view.
We would agree with the other similar comments below.
We do not subscribe for same reasons as below.
We do subscribe but only because we want to know what they are saying and ensure our shareholders, existing and potential, get the correct information. They make mistakes and we go back to them to tell them what they have got wrong in the hope that next year it will be right. The fact that we are not allowed to comment before publication is inexcusable and sooner or later they will trip up and someone will take legal action against them. Then, maybe, they will see the light!
We do not subscribe, for the same reasons articulated so well in previous responses. We have made those points (politely) to them.
We asked them to give us an estimate of the holdings of our Company’s shares among their clients, but as they do not have this information, it was impossible to evaluate the potential impact of their report.
We therefore declined to pay.
They might have to re-think this idea!
Based on advice that Manifest reports are not considered to be influential, we declined its ‘offer’ to charge us for its report. I can’t readily see how Manifest’s reports will become more influential in future if they continue to discourage issuers from verifying company data provided by them.
We did not subscribe in 2012 and still do not subscribe to Manifest on the basis that we consider it to be poor practice for governance bodies to receive payment from the companies they report on. Also ABI and RREV/ISS set the benchmark which other governance bodies follow. The fact that they do not allow us to comment on their report in advance of publication must reduce the value of the service to their members.
We do not subscribe for the reasons already articulated.There is little, if any, value beyond the ABI,RREV and PIRC reports.
When Manifest first started to charge for reports in 2012, we consulted with our remuneration consultants to establish what influence, if any, Manifest reports had on voting patterns. They advised that the reports from ABI, RREV/ISS and individual institutional shareholders carried a lot more weight and on that basis, we decided not to subscribe for Manifest’s services in 2012 or indeed this year.
After some debate we did pay for the report, but through gritted teeth. On balance we felt it was better to know what was being said. The report added little to those received from the ABI, RREV and PIRC.
For the first time this year Manifest have introduced this – in previous years they have provided the copy for comment, rather like some of the other proxy advisers. However, I agree with the other comment, that if they don’t consult with the company to check their information is correct, then it is surely less valuable.
We decided not to subscribe.
When Manifest started to charge for the AGM Corporate Governance reports in 2012, I put the question to the Board. As we continue to receive the AGM reports from ABI, RREV/ISS and PIRC, the Board decided that we would not pay for this ‘service’.
In effect in the past, these organisations used to send the reports to the Company Secretary and asked for a review of the report to assure that the data they were providing about the Company to their clients was correct. Manifest is now trying to obtain a fee for the same report not only from their clients but also from the Company and in my view this should not be supported.
We just had the same deliberations and consulted a few colleagues elsewhere and decided not to subscribe. The quality of their reports must be diminished if they don’t even provide a copy to the company for comments.