AFL-CIO KEY VOTES SURVEY How Investment Managers Voted in the 2014 Proxy Season
AFL-CIO KEY VOTES SURVEY How Investment Managers Voted in the 2014 Proxy Season AFL-CIO Office of Investment 815 16th Street, NW Washington, DC 20006 202-637-3900 www.aflcio.org
Introduction Once a year, every public corporation holds a shareholder meeting. Shareholders and senior management make critical decisions shaping each company s governance decisions such as who will serve on the board of directors, how senior executives will be paid, and what general policies the shareholders will recommend to the company s board. The Key Votes Survey is a record of how investment managers, mutual funds and proxy voting consultants voted the shares they manage on behalf of pension funds on key issues at these meetings during the proxy season. The AFL-CIO s Key Votes Survey is designed to help pension fund trustees fulfill their fiduciary duty to monitor the proxy voting performance of investment managers. Good corporate governance matters to shareholders and proxy voting is the most direct means for shareholders to exercise oversight in relation to the corporations they own. In 1988, the U.S. Department of Labor advised pension fund trustees that under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ( ERISA ), the voting rights attached to company stock are plan assets that must be managed according to ERISA fiduciary standards. The Department of Labor requires investment managers to maintain accurate records as to proxy voting and permit trustees to review the actions taken in individual proxy voting situations. Pension funds generally delegate the authority to vote their shares to investment managers, mutual funds, or a specialized proxy voting consultant. Because proxies are a plan asset, ensuring that they are voted in the interests of beneficiaries is part of a trustee s fiduciary duty. The Key Votes Survey is intended to help trustees fulfill this duty by reviewing the voting records of these investment managers, mutual funds, and proxy voting consultants. The proposals included in the Key Votes Survey are submitted by Taft-Hartley, union, and public employee pension funds as well as employee shareholders and other investors, and are consistent with the AFL-CIO Proxy Voting Guidelines. These proposals represent a worker-owner view of value that emphasizes management accountability and good corporate governance. A score representing the percentage of support and corresponding tier group categorization are assigned to each firm to assist trustees in evaluating the relative proxy voting performance of competing investment managers. Survey Methodology This year s Key Votes Survey includes the proxy voting records on selected votes at 27 companies. Proxy votes were obtained from investment managers and proxy voting consultants. Mutual fund proxy votes were collected for the Key Votes Survey by FundVotes.com. These votes were extracted from N-PX form filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission and cover most of the largest mutual funds managed by each fund family. Each investment manager, consultant, and mutual fund family in the Key Votes Survey has been given a percentage score that indicates the degree to which its voting record is consistent with the AFL-CIO Proxy Voting Guidelines. The percentage scores are computed by dividing the number of votes cast consistently with the AFL-CIO Proxy Voting Guidelines by the total number of votes cast on proposals included in the survey. 1
Investment managers and consultants are asked to report the votes cast for which the investment manager has discretionary voting authority. Mutual fund family votes reflect how a majority of each fund family s largest funds voted. If an equal number of mutual funds surveyed from a mutual fund family cast conflicting votes, the vote is recorded as a split vote and not included in the mutual fund family s percentage score. Firms are listed alphabetically by name, and then by performance tier groups. Firms have been divided into tiers using the following criteria: Top Tier Firms which voted on five or more proposals and scored 100 percent. Middle Tier Firms which voted on five or more proposals and scored more than 50 percent but less than 100 percent. Bottom Tier Firms which voted on five or more proposals and scored 50 percent and below. Fewer Than Five Votes Firms which are considered to have an inadequate sample size on which to be ranked are not placed in any of the three tiers. Taft-Hartley Client Votes Firms that have also provided their Taft- Hartley client voting records in addition to their firm s overall proxy votes for a majority of shares cast. A complete Key Votes Survey voting record for each firm can be found in the Investment Manager Voting Records reports on the AFL-CIO website at http://www.aflcio.org/. Proposals in Brief Proposals selected for the Key Votes Survey generally fall into five broad categories: encouraging greater board independence, reining in excessive executive compensation, promoting sound corporate governance practices, increasing management accountability and advancing a worker-owner view of value. The AFL-CIO Proxy Voting Guidelines support independent boards of directors, measures to restrain excessive executive pay and link it to shareholder interests, reforms to increase management accountability, measures that encourage companies to respect human and labor rights, and mechanisms aimed at promoting disclosure and sustainable business practices. It is important to note, however, that these positions should not be applied mechanically. Measures to enhance management accountability, for instance, are more important at companies where management is entrenched and unresponsive. Similarly, measures to restrain executive pay are more important at companies where executive compensation is excessive. The list of proposals for the Key Votes Survey is assembled with attention to both the merits of the proposals and the context at particular companies. Below are descriptions of the types of shareholder proposals listed on the survey this year: Board Diversity This proposal urges the board of directors to take every reasonable step to ensure that qualified women and minority candidates are considered when it makes nominations. A more diverse board of qualified directors benefits the company and shareholders by assuring that a fuller range of perspectives are represented. 2
Country Selection Standards Companies risk damaging their reputation and brand name when they do business in countries that do not respect fundamental human rights. This proposal requests that the board of directors review and develop guidelines for country selection and report these guidelines to shareholders. Director Withhold or No Votes The election of directors is an important mechanism for shareholders to hold boards accountable for corporate governance failures. Shareholder vote no campaigns seek to remove underperforming directors by voting to withhold support from an individual or group of directors. While these no votes are not binding under a plurality election system, voting no can persuade directors that substantial changes are required to protect shareholder value. Equal Employment Opportunity This proposal requests the company to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender diversity. Such a policy will help project the company s reputation, prevent violations of state employment non-discrimination laws, and help retain and recruit qualified employees. Executive Retirement Benefits Supplemental executive retirement plans provide retirement benefits for a select group of highly-compensated employees. Because these executive retirement benefits are unfunded, the associated pension liabilities can be significant. This proposal seeks shareholder approval of any extraordinary retirement benefits for senior executives that exceed those generally offered to other employees. Human Rights Report This proposal urges the board of directors to provide to shareholders a report on the company s process for identifying and analyzing potential and actual human rights risks of the company s operations and its supply chain. This report would give shareholders important information on how a company anticipates, measures and minimizes human rights related risks. Independent Chair Independent board chair proposals seek to separate the positions of chief executive officer and board chair. The primary purpose of the board of directors is to oversee management on behalf of shareholders. For this reason, an independent director who has not served as an executive of the company can best provide the necessary leadership and objectivity as board chair. Lobbying Disclosure These proposals request that the company provides a report disclosing the company s policies and procedures for expenditures used for direct lobbying and grassroots lobbying communications. Such disclosure is necessary for a shareholder assessment of financial and reputational risks that may result from a company s lobbying. Mortgage Servicing Operations The improper robo-signing of foreclosure documents by many banks that service mortgages demonstrated the risk of inadequate internal control mechanisms. These proposals ask bank audit committees to conduct a review of key aspects of bank mortgage servicing operations. One Share, One Vote Recapitalization This proposal requests that the board of directors take the steps that may be necessary to adopt a recapitalization plan that would provide for all of the company s outstanding stock to have one vote per share. The concentration of voting power through 3
the use of dual-class stock is unfair to shareholders and allows corporate control to be retained by corporate officers or insiders. Pay Clawback Disclosure Policy This proposal urges the board of directors to disclose annually whether the company recouped any portion of a senior executive s compensation in the previous year because it was determined that the senior executive breached company policy or otherwise engaged in activities that harmed the company. This information would enable shareholders to evaluate some of the risks to which the company may be exposed. Pay For Performance Standards This proposal calls for the adoption of the policy that equity compensation plans voted on by shareholders clearly specify the stock awards that are tied to performance and further specify the quantifiable metrics that will be used to determine at least half of these awards. The implementation of this policy would result in shareholders having the information needed to judge the merits of a plan including the extent to which awards are granted for meeting verifiable performance goals. shareholders an opportunity to express their disapproval of pay packages that are poorly designed. Sustainability Report This proposal requests that the board of directors prepare and make available to shareholders a sustainability report that addresses environmental and social impacts of the company s business. A growing number of investors view companies that are good employers, environmental stewards, and corporate citizens as more likely to generate stronger financial returns and enjoy long-term success. Tax Policy Principles This proposal requests that the board of directors adopt a set of principles to address the impact of the company s tax strategies on society. Aggressive tax avoidance strategies can harm a company s reputation with customers and governments. Proxy Access Long-term shareholders gain a meaningful voice in electing directors when they have a means of having their nominees included on the proxy statement issued by a company. This proposal asks the board of directors to adopt a bylaw that grants proxy access rights in the nomination of up to one quarter of the directors to a shareholder or group that has owned 3% of the outstanding stock for at least three years. Say on Pay The now mandatory shareholder advisory vote to approve the compensation of a company s named executive officers gives 4
List of Votes Included in the 2014 AFL-CIO Key Votes Survey Shareholder Proposals FOR are consistent with the AFL-CIO Proxy Voting Guidelines Company Meeting Item # Proposal Subject Abercrombie & Fitch 6/19/14 6 Proxy Access Bank of America 5/7/14 8 Lobbying Disclosure Boston Properties 5/20/14 5 Proxy Access Cablevision 5/22/14 6 1 Share, 1 Vote Recapitalization Charles Schwab 5/15/14 5 Equal Employment Opportunity Chevron 5/28/14 10 Country Selection Guidelines Crown Holdings 4/24/14 5 Executive Retirement Benefits Equity Lifestyle Properties 5/13/14 6 Lobbying Disclosure Exxon 5/28/14 7 Lobbying Disclosure Facebook 5/22/14 7 Sustainability Report FirstEnergy 5/20/14 5 Executive Retirement Benefits Google 5/14/14 7 Tax Policy Principles Healthcare Services Group 5/27/14 5 Independent Chair Kellogg 4/24/14 5 Human Rights Report Leggett & Platt 5/7/14 5 Equal Employment Opportunity Nabors Industries 6/3/14 5 Pay For Performance Standards Reynolds American 5/8/14 5 Lobbying Disclosure SLM 6/25/14 7 Lobbying Disclosure Superior Energy 5/14/14 4 Human Rights Report Swift Transportation 5/8/14 4 1 Share, 1 Vote Recapitalization T-Mobile US 6/5/14 4 Human Rights Report Urban Outfitters 5/27/14 5 Board Diversity Vornado 5/22/14 5 Independent Chair Wal-Mart 6/6/14 5 Pay Clawback Disclosure Policy Wells Fargo 4/29/14 5 Mortgage Servicing Operations Director Elections and Management Proposals: Withhold and Against votes are consistent with the AFL-CIO Proxy Voting Guidelines Company Meeting Item # Director/Proposal Domino s Pizza 4/24/14 2 Say on Pay Willbros Group 5/20/14 1.02 Daniel E. Lonergan 5
Alphabetical Listing of Investment Manager Statistics AFL-CIO Equity Index Fund 18 out of 18 = 100% Alger 9 out of 11 = 81.8% AllianceBernstein L.P. 20 out of 22 = 90.9% Allianz 9 out of 23 = 39.1% Amalgamated Bank LongView Funds 27 out of 27 = 100% American Beacon Funds 6 out of 6 = 100% American Century 1 out of 18 = 5.5% American Funds 1 out of 14 = 7.1% Ariel Investments 1 out of 2 = 50% Artisan Funds 0 out of 4 = 0% ASB Capital Management 18 out of 18 = 100% Aston Asset Management 3 out of 10 = 30% Atlanta Capital Management 2 out of 4 = 50% AXA Enterprise Funds 19 out of 25 = 76% Baron Funds 0 out of 5 = 0% Berkshire Funds 0 out of 2 = 0% BlackRock Mutual Funds 8 out of 27 = 29.6% BMO Funds 4 out of 5 = 80% BNY Mellon Mutual Funds 4 out of 21 = 19% Boston Common Funds 1 out of 1 = 100% Boston Trust/Walden Asset Management 8 out of 9 = 88.8% Brandywine Global Investment Management 6 out of 11 = 54.5% Bridgeway Funds 10 out of 10 = 100% Calamos Funds 0 out of 11 = 0% Calvert Investments 23 out of 24 = 95.8% Capstone Asset Management 0 out of 4 = 0% Chartwell Investment Partners 3 out of 3 = 100% Chicago Equity Partners, LLC 13 out of 15 = 86.6% Cohen & Steers 0 out of 7 = 0% Colony Capital Management, LLC 4 out of 4 = 100% Columbia Management 11 out of 27 = 40.7% Comerica Bank, Institutional Trust 27 out of 27 = 100% Davis Funds 2 out of 8 = 25% Delaware Investments 11 out of 12 = 91.6% Deroy & Devereaux Private Investment Counsel 1 out of 1 = 100% 6
Alphabetical Listing of Investment Manager Statistics Dimensional Fund Advisors 6 out of 24 = 25% Dodge & Cox Funds 0 out of 6 = 0% Domini Social Investments LLC 2 out of 2 = 100% Dreyfus Funds 6 out of 24 = 25% Duff & Phelps Investment Management Co. 0 out of 9 = 0% DWS Investments 20 out of 25 = 80% Eagle Funds 2 out of 7 = 28.5% Eaton Vance 8 out of 20 = 40% Federated Investors 6 out of 23 = 26% Fidelity Investments 2 out of 26 = 7.6% First Eagle Funds 1 out of 2 = 50% FMI Funds 0 out of 1 = 0% Franklin Templeton Investments 10 out of 21 = 47.6% Gabelli Funds 1 out of 14 = 7.1% GE Mutual Funds 6 out of 24 = 25% GMO 10 out of 11 = 90.9% Goldman Sachs Asset Management 10 out of 20 = 50% Great Lakes Advisors LLC 11 out of 11 = 100% Green Century Funds 7 out of 7 = 100% Groupe Investissement Responsible 27 out of 27 = 100% GuideStone Funds 2 out of 13 = 15.3% Harbor Funds 0 out of 7 = 0% Hartford Investor Mutual Funds 5 out of 24 = 20.8% Herndon Capital Management 4 out of 4 = 100% HGK Asset Management, Inc. 6 out of 6 = 100% IBEW-NECA Equity Index Fund 18 out of 18 = 100% ICC Capital Management, Inc. 6 out of 6 = 100% ING Funds 4 out of 24 = 16.6% INTECH Investment Management 14 out of 16 = 87.5% Integrity Asset Management 2 out of 7 = 28.5% INVESCO 7 out of 22 = 31.8% ISS 24 out of 27 = 88.8% Janus Capital Group 12 out of 21 = 57.1% John Hancock Funds 22 out of 27 = 81.4% JPMorgan Asset Management 9 out of 26 = 34.6% 7
Alphabetical Listing of Investment Manager Statistics Lazard Asset Management 13 out of 14 = 92.8% Legg Mason Global Asset Management 10 out of 17 = 58.8% Liberty All-Star Funds 8 out of 9 = 88.8% Loomis, Sayles & Company, L.P. 5 out of 12 = 41.6% Lord Abbett and Co. 1 out of 19 = 5.2% LSV Asset Management 5 out of 11 = 45.4% Mainstay Funds 20 out of 22 = 90.9% Managers Funds 11 out of 16 = 68.7% Manning & Napier Advisors 2 out of 5 = 40% Marco Consulting Group 27 out of 27 = 100% MassMutual Financial Group 5 out of 20 = 25% McMorgan & Company LLC 10 out of 10 = 100% MD Sass Associates, Inc. 1 out of 1 = 100% Mesirow Financial Financial Investment Management 5 out of 6 = 83.3% Metropolitan West Funds 9 out of 22 = 40.9% MFS Investment Management 15 out of 20 = 75% Missouri Valley Partners 5 out of 5 = 100% MMA Praxis/Everence 7 out of 10 = 70% Morgan Stanley 12 out of 21 = 57.1% Munder Funds 8 out of 14 = 57.1% Nationwide Mutual Funds 8 out of 22 = 36.3% Natixis Funds 4 out of 15 = 26.6% Neuberger Berman Management 8 out of 16 = 50% New Amsterdam Partners LLC 4 out of 5 = 80% Northern Funds 4 out of 24 = 16.6% Nuveen Investments 22 out of 25 = 88% NWQ 6 out of 7 = 85.7% OakBrook Investments 15 out of 17 = 88.2% Oakmark 1 out of 5 = 20% Oppenheimer Funds 15 out of 18 = 83.3% PanAgora Asset Management 23 out of 26 = 88.4% Parnassus Investments 2 out of 3 = 66.6% PAX World Investments 3 out of 3 = 100% Payden & Rygel 7 out of 11 = 63.6% Pillar Pacific Capital Management 8 out of 8 = 100% 8
Alphabetical Listing of Investment Manager Statistics PIMCO Investments 3 out of 3 = 100% Pioneer Investments 3 out of 12 = 25% PNC Capital Advisors, LLC 15 out of 24 = 62.5% Portfolio 21 1 out of 1 = 100% PRIMECAP Odyssey Funds 0 out of 5 = 0% Principal Fimds 22 out of 25 = 88% ProxyVote Plus 27 out of 27 = 100% Prudential Investments 10 out of 24 = 41.6% Putnam Investments 2 out of 19 = 10.5% Quaker Funds 0 out of 3 = 0% Quantitative Management Associates LLC 9 out of 27 = 33.3% Quest Investment Management 6 out of 6 = 100% Rainier Investment Management, LLC 4 out of 4 = 100% RBC Global Asset Management 19 out of 20 = 95% Renaissance Investment Management 0 out of 3 = 0% Robeco Investment Management 14 out of 15 = 93.3% Rothschild Asset Management 9 out of 10 = 90% Royce Mutual Funds 4 out of 9 = 44.4% RS Mutual Funds 18 out of 20 = 90% Russell Investments 8 out of 26 = 30.7% Santa Barbara Asset Management 2 out of 2 = 100% Schroder Funds 10 out of 11 = 90.9% Schwab Funds 8 out of 26 = 30.7% Scout Mutual Funds 1 out of 2 = 50% Segall, Bryant & Hamill 8 out of 9 = 88.8% SEI Investments 24 out of 27 = 88.8% Shareholder Association for Research & Education 8 out of 9 = 88.8% Sierra Investment Partners, Inc. 5 out of 5 = 100% Smith Asset Management Group 4 out of 8 = 50% SSGA IAM Shares 13 out of 14 = 92.8% Stacey Braun Associates, Inc. 5 out of 5 = 100% State Street Global Advisors 4 out of 20 = 20% Steward Mutual Funds 2 out of 17 = 11.7% SunAmerica Mutual Funds 5 out of 18 = 27.7% Systematic Financial Management, L.P. 5 out of 7 = 71.4% 9
Alphabetical Listing of Investment Manager Statistics T. Rowe Price 12 out of 27 = 44.4% TCW Funds 3 out of 7 = 42.8% The Union Labor Life Insurance Company 5 out of 5 = 100% Thornburg Investment Management 0 out of 3 = 0% Thrivent Mutual Funds 5 out of 26 = 19.2% TIAA-CREF 11 out of 27 = 40.7% TimesSquare Capital Management 0 out of 3 = 0% Tradewinds 3 out of 3 = 100% Transamerica Investments 10 out of 19 = 52.6% Trust Company of the West 5 out of 12 = 41.6% Turner Investments, L.P. 8 out of 8 = 100% U.S. Bancorp Asset Management 1 out of 1 = 100% UBS Global Asset Management 2 out of 9 = 22.2% Ullico Investment Advisors, Inc. 5 out of 5 = 100% USAA Mutual Funds 21 out of 25 = 84% VALIC Mutual Funds 6 out of 21 = 28.5% Vanguard Group 3 out of 27 = 11.1% Victory Funds 4 out of 7 = 57.1% Virtus Investment Partners 11 out of 15 = 73.3% Waddell & Reed Financial Advisors 0 out of 9 = 0% Washington Capital Management 4 out of 4 = 100% WEDGE Capital Management 4 out of 14 = 28.5% Wells Fargo Funds Management 22 out of 26 = 84.6% William Blair Funds 4 out of 5 = 80% Winslow Capital Management, LLC 2 out of 3 = 66.6% WisdomTree Funds 6 out of 24 = 25% 10
Tier Group Listing of Investment Manager Statistics Top Tier AFL-CIO Equity Index Fund 18 out of 18 = 100% Amalgamated Bank LongView Funds 27 out of 27 = 100% American Beacon Funds 6 out of 6 = 100% ASB Capital Management 18 out of 18 = 100% Bridgeway Funds 10 out of 10 = 100% Comerica Bank, Institutional Trust 27 out of 27 = 100% Great Lakes Advisors LLC 11 out of 11 = 100% Green Century Funds 7 out of 7 = 100% Groupe Investissement Responsible 27 out of 27 = 100% HGK Asset Management, Inc. 6 out of 6 = 100% IBEW-NECA Equity Index Fund 18 out of 18 = 100% ICC Capital Management, Inc. 6 out of 6 = 100% Marco Consulting Group 27 out of 27 = 100% McMorgan & Company LLC 10 out of 10 = 100% Missouri Valley Partners 5 out of 5 = 100% Pillar Pacific Capital Management 8 out of 8 = 100% ProxyVote Plus 27 out of 27 = 100% Quest Investment Management 6 out of 6 = 100% Sierra Investment Partners, Inc. 5 out of 5 = 100% Stacey Braun Associates, Inc. 5 out of 5 = 100% The Union Labor Life Insurance Company 5 out of 5 = 100% Turner Investments, L.P. 8 out of 8 = 100% Ullico Investment Advisors, Inc. 5 out of 5 = 100% Middle Tier Alger 9 out of 11 = 81.8% AllianceBernstein L.P. 20 out of 22 = 90.9% AXA Enterprise Funds 19 out of 25 = 76% BMO Funds 4 out of 5 = 80% Boston Trust/Walden Asset Management 8 out of 9 = 88.8% Brandywine Global Investment Management 6 out of 11 = 54.5% Calvert Investments 23 out of 24 = 95.8% Chicago Equity Partners, LLC 13 out of 15 = 86.6% Delaware Investments 11 out of 12 = 91.6% 11
Tier Group Listing of Investment Manager Statistics DWS Investments 20 out of 25 = 80% GMO 10 out of 11 = 90.9% INTECH Investment Management 14 out of 16 = 87.5% ISS 24 out of 27 = 88.8% Janus Capital Group 12 out of 21 = 57.1% John Hancock Funds 22 out of 27 = 81.4% Lazard Asset Management 13 out of 14 = 92.8% Legg Mason Global Asset Management 10 out of 17 = 58.8% Liberty All-Star Funds 8 out of 9 = 88.8% Mainstay Funds 20 out of 22 = 90.9% Managers Funds 11 out of 16 = 68.7% Mesirow Financial Financial Investment Management 5 out of 6 = 83.3% MFS Investment Management 15 out of 20 = 75% MMA Praxis/Everence 7 out of 10 = 70% Morgan Stanley 12 out of 21 = 57.1% Munder Funds 8 out of 14 = 57.1% New Amsterdam Partners LLC 4 out of 5 = 80% Nuveen Investments 22 out of 25 = 88% NWQ 6 out of 7 = 85.7% OakBrook Investments 15 out of 17 = 88.2% Oppenheimer Funds 15 out of 18 = 83.3% PanAgora Asset Management 23 out of 26 = 88.4% Payden & Rygel 7 out of 11 = 63.6% PNC Capital Advisors, LLC 15 out of 24 = 62.5% Principal Fimds 22 out of 25 = 88% RBC Global Asset Management 19 out of 20 = 95% Robeco Investment Management 14 out of 15 = 93.3% Rothschild Asset Management 9 out of 10 = 90% RS Mutual Funds 18 out of 20 = 90% Schroder Funds 10 out of 11 = 90.9% Segall, Bryant & Hamill 8 out of 9 = 88.8% SEI Investments 24 out of 27 = 88.8% Shareholder Association for Research & Education 8 out of 9 = 88.8% SSGA IAM Shares 13 out of 14 = 92.8% Systematic Financial Management, L.P. 5 out of 7 = 71.4% Transamerica Investments 10 out of 19 = 52.6% USAA Mutual Funds 21 out of 25 = 84% Victory Funds 4 out of 7 = 57.1% 12
Tier Group Listing of Investment Manager Statistics Virtus Investment Partners Wells Fargo Funds Management 11 out of 15 = 73.3% 22 out of 26 = 84.6% William Blair Funds 4 out of 5 = 80% Bottom Tier Allianz 9 out of 23 = 39.1% American Century 1 out of 18 = 5.5% American Funds 1 out of 14 = 7.1% Aston Asset Management 3 out of 10 = 30% Baron Funds 0 out of 5 = 0% BlackRock Mutual Funds 8 out of 27 = 29.6% BNY Mellon Mutual Funds 4 out of 21 = 19% Calamos Funds 0 out of 11 = 0% Cohen & Steers 0 out of 7 = 0% Columbia Management 11 out of 27 = 40.7% Davis Funds 2 out of 8 = 25% Dimensional Fund Advisors 6 out of 24 = 25% Dodge & Cox Funds 0 out of 6 = 0% Dreyfus Funds 6 out of 24 = 25% Duff & Phelps Investment Management Co. 0 out of 9 = 0% Eagle Funds 2 out of 7 = 28.5% Eaton Vance 8 out of 20 = 40% Federated Investors 6 out of 23 = 26% Fidelity Investments 2 out of 26 = 7.6% Franklin Templeton Investments 10 out of 21 = 47.6% Gabelli Funds 1 out of 14 = 7.1% GE Mutual Funds 6 out of 24 = 25% Goldman Sachs Asset Management 10 out of 20 = 50% GuideStone Funds 2 out of 13 = 15.3% Harbor Funds 0 out of 7 = 0% Hartford Investor Mutual Funds 5 out of 24 = 20.8% ING Funds 4 out of 24 = 16.6% Integrity Asset Management 2 out of 7 = 28.5% INVESCO 7 out of 22 = 31.8% JPMorgan Asset Management 9 out of 26 = 34.6% Loomis, Sayles & Company, L.P. 5 out of 12 = 41.6% 13
Tier Group Listing of Investment Manager Statistics Lord Abbett and Co. 1 out of 19 = 5.2% LSV Asset Management 5 out of 11 = 45.4% Manning & Napier Advisors 2 out of 5 = 40% MassMutual Financial Group 5 out of 20 = 25% Metropolitan West Funds 9 out of 22 = 40.9% Nationwide Mutual Funds 8 out of 22 = 36.3% Natixis Funds 4 out of 15 = 26.6% Neuberger Berman Management 8 out of 16 = 50% Northern Funds 4 out of 24 = 16.6% Oakmark 1 out of 5 = 20% Pioneer Investments 3 out of 12 = 25% PRIMECAP Odyssey Funds 0 out of 5 = 0% Prudential Investments 10 out of 24 = 41.6% Putnam Investments 2 out of 19 = 10.5% Quantitative Management Associates LLC 9 out of 27 = 33.3% Royce Mutual Funds 4 out of 9 = 44.4% Russell Investments 8 out of 26 = 30.7% Schwab Funds 8 out of 26 = 30.7% Smith Asset Management Group 4 out of 8 = 50% State Street Global Advisors 4 out of 20 = 20% Steward Mutual Funds 2 out of 17 = 11.7% SunAmerica Mutual Funds 5 out of 18 = 27.7% T. Rowe Price 12 out of 27 = 44.4% TCW Funds 3 out of 7 = 42.8% Thrivent Mutual Funds 5 out of 26 = 19.2% TIAA-CREF 11 out of 27 = 40.7% Trust Company of the West 5 out of 12 = 41.6% UBS Global Asset Management 2 out of 9 = 22.2% VALIC Mutual Funds 6 out of 21 = 28.5% Vanguard Group 3 out of 27 = 11.1% Waddell & Reed Financial Advisors 0 out of 9 = 0% WEDGE Capital Management 4 out of 14 = 28.5% WisdomTree Funds 6 out of 24 = 25% 14
Tier Group Listing of Investment Manager Statistics Fewer Than Five Votes Ariel Investments 1 out of 2 = 50% Artisan Funds 0 out of 4 = 0% Atlanta Capital Management 2 out of 4 = 50% Berkshire Funds 0 out of 2 = 0% Boston Common Funds 1 out of 1 = 100% Capstone Asset Management 0 out of 4 = 0% Chartwell Investment Partners 3 out of 3 = 100% Colony Capital Management, LLC 4 out of 4 = 100% Deroy & Devereaux Private Investment Counsel 1 out of 1 = 100% Domini Social Investments LLC 2 out of 2 = 100% First Eagle Funds 1 out of 2 = 50% FMI Funds 0 out of 1 = 0% Herndon Capital Management 4 out of 4 = 100% MD Sass Associates, Inc. 1 out of 1 = 100% Parnassus Investments 2 out of 3 = 66.6% PAX World Investments 3 out of 3 = 100% PIMCO Investments 3 out of 3 = 100% Portfolio 21 1 out of 1 = 100% Quaker Funds 0 out of 3 = 0% Rainier Investment Management, LLC 4 out of 4 = 100% Renaissance Investment Management 0 out of 3 = 0% Santa Barbara Asset Management 2 out of 2 = 100% Scout Mutual Funds 1 out of 2 = 50% Thornburg Investment Management 0 out of 3 = 0% TimesSquare Capital Management 0 out of 3 = 0% Tradewinds 3 out of 3 = 100% U.S. Bancorp Asset Management 1 out of 1 = 100% Washington Capital Management 4 out of 4 = 100% Winslow Capital Management, LLC 2 out of 3 = 66.6% 15
Tier Group Listing of Investment Manager Statistics Taft-Hartley Client Votes Atlanta Capital Management 2 out of 2 = 100% Brandywine Global Investment Management 4 out of 5 = 80% Duff & Phelps Investment Management Co. 2 out of 2 = 100% Herndon Capital Management 4 out of 4 = 100% INTECH Investment Management 11 out of 11 = 100% LSV Asset Management 10 out of 10 = 100% Nuveen Investments 10 out of 10 = 100% NWQ 1 out of 1 = 100% OakBrook Investments 12 out of 12 = 100% Renaissance Investment Management 1 out of 1 = 100% Rothschild Asset Management 6 out of 6 = 100% Santa Barbara Asset Management 2 out of 2 = 100% Segall, Bryant & Hamill 4 out of 5 = 80% Smith Asset Management Group 2 out of 2 = 100% Systematic Financial Management, L.P. 5 out of 5 = 100% TimesSquare Capital Management 1 out of 1 = 100% Tradewinds 2 out of 2 = 100% Trust Company of the West 2 out of 2 = 100% Turner Investments, L.P. 1 out of 2 = 50% Washington Capital Management 4 out of 4 = 100% Full investment manager scorecards can be found in the Investment Manager Voting Records reports on the AFL-CIO website at http://www.aflcio.org/. 16
AFL-CIO RICHARD L. TRUMKA President ELIZABETH H. SHULER Secretary-Treasurer TEFERE A. GEBRE Executive Vice President 815 16th St., N.W. Washington, DC 20006 202-637-5000 www.aflcio.org