Forum Home Page [see Broadridge note below]

 The Shareholder ForumTM`

Fair Investor Access

This public program was initiated in collaboration with The Conference Board Task Force on Corporate/Investor Engagement and with Thomson Reuters support of communication technologies. The Forum is providing continuing reports of the issues that concern this program's participants, as summarized  in the January 5, 2015 Forum Report of Conclusions.

"Fair Access" Home Page

"Fair Access" Program Reference

 

Related Projects 2012-2019

For graphed analyses of company and related industry returns, see

Returns on Corporate Capital

See also analyses of

Shareholder Support Rankings

 
 
 

Forum reference:

Questions raised about practicality of institutional offerings of retail pass-through voting

 

For related research of the author whose views are published below, see

For other recent reports of fund manager provisions for voting decisions by their retail investors, see the following reports and their linked references:

 

Source:  Forbes, December 6, 2023, commentary

Forbes

 


FORBES > INNOVATION > CONSUMER TECH


 The Democratization Of Corporate Governance

 

Quora   Contributor


Dec 6, 2023, 04:30pm EST

 

IMAGE CREATED BY QUORA WITH DALL·E-3

 

Does my index fund vote in shareholder meetings of its portfolio companies? And do I have a say in it? originally appeared on Quora: the place to gain and share knowledge, empowering people to learn from others and better understand the world.

Answer by Nadya Malenko, Professor of Finance, Boston College, on Quora:

Imagine you are an average investor who has some Vanguard shares, and you get an email from Vanguard to vote on several corporate governance issues. You may be surprised. You knew that when you invested in Vanguard's S&P 500 Growth Index Fund, you were buying into the performance of hundreds of companies like Apple, Microsoft, and Tesla. But you didn't realize that this also meant you had a say in how these companies were run.

And that's where our story begins.

When you buy an index fund or ETF, you're not just buying a share in the performance of a collection of companies, you're also buying voting rights. Traditionally, these rights have been delegated to the asset managers, like Vanguard or BlackRock, who then vote on behalf of their investors.

This has resulted in a concentration of voting power in the hands of a few large institutions, sparking a debate about the implications for corporate governance, particularly around contentious issues like environmental. A key debate was triggered when BlackRock expressed a strong pro-ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) stance, which led to disagreements with policymakers and investors across the United States, from New York to Florida to Texas. The high-profile dispute from 2021 between ExxonMobil and activist investor Engine No. 1 is a prime example. Engine No 1, backed by Exxon’s top investors Vanguard, BlackRock, and State Street, pushed Exxon towards more environmentally friendly practices, despite certain groups of investors not being onboard, demonstrating the potential power of shareholder voting.

The debate has led to the rise of pass-through voting. Instead of delegating voting power to the fund managers, the power is passed back to fund investors. Asset managers like BlackRock and Vanguard have introduced voting choice programs, where investors can choose to retain their votes. As of September 2022, institutional investors holding $530 billion, constituting a quarter of BlackRock's eligible assets, opted to retain their votes.

While originally only available to asset managers’ institutional investors, this program was soon extended to many individual investors, further extending the reach of pass-through voting. And on Capitol Hill, a proposal known as the INDEX Act seeks to legislate this practice, requiring passive funds to vote in accordance with the instruction of fund investors.

Pass-through voting is changing the investing landscape in several ways. On the positive side, it allows investors to express their preferences and have a direct impact on corporate governance. As these preferences are aggregated through voting, they can align with or challenge the agendas of big corporations.

However, the democratization of corporate governance is not without its costs. While we want investors to express their ideas, we also need to ensure they understand the implications of their decisions. The due diligence typically performed by large asset managers might be beyond the capacity of individual investors, potentially leading to less informed voting. Additionally, the all-or-nothing nature of pass-through voting, where investors must pick their preferences on all issues across all companies, limits flexibility.

Forcing pass-through voting could also increase the transactional costs of the voting process. Companies may struggle to reach quorum for proposals, and the process of reaching out to investors and setting up voting systems can be expensive. And many institutional fund investors would feel the obligation to vote, thereby contributing to additional expenses like advisory and processing fees.

As for the Index Act? There's been no movement in the Senate as of now. But the debate continues.

So, yes, your index fund votes. You may or may not have a direct say in it (as of now). And if you do, it may come with a cost.

This question originally appeared on Quora - the place to gain and share knowledge, empowering people to learn from others and better understand the world.

 


.

© 2023 Forbes Media LLC.

 

 

 

This Forum program was open, free of charge, to anyone concerned with investor interests in the development of marketplace standards for expanded access to information for securities valuation and shareholder voting decisions. As stated in the posted Conditions of Participation, the purpose of this public Forum's program was to provide decision-makers with access to information and a free exchange of views on the issues presented in the program's Forum Summary. Each participant was expected to make independent use of information obtained through the Forum, subject to the privacy rights of other participants.  It is a Forum rule that participants will not be identified or quoted without their explicit permission.

This Forum program was initiated in 2012 in collaboration with The Conference Board and with Thomson Reuters support of communication technologies to address issues and objectives defined by participants in the 2010 "E-Meetings" program relevant to broad public interests in marketplace practices. The website is being maintained to provide continuing reports of the issues addressed in the program, as summarized in the January 5, 2015 Forum Report of Conclusions.

Inquiries about this Forum program and requests to be included in its distribution list may be addressed to access@shareholderforum.com.

The information provided to Forum participants is intended for their private reference, and permission has not been granted for the republishing of any copyrighted material. The material presented on this web site is the responsibility of Gary Lutin, as chairman of the Shareholder Forum.

Shareholder Forum™ is a trademark owned by The Shareholder Forum, Inc., for the programs conducted since 1999 to support investor access to decision-making information. It should be noted that we have no responsibility for the services that Broadridge Financial Solutions, Inc., introduced for review in the Forum's 2010 "E-Meetings" program and has since been offering with the “Shareholder Forum” name, and we have asked Broadridge to use a different name that does not suggest our support or endorsement.