Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance, June 18, 2025, posted by Will Goodwin of Tumelo: "Opening Statement at Investor Advisory Committee Panel on Pass-Through Voting and Other Ways to Reach the Ultimate Beneficial Owner" [Technology provider's view of opportunities for retail investor engagement in proxy voting]

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 distribution:

Technology provider's view of opportunities for retail investor engagement in proxy voting

 

For SEC records of the meeting reported below, including a video recording of the meeting, see

For related reports addressing the interests of Forum participants in the evolving controls of shareholder voting, see the references listed here.

 

Source: The Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance, June 18, 2025, posting

Opening Statement at Investor Advisory Committee Panel on Pass-Through Voting and Other Ways to Reach the Ultimate Beneficial Owner

Posted by Will Goodwin, Tumelo, on  Wednesday, June 18, 2025

Editor’s Note: Will Goodwin is the Co-founder & Head of US Sales at Tumelo. This post is based on his opening statement at an SEC IAC panel.

 

In June 2025, I participated in a panel hosted by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s Investor Advisory Committee to discuss the growing momentum behind pass-through voting and what it means for investor empowerment.

The conversation brought together experts from across the governance ecosystem, including Vanguard, EQ Shareowner Services, the Society for Corporate Governance, and a renowned academic from the University of Pennsylvania. Each of us explored how the proxy voting system is evolving, and why giving clients a direct say in corporate governance is no longer a fringe idea, but a fiduciary necessity.

Why investor choice matters

More than 50% of U.S. households own pooled investment vehicles — mutual funds, ETFs, or closed-end funds.(1) That’s around 74 million households or approximately 130 million individual investors.

If we believe corporate governance plays a critical role in how companies operate today, then we must also believe that clients should have a say in how that governance is executed.

The current state of proxy voting

Traditional flow:

Today, the typical process looks like this:

  1. A beneficial owner invests in a fund.

  2. That fund votes on behalf of all its clients.

  3. The asset manager makes voting decisions according to its own policy.

This creates significant issues:

  • It’s hard for investors to understand how their shares will be voted.

  • It’s hard to discover how the shares were voted after the fact.

What pass-through voting changes

Pass-through voting introduces choice at the point of proxy decision-making.

We move from:
Client
Fund Fund votes on behalf of client

To:
Client
Fund Client chooses how their shares are voted

At Tumelo, as a technology provider, we’ve seen several implementation models tailored to different types of clients:

  • Policy selection:
    Clients choose from a menu of voting policies, including the fund manager’s default.
    Example: Vanguard’s approach.

  • Custom-policy creation:
    Clients build their own proxy-voting policies based on personal or organisational principles.

  • Proposal-by-proposal voting:
    Typically used by institutional clients who want to vote on specific ballot items they care most about.

 

The principle is straightforward: It’s the client’s money, therefore it is the client’s choice.

Solving real problems for institutional clients

From an institutional perspective, we’ve observed significant misalignment between an asset owner’s investment strategy and how its votes are cast in the pooled funds they use.

To address this, Tumelo offers a reporting solution that allows clients to compare:

  • How shares held in separately managed accounts (which they vote themselves) are voted

  • Versus how the pooled funds they use are voted (under the manager’s policy)

This often reveals discrepancies, which dilutes the impact of the client’s investment strategy.

 

Enabling policy alignment across all assets

Pass-through voting solves this misalignment for asset owners.

Consider this simplified comparison:

 
  • Before: An asset owner has a separate account (voted with their own policy) and several pooled funds (voted by fund managers).

  • After: With pass-through voting, the client’s preferred policy can apply to all holdings —including pooled funds.

This alignment is essential. Without it, the client’s influence in corporate governance is fragmented, undermining their ability to act on their investment principles.

Customisation in practice

We’ve seen broad customisation among institutional and retail clients that have adopted pass-through voting. Examples include:

  • Wealth managers seeking alignment across pooled funds used in client portfolios.

  • Local Government Pension Schemes (LGPS) in the UK such as LGPS Central, which votes over £12 billion under a unified policy

  • Defined Benefit (DB) and Defined Contribution (DC) Corporate Pension Schemes
    which often take an issuer-focused approach, selecting target companies based on size or strategic priority.

  • Retail investors making a voting policy choice at the point of fund purchase.

Technology-enabled experiences

For institutional investors:
Tumelo offers a stewardship platform that enables:

  • Policy selection.

  • Visibility of upcoming votes.

  • Direct vote casting.

  • Full reporting for internal and external disclosures.

 

For retail investors:
The focus is on transparency and education. The experience includes:

  • Connecting brokerage accounts.

  • Viewing how shares are voted under the selected policy.

  • Holding policy providers accountable for how votes are actually cast.

 

Growth of pass-through voting

We’re seeing strong and accelerating demand across the market:

  • We support multiple fund managers.

  • Over £200 billion in client assets currently vote through our platform.

  • An additional £30 billion is in onboarding.

  • We’ve identified over £1 trillion in institutional assets interested in adopting pass-through voting, but unable to access it — often because their fund managers do not yet support the functionality.

Importantly, demand is not limited to passive funds. Clients expect voting alignment across both passive and active portfolios.

Looking ahead

We believe pass-through voting will become a standard feature across all pooled investment vehicles. Why? Because clients want customisation, they believe voting control strengthens their investment strategy, and for many, it’s now considered table stakes.

We envision a future where investors buying a fund through a brokerage platform are immediately offered the chance to choose how their shares are voted all from within the same user interface.

References:

1 Investment Company Institute. (2023, October). Ownership of mutual funds, shareholder sentiment, and use of professional financial advisers, 2023 (ICI Research Perspective, Vol. 29, No. 10). https://www.ici.org/system/files/2023-10/per29-10.pdf



Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance

All copyright and trademarks in content on this site are owned by their respective owners. Other content © 2025 The President and Fellows of Harvard College.

 Privacy Policy

 

 

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 using the “Shareholder Forum” name, and we have asked Broadridge to use a different name that does not suggest our support or endorsement.