- within Media, Telecoms, IT and Entertainment topic(s)
As reported by the Wall Street Journal, the White House is considering executive actions that would restrict the influence of proxy advisory firms and index-fund managers. According to the Wall Street Journal, the measures under review include curbing certain proxy advisory practices, constraining how large index-fund managers cast votes, and tightening the requirements for shareholders to submit proposals. While the outcome of any White House action remains uncertain, these potential directives could materially affect shareholder voting and how boards engage with investors.
What Proxy Advisers Do and Why They Are Controversial
Proxy advisory firms—most prominently Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS) and Glass Lewis—provide research and voting recommendations to institutional investors on a wide range of matters, from executive compensation to environmental, social and governance proposals. Critics argue that these recommendations unduly influence outcomes and impose standardized governance practices on companies regardless of context. Some also point to conflicts of interest where advisers provide consulting services to companies while providing voting recommendations to investors.
ISS maintains that it is a registered investment adviser subject to Securities and Exchange Commission oversight and emphasizes its commitment to independence and transparency. Glass Lewis has acknowledged concerns about potential conflicts relating to consulting and has announced it will cease offering broadly distributed "benchmark" recommendations starting in 2027, shifting toward more tailored client advice. A newer market participant, Broadridge Financial Solutions, is positioning itself as distinct from traditional proxy advisers by offering research and voting-infrastructure services without issuing voting recommendations.
Role of Index-Fund Managers and the Voting Power Debate
Due to their scale, large index-fund managers—BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street—hold significant voting power across U.S. public companies. Their stewardship teams typically vote on behalf of fund investors, and they have introduced investor-choice programs allowing some clients to direct their own votes, though practical hurdles persist. Critics allege that the concentration of voting power in a few firms can blunt activist efforts and align votes too closely with corporate management. At the same time, smaller asset managers often rely on proxy advisers for cost-effective analysis across numerous ballot items, and any curtailment of advisory services could be disruptive to their voting processes.
Potential Executive Orders Under Discussion
The administration is reportedly evaluating at least one executive order directed at proxy advisers. Options under consideration include a broad restriction on shareholder voting recommendations or a prohibition on issuing recommendations for companies that also receive consulting services from the adviser. Separately, the White House is exploring limits on how index-fund managers vote. One approach would require index-fund managers to mirror the preferences of clients who elect to vote, which could fragment voting patterns within large fund complexes and reduce centralized stewardship discretion.
The White House is also weighing a change to shareholder proposal eligibility thresholds. Current rules allow investors with as little as $2,000 in securities held for a minimum of three years to submit proposals for inclusion in annual proxy statements. Raising these thresholds would narrow access to the proxy process and could reduce the number of shareholder proposals reaching ballots.
Legal and Regulatory Implications
If issued, these executive orders would recalibrate the regulatory framework governing proxy advice and institutional voting. Restrictions on advisory recommendations—especially where consulting relationships exist—would elevate the potential for conflict-of-interest and may require firms to redesign product offerings and compliance procedures. Limits on index-fund voting could necessitate new operational systems to capture and implement client-level voting instructions, as well as enhanced disclosures around voting methodologies. Adjustments to shareholder proposal thresholds would directly affect the gatekeeping standards for proxy access, likely prompting issuers and investors to revisit engagement strategies, disclosure practices, and the economics of proposal campaigns.
Potential Impacts on Corporate Governance and Shareholder Voting
For issuers, tighter constraints on proxy advisers could reduce the perceived sway of standardized voting policies and might shift engagement dynamics toward more issuer-specific dialogue. Higher proposal thresholds would likely reduce the volume of shareholder proposals, potentially streamlining ballots but also limiting avenues for certain investors to raise governance or policy concerns.
For investors, especially smaller managers, constraining proxy advisory services may increase costs or complexity in meeting fiduciary voting responsibilities. Large index-fund managers could face substantial operational changes if required to mirror client votes, potentially leading to more heterogeneous voting outcomes and a diminished role for centralized stewardship teams. Overall, the contemplated measures indicate a move toward greater transparency and potential rebalancing of influence among corporate issuers, proxy advisers, and institutional investors, with meaningful consequences for how shareholder rights are exercised in U.S. public companies.
We will continue to monitor these developments and provide updates regarding any changes to the regulatory environment.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
