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:

Renewed attention to winning the shareholder voting support of ultimate investors


For previous efforts to support the shareholder voting of individual investors addressed in the article below, see


Source: The New York Times | Fair Game, October 6, 2017 column

Business Day

Small Investors Support the Boards. But Few of Them Vote.

Fair Game


Timothy J. Sloan, Wells Fargo’s chief executive, testifying on Tuesday before the Senate Banking Committee. At the company’s annual meeting in April, with the bank under pressure for questionable sales practices, individual investors showed little engagement. Aaron P. Bernstein/Reuters.

Institutional investors have been flexing their muscles on corporate governance issues this year. So why do individual investors continue to be so disengaged on these matters?

A recent analysis of investor voting at annual shareholder meetings highlights a striking contrast between the views of institutional investors and those of individuals. It was conducted by Broadridge Financial Solutions, a technology and data analytics firm and PricewaterhouseCoopers, the auditing and professional services firm, and it compared the votes of endowments, pension funds and mutual funds with those of retail investors at almost 3,400 annual meetings between Jan. 1 and June 30 of this year.


Fair Game

A column from Gretchen Morgenson examining the world of finance and its impact on investors, workers and families

Consumers, but Not Executives, May Pay for Equifax Failings SEP 13

Sarbanes-Oxley, Bemoaned as a Burden, Is an Investor’s Ally SEP 8

The Accounting Tack That Makes PayPal’s Numbers Look So Good Aug 4

Big Pharma Spends on Share Buybacks, but R&D? Not So Much

Jul 14

The Trump Effect on C.E.O. Pay

May 26

Meet the Shareholders? Not at These Shareholder Meetings Mar 31

Want Change? Shareholders Have a Tool for That

Mar 24

Your Mutual Fund Has Your Proxy, Like It or Not

SEP 23 2016

EpiPen Price Increases Could Mean More Riches for Executives Sep 1

Bloated Pay Came Before Hain Celestial’s Error AUG 19

A Simple Test to Dispel the Illusion Behind Stock Buybacks Aug 12

Investors Get Stung Twice by Executives’ Lavish Pay Package

Jul 8

How to Gauge a C.E.O.’s Value? Hint: It’s Not the Share Price

Jun 17

Fantasy Math Is Helping Companies Spin Losses Into Profits

Apr 22

BlackRock Wields Its Big Stick Like a Wet Noodle on C.E.O. Pay

APR 15

In Yahoo, Another Example of the Buyback Mirage

Mar 25

Stock Buyback Plans, Seen as Shareholder Boon, Can Backfire

MAR 11

FASB Proposes to Curb What Companies Must Disclose

Jan 2


Valeant Shows the Perils of Fantasy Numbers

OCT 30


Safety Suffers as Stock Options Propel Executive Pay Packages

SEP 13

Why Putting a Number to C.E.O. Pay Might Bring Change

Aug 9

Tech Companies Fly High on Fantasy Accounting

Jun 21

Stock Buybacks That Hurt Shareholders

Jun 5

Shareholders’ Votes Have Done Little to Curb Lavish Executive Pay

May 16


When the Stock Price Hides Trouble

Oct 12


An Unstoppable Climb in C.E.O. Pay

Jun 30 2013

When Shareholders Make Their Voices Heard

Apr 8


See More »


The analysis found that even as more institutions are voting their shares against corporate management on environmental matters, executive pay and board diversity, individuals’ votes are more likely to support the executives.

Consider the figures. Of the shares voted by institutions this year, 54 percent favored shareholder proposals urging companies to make disclosures about the effects of climate change on their businesses. But only 10 percent of shares held by individuals were cast in support of these proposals.

On proposals aiming to improve board diversity, almost one-third of institutional shares were cast in support. But only 14 percent of retail investors’ shares favored bringing more diversity to the ranks of corporate directors.

The same split between institutions and individuals also emerged on the topic of questionable executive pay practices. At the 32 companies whose pay programs failed to win majority support from shareholders this year, individual investors were twice as likely as institutions to vote in favor of that compensation. Some 66 percent of individuals’ shares were cast in support of companies whose pay plans failed to win majority approval, compared with 32 percent of institutions’ shares.

To a great degree, these figures reflect the fact that institutions hold the overwhelming portion of company shares — 70 percent to individuals’ 30 percent, Broadridge data shows.

But do the results prove that individual investors are pleased with the way corporations are managing governance matters? While executives might want to believe this, it’s probably not the case, according to experts who study shareholder voting. They contend that for individual investors, the proxy voting system is onerous, frustrating and broken. A result, they say, is that annual vote tallies represent only a small portion of individual investors’ shares and views.

Voting is just too hard for retail investors, said Jill E. Fisch, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, and co-director of its Institute for Law and Economics. “It’s not surprising that they often give up,” she added. “As a result, there’s a group of investors that corporate managers aren’t hearing from consistently.”

The Broadridge-PricewaterhouseCoopers study bears this out. It found that 91 percent of the shares owned by institutional investors — but only 29 percent of those held by individuals — were voted during the most recent proxy season on director elections and shareholder proposals covering the full array of governance issues.

Voting is too difficult for retail investors, Jill E. Fisch, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, said. “It’s not surprising that they often give up.” Ryan Collerd for The New York Times

The main reason for this divergence is that institutions are generally required to vote their shares as part of their fiduciary duty to the investors or pension beneficiaries whose money they oversee. “Institutions vote at very high rates,” said Chuck Callan, senior vice president for regulatory affairs at Broadridge, in an interview. “Retail shareholders are not required to vote by law or regulation. Typically, the understanding has been that if these shareholders have a problem with a company, they vote with their feet.” In other words, they sell their shares.

But if you examine the results of almost any annual shareholder meeting, it also becomes clear that throngs of individual investors were absent this year in voting on directors and other governance issues.

Most individuals keep their shares at their brokerage firms, but the brokers cannot vote them on the clients’ behalf. Instead, the investors have to cast their votes by mail, on the phone or online. Those who fail to do so are categorized as broker nonvotes in regulatory filings.

Even at troubled companies, this inertia can be widespread and surprising. At Wells Fargo’s annual meeting in April, for example, when the company came under pressure for its questionable sales practices, roughly four billion shares were voted in the director elections. Broker nonvotes on those elections totaled almost 500 million shares.

Institutional investors, meanwhile, have it easier when they vote their shares. They can take advantage of technological advancements in voting platforms that allow them to leave standing instructions on how they want their votes cast on particular proposals.

“Because they have such a huge work flow, institutions will flag certain types of proposals and will develop guidelines on how they want to vote on them,” Mr. Callan said. “Platforms for institutions integrate all that.”

Ms. Fisch, the law professor, asked why a similar process couldn’t be set up for individual investors. In a coming article in the Minnesota Law Review, she argued that low individual investor turnout is a result of an antiquated voting system. In the article, “Standing Voting Instructions: Empowering the Excluded Retail Investor,” she contended that “current regulatory restrictions impede market-based innovation” that could allow individual investors’ voices to be heard.

The Securities and Exchange Commission has weighed in on this problem recently. Acknowledging that the low level of voting by individual investors is a concern, it sponsored a roundtable on proxy voting in 2015. A major agenda item was how to increase individual investor participation.

But proposals for a system that would allow individuals to leave standing instructions for the voting of their shares have gone nowhere. As Ms. Fisch noted, the commission has voiced concerns that such a system would require investors to make voting decisions before they had received proxy materials “containing the disclosures mandated under the federal securities laws and possibly without consideration of the specific issues to be voted upon.” The agency also warned that the availability of standing voting instructions might mean investors would not bother to read the proxy statement.

Still, regulations have gotten in the way of what might be the natural market development of tools to encourage individual investor voting, Ms. Fisch said. “When the voting platforms and proxy advisers work with institutional investors, they provide tools for categorizing issues and proposals to accommodate investor voting preferences even though the issues might differ a little,” she added. “I would envision a platform being able to provide retail investors that same sort of functionality.”

Ms. Fisch and others are convinced that individual investors are interested in the makeup of corporate boards, executive pay and other governance matters. Given that technology can lower the hurdles these shareholders face in expressing their views, it seems unfair to ignore it.


A version of this article appears in print on October 8, 2017, on Page BU1 of the New York edition with the headline: Small Investors Support Boards, But Few Vote.


© 2017 The New York Times Company



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

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.