The bill amends the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to require institutional investment managers that use proxy advisory firms to file an annual report with the SEC detailing how they vote on shareholder proposals, how those votes align with proxy recommendations, and how those recommendations are incorporated into voting decisions. It also imposes enhanced disclosures for large managers (those with at least $100 billion in assets under management), including consumer-facing clarifications about voting on proposals and mandatory economic analyses that must be included in the annual report.
These measures aim to increase transparency around proxy voting, align voting with fiduciary duties to maximize shareholders’ economic interests, and create a data trail that regulators can assess. Proponents argue the rules will improve accountability in governance votes; critics worry about compliance burdens and potential chilling effects on voting flexibility.
At a Glance
What It Does
Adds a new subsection to Section 13(f) requiring annual reporting by institutional investment managers that use proxy advisory firms, detailing voting decisions and the role of proxy advice.
Who It Affects
Directly affects institutional investment managers using proxy advisory firms, their fund clients, and the issuers whose shares are voted; indirectly affects proxy advisers and asset owners.
Why It Matters
Establishes a standardized disclosure framework to shed light on how proxy advice influences votes and how fiduciaries balance economic interests with governance considerations.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill adds new disclosure obligations to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Institutional investment managers that use proxy advisory firms must file an annual report with the SEC explaining how they voted on shareholder proposals and how those votes related to recommendations from the proxy advisers they use.
The report must also describe how the manager reconciles the proxy advice with its fiduciary duty to act in the best economic interests of shareholders, and must include information on how often votes aligned with advisers’ recommendations and how errors or new issuer information affected voting decisions.
For managers with at least $100 billion in assets under management, the bill requires additional consumer-facing disclosures in materials provided to customers, including a clear statement that shareholders are not required to vote on every proposal. It also requires an economic analysis for each vote that departs from a proxy adviser’s recommendation and requires including those analyses in the annual report.
The bill defines key terms like “best economic interest” and “proxy advisory firm” and sets out what counts as a proxy advisory firm for purposes of these disclosures.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Adds an annual SEC-reporting obligation for managers using proxy advisers.
Requires disclosure of votes on shareholder proposals and alignment with advisers’ recommendations.
Requires explanation of how proxy advice is used and how votes align with fiduciary duties.
Imposes a certification that voting decisions reflect the best economic interests of shareholders.
For $100B+ AUM, adds customer-facing disclosures and mandatory economic analyses in annual reports.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
New disclosures added to 13(f)
The bill adds a new paragraph (7) to Section 13(f) requiring institutional investment managers that use proxy advisory firms to file an annual report with the SEC. The report covers voting rationale, alignment with proxy firm recommendations, and how such recommendations influence voting decisions. This establishes a formal data trail linking proxy advice to actual votes.
Annual report contents and certification
Under (A), managers must explain how they voted on shareholder proposals, quantify alignment with each proxy advisory firm’s recommendations, and provide a detailed explanation of how proxy advice was considered in voting decisions. A certification must confirm that voting decisions are based on the best economic interests of shareholders.
Enhanced disclosures for $100B+ AUM
For managers with assets under management of at least $100 billion, the bill adds requirements to clarify to customers that voting on every proposal is not mandatory, and to perform an economic analysis for votes that depart from a proxy adviser’s recommendation. Those analyses must be included in the annual report.
Key terms defined
Defines ‘Best Economic Interest’ as decisions aimed at maximizing investment returns within the fund’s objectives and risk profile. Defines ‘Proxy Advisory Firm’ as a person primarily engaged in providing proxy voting advice, research, analysis, ratings, or recommendations, excluding entities exempt from the applicable requirements.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Finance across all five countries.
Explore Finance in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Public pension funds and other defined-benefit plan sponsors benefit from greater transparency about how voting decisions are made and how proxy advice is used.
- Endowments, foundations, and other long-horizon investors gain clearer accountability for fiduciary-driven voting strategies.
- Retail and institutional investors benefit from a clearer link between voting decisions and economic outcomes, improving confidence in fund governance.
- Asset managers that implement robust disclosure and analytics can differentiate themselves through strengthened governance practices and client trust.
- Regulators (SEC) gain data to monitor compliance with proxy voting disclosures and fiduciary standards.
Who Bears the Cost
- Institutional investment managers using proxy advisory firms incur costs to prepare annual reports, analyses, and certifications.
- Large managers (AUM ≥ $100B) face additional reporting and analysis burdens, potentially increasing compliance and data-assembly costs.
- Proxy advisory firms may incur greater regulatory and data-handling obligations as the framework is implemented.
- Funds’ clients and beneficiaries could experience higher fees or tightened investment processes due to the added compliance load.
- Issuers may experience more frequent scrutiny of their proposals as voting transparency improves and data availability increases.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between transparency and burdens: requiring detailed, auditable disclosures aims to strengthen fiduciary accountability and market integrity, but it also imposes costs and may influence voting behavior or dampen the willingness of managers to engage in proxy voting when analyses are complex or ambiguous.
The bill creates a substantial new layer of disclosure around proxy voting, which could improve accountability but also raise the cost of compliance for managers and advisers. The requirement to articulate how proxy advice is weighed against fiduciary duties and to publish economic analyses for votes departing from adviser recommendations could lead to conservative voting practices or more conservative governance recommendations.
The fixed threshold for “large” managers (≥ $100B AUM) ensures that the heaviest burdens appear where the potential impact on markets and plan beneficiaries is greatest, but it also concentrates data collection and reporting demands on a subset of the industry. The definitions — particularly “proxy advisory firm” — are designed to calibrate the scope of coverage, but practitioners will want clarity on entities exempt from these rules and how new information interacts with existing disclosure rules.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.