<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>The Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance</title>
	<atom:link href="https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2011/09/27/future-of-institutional-share-voting-revisited-a-fourth-paradigm/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu</link>
	<description>The leading online blog in the fields of corporate governance and financial regulation.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 06 Jul 2026 16:00:21 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.5.8</generator>

 
	<item>
		<title>Future of Institutional Share Voting Revisited: A Fourth Paradigm</title>
		<link>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2011/09/27/future-of-institutional-share-voting-revisited-a-fourth-paradigm/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=future-of-institutional-share-voting-revisited-a-fourth-paradigm</link>
		<comments>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2011/09/27/future-of-institutional-share-voting-revisited-a-fourth-paradigm/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Sep 2011 14:41:17 +0000</pubDate>
<!-- 		<dc:creator><![CDATA[]]></dc:creator> -->
				<category><![CDATA[Corporate Elections & Voting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Institutional Investors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Practitioner Publications]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Institutional voting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Proxy advisors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Say on pay]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/corpgov/?p=21842?d=20150113160659EST</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Prevailing One-Size-Fits-All Voting Policy Paradigm A year ago, we published a Corporate Governance Commentary titled Future of Institutional Share Voting: Three Paradigms. We began by observing that the prevailing paradigm for institutional investors voting of portfolio company shares is to delegate all but the most obvious economically related voting decisions to either an internal [&#8230;]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<hgroup><em>Posted by Charles M. Nathan, Latham & Watkins LLP, on Tuesday, September 27, 2011 </em><div class='e_n' style='background:#F8F8F8;padding:10px;margin-top:5px;margin-bottom:10px;text-indent:2.5em;'><strong style='margin-left:-2.5em;'>Editor's Note: </strong> <p style="margin:0; display:inline;"><a href="http://www.lw.com/attorneys.aspx?page=attorneybio&amp;attno=00150" target="_blank">Charles Nathan</a> is Of Counsel at Latham &amp; Watkins LLP and is co-chair of the firm’s Corporate Governance Task Force. This post is based on a Latham &amp; Watkins Corporate Governance Commentary; the complete commentary, including omitted footnotes, is available <a href="http://www.lw.com/upload/pubContent/_pdf/pub4334_1.pdf" target="_blank">here</a>.</p>
</div></hgroup><p><span style="font-size: 14px;"><strong>The Prevailing One-Size-Fits-All Voting Policy Paradigm</strong></span></p>
<p>A year ago, we published a Corporate Governance Commentary titled <em><a href="http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/corpgov/2010/07/23/the-future-of-institutional-share-voting-three-paradigms/" target="_blank">Future of Institutional Share Voting: Three Paradigms</a></em>. We began by observing that the prevailing paradigm for institutional investors voting of portfolio company shares is to delegate all but the most obvious economically related voting decisions to either an internal or external corporate governance team that is largely, or all too often totally, separate from the investment policy decision making team— in effect, a parallel universe of voting decision makers. Because of the huge number of voting decisions facing institutional investors, the prevailing corporate governance methodology for deciding how to vote portfolio shares is to apply formulaic voting policies that push all portfolio companies, no matter how different their particular circumstances, through a uniform one-size-fits-all voting mold.</p>
<p> <a href="https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2011/09/27/future-of-institutional-share-voting-revisited-a-fourth-paradigm/#more-21842" class="more-link"><span aria-label="Continue reading Future of Institutional Share Voting Revisited: A Fourth Paradigm">(more&hellip;)</span></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2011/09/27/future-of-institutional-share-voting-revisited-a-fourth-paradigm/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
