As equity ownership becomes increasingly concentrated in index funds, concerns have grown over their outsized influence on corporate governance. Mirror voting has emerged as a leading mechanism to ensure that passive capital doesn’t improperly determine corporate election outcomes. By matching (or “mirroring”) the ratio of votes cast by active investors, index funds aim to achieve their stated promise of passivity in corporate elections and to insulate themselves from claims of interference. Current mirror voting proposals and industry policies envision a proportional approach: passive funds observe the way that active shareholders vote and then vote their shares in the same “yes” and “no” percentages.

While we generally support the concept of mirror voting, in our recent article “Mirroring the Market: Passive Voting and Outcome Non-Neutrality”, we show that the regulatory consensus on proportional mirror voting relies on a flawed heuristic. While proportional mirroring appears to achieve neutrality, a closer examination of corporate voting mechanics reveals a different reality. Rather than remaining neutral, proportional mirror voting ignores quorum requirements and the shifting, dynamic denominators in the way that corporate law requires votes to be tabulated. The current, proportional implementation of mirror voting policies creates a subsidy that both artificially validates meetings that would otherwise fail to achieve a quorum, and systematically lowers the threshold for proposals to pass below what state law and internal contracts and governance rules intend.

(more…)