Egan-Jones Unpacks Recent Executive Order Affecting Proxy Advisory Industry
In a recent publication, Egan-Jones delves into the ramifications of a newly signed executive order that enhances federal scrutiny over the proxy advisory industry. Spearheaded by President Trump, this order was released on December 11, 2025, and encompasses multiple federal agencies, including the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Department of Labor (DOL), Federal Trade Commission (FTC), and the Department of Justice (DOJ).
The aim of this executive order is to address significant issues such as conflicts of interest, ensuring transparency, tackling market concentration, and enhancing accountability for proxy advisors, particularly focusing on the two largest firms in the sector. Such action indicates a pivotal transformation in how investors assess and engage with proxy advisory services.
The analysis sheds light on the potential regulatory consequences that investment managers who rely on these major proxy advisory firms might encounter. As the federal oversight intensifies, investment managers face an elevated risk concerning both regulations and their reputational standing. Egan-Jones highlights various concerns that this executive order brings to the forefront, including insufficient disclosure regarding conflicts of interest and ambiguities in the voting methodologies employed by proxies.
Another critical aspect discussed in the article is the potential fiduciary liability for investment managers, particularly when recommendations are made without a strong foundation in financial considerations. Additionally, anti-competitive behaviors that have led to significant market concentration are also scrutinized. The article elaborates on directives issued to the SEC, FTC, and Secretary of Labor to reassess existing rules, investigate deceptive practices, and carefully evaluate the fiduciary standards applicable to proxy advice for ERISA plans.
The commentary elucidates the continued responsibility that investment managers have in their proxy voting decisions—even when they depend on third-party advice. Federal agencies are tasked with examining whether reliance on non-transparent methodologies or considerations that are not pecuniary may infringe fiduciary responsibilities. The discourse emphasizes the pressing need for greater transparency in the proxy advisory process.
In conclusion, this executive order responds to longstanding criticisms that have emerged from recent congressional hearings and investigations at the state level. Egan-Jones suggests that to mitigate their risks, investment managers are likely to gravitate towards proxy advisors who exhibit low levels of conflict, independence from benchmark biases, and a commitment to safeguarding and enhancing investor wealth.
Egan-Jones Proxy Services offers a range of independent proxy voting analyses and recommendations to benefit institutional investors in this evolving landscape. Adequate understanding and navigation of these new regulatory frameworks will be imperative for investment managers as they adapt their strategies in response to this heightened scrutiny of proxy advisory practices.
The aim of this executive order is to address significant issues such as conflicts of interest, ensuring transparency, tackling market concentration, and enhancing accountability for proxy advisors, particularly focusing on the two largest firms in the sector. Such action indicates a pivotal transformation in how investors assess and engage with proxy advisory services.
The analysis sheds light on the potential regulatory consequences that investment managers who rely on these major proxy advisory firms might encounter. As the federal oversight intensifies, investment managers face an elevated risk concerning both regulations and their reputational standing. Egan-Jones highlights various concerns that this executive order brings to the forefront, including insufficient disclosure regarding conflicts of interest and ambiguities in the voting methodologies employed by proxies.
Another critical aspect discussed in the article is the potential fiduciary liability for investment managers, particularly when recommendations are made without a strong foundation in financial considerations. Additionally, anti-competitive behaviors that have led to significant market concentration are also scrutinized. The article elaborates on directives issued to the SEC, FTC, and Secretary of Labor to reassess existing rules, investigate deceptive practices, and carefully evaluate the fiduciary standards applicable to proxy advice for ERISA plans.
The commentary elucidates the continued responsibility that investment managers have in their proxy voting decisions—even when they depend on third-party advice. Federal agencies are tasked with examining whether reliance on non-transparent methodologies or considerations that are not pecuniary may infringe fiduciary responsibilities. The discourse emphasizes the pressing need for greater transparency in the proxy advisory process.
In conclusion, this executive order responds to longstanding criticisms that have emerged from recent congressional hearings and investigations at the state level. Egan-Jones suggests that to mitigate their risks, investment managers are likely to gravitate towards proxy advisors who exhibit low levels of conflict, independence from benchmark biases, and a commitment to safeguarding and enhancing investor wealth.
Egan-Jones Proxy Services offers a range of independent proxy voting analyses and recommendations to benefit institutional investors in this evolving landscape. Adequate understanding and navigation of these new regulatory frameworks will be imperative for investment managers as they adapt their strategies in response to this heightened scrutiny of proxy advisory practices.
Topics Financial Services & Investing）
【About Using Articles】
You can freely use the title and article content by linking to the page where the article is posted.
※ Images cannot be used.
【About Links】
Links are free to use.