Proxy voting research on your own voting policy, every vote cited to the issuer's page and its Form N-PX line written as you sign
Every proxy voted on your own policy, with a cited rationale and its N-PX line.
See one case, screen by screen ↓Proxy Voting Research is proxy voting research software for asset managers that applies your own written voting policy to every proxy. Seven agents read each meeting notice in its original language, apply the house policy item by item, check each other, draft the vote rationale and write the Form N-PX line when a vote is signed. Analysts decide only the items that diverge, and the voting committee approves every override.
AI in asset management: a buyer's guide to agentic AI for investment managers →
Updated
Proxy voting research has a volume problem. A stewardship team votes 9,000 to 12,000 shareholder meetings a year, most of them between April and June, in dozens of markets and languages, with custodian cutoffs days before each meeting. No analyst can read 100,000 agenda items, so most ballots follow a pre-populated proxy vote recommendation built on the advisor's data points, not on the issuer's own notice. The house rarely sees the page that decides a vote — for example, whether a Japanese outside director who was an executive of the company's main lender counts as independent under its own test.
Two proxy advisors write more than 90% of US proxy advice, one of them ends its benchmark policy in 2027, and a December 2025 executive order puts reliance on advisors under review. Managers are under pressure to own their votes and show their reasons. Meanwhile rationales get written only for votes against management, overrides of the voting policy are decided by email, and the Form N-PX is assembled by hand each summer from exports, mappings and corrections, and any mistake in it is public and permanent once it is filed.
Estimated split for one analyst's queue of about 60 meetings in peak season, by hand and with the solution.
Seven agents read every notice, apply your policy and check each other; analysts decide only what diverges.
Quillfield Capital votes 4,812,300 shares of Oribe Kasei Holdings — an Osaka specialty chemicals company listed on TSE Prime, 3.1% of the company, about $85.2 million — across six accounts. The 87th Annual General Meeting is Friday, June 25, 2027; the vote cutoff is Friday, June 18. It is Tuesday, June 8, 9:40 a.m. in Singapore, week 10 of proxy season. Here is what happens next, screen by screen, in the working solution.
Daniel's Today screen opens on four numbers: 1,846 meetings to vote in the next 10 business days, 20,512 agenda items, every one pre-analyzed; 1,174 items that need a person; 14 overrides with the voting committee; 0 votes missed, with 6,412 of 9,214 meetings voted. His queue — 61 meetings, 164 items — is sorted closest cutoff first: eight Japanese AGMs close by Thursday, June 10. Then his largest stake this week, Oribe Kasei Holdings, 4 of 16 items.
Overnight, 2:15 a.m.: “Oribe Kasei: the advisor counts 4 independent directors, our test counts 2 of 11; proposed Against the President.”
Beside his queue is what the agents did between 1:00 and 5:40 a.m.: 1,912 new ballots matched to record-date holdings in 214 accounts; 1,204 notices and circulars read in 23 languages, with three unreadable Sagiri Electric pages not guessed; every deciding fact re-read, agreeing on 20,451 of 20,512 items and sending 61 disagreements to analysts. Daniel types “Approve the Japan batch?” The Policy agent answers with the numbers and who checks.
Policy agent: “The Japan batch has 604 meetings, 7,980 items in line with the policy where both reading agents agree (average 97.8%). Approving it sends a 2% sample (12 meetings) to Sofia Reyes.”
The ballot shows every agenda item with four columns — Management, Advisor, House policy, Proposed — and the page each one rests on. Four diverge and sit at the top: item 2, virtual-only shareholder meetings with no limit to emergencies (p.4); item 3.1, re-elect President and CEO Hiroshi Oribe; item 5, a takeover defense plan renewed for three years, where the advisor also says Against (p.14); and item 6, a shareholder proposal to write a 1.5°C transition plan into the articles, where the policy says case by case (p.18). The 12 items in line with the policy take one step: “Approve 12 in line”.
On the ballot: “Advisor = subscription research, one input among several.”
Item 3.1 opens with its source: the convocation notice in Japanese, page 6, beside the Evidence agent's English. Candidate 10, Ryoji Kanda, was Managing Executive Officer of Seiran Trust Bank — the company's main lender, ¥38.6 billion, 41% of borrowings. Candidate 11, Emiko Tsuda, was Senior Vice President of Kozakura Trading, which holds 8.4% of the shares and buys 12% of consolidated sales. The facts are pinned below: independent under our test, 2 of 11 · 18.2% (p.6); exchange-registered, 4 of 11 · 36.4% (p.9); minimum 33.3% under rule J-2.1.
Evidence agent, 98%: “The English summary leaves both careers out.”
Under the source, the agents talk it through. The Policy agent applies J-2.1 — 2 of 11 is below one-third — so Against the top executive, who chairs the board and the nomination committee. The Check agent re-reads pages 6 and 9 on its own, with a different model, and agrees at 97%. The Engagement agent adds that Quillfield voted For in 2026 under a one-year grace, wrote to the board on July 9, 2026, and heard on February 17, 2027 that a third independent director would come only “by the 2028 meeting”. Daniel asks: “Why does the advisor say For?”
Check agent: “That is the whole difference: 4 of 11 (36.4%) versus 2 of 11 (18.2%).”
Daniel approves Against with the drafted public rationale: “two of eleven directors (18%) are independent under our test, below the one-third we expect at Prime Market companies.” Because it is a vote against management, it goes to Sofia Reyes, Senior Stewardship Analyst, to check; his own Check button is locked. The Filing agent writes the Form N-PX lines at signature: Japan Equity Fund 1,904,000 shares; International Value Fund 1,126,500; Global Small & Mid Cap ETF 202,800 voted and 210,000 on loan, not recalled.
“Item 3.1 approved · 3 N-PX lines written · sent to Sofia Reyes to check”
The Engagement agent drafted the letter to Mr. Oribe at 2:20 a.m.: why Quillfield voted against his re-election, citing notice page 6 and the July 2026 letter; why it voted against items 2 and 5; and why it did not support item 6, given the commitment to publish a transition plan in the FY2027 integrated report — while one client voted its 380,000 shares for under its own policy. Beside it is the record: the February 17 call with the CFO, the July 9 letter, the 2026 vote and a November 2025 meeting with the President.
The Engagement agent never sends a letter: Margaret Lin, Head of Investment Stewardship, approves it first.
Fourteen overrides wait for the voting committee. OVR-0412, Hanbyeol Shipbuilding item 2: the policy says Against the inside director who leads a physical split (rule K-8.1); Hana Seo proposes For, reason code OV-2, because the company agreed in writing on June 4 to give existing holders shares in the spun-off unit and list it within 24 months. The Check agent reads the evidence and finds it post-dates the documents the policy result rests on; the portfolio manager's view supports the change. Thomas approved it on June 7, so it stands at 1 of 2 and needs a second committee member's approval.
“Any vote that leaves the house policy needs two voting committee members, never the person who proposed it.”
A committee member writes the change in plain words: “Lower the Japan cross-shareholding line from 20% to 15% of net assets, including deemed holdings.” The Policy agent codes it as rule J-3.2, finds the 418 meetings where the rule was tested and replays 71,380 signed items in 6,412 meetings; the Check agent re-reads 40 of the flips and agrees on all 40. Result: 131 votes change, For to Against the top executive, all in Japan, and votes against management move from 9.8% to 10.0%.
“Submit for committee approval — two members approve; never the proposer.”
The Form N-PX for July 1, 2026 to June 30, 2027 is due Tuesday, August 31, in 84 days. 386,217 lines are written, one per vote and fund series, across 146 series plus the say-on-pay report for the 13F manager; 99.6% are ready and 99.8% tie to a voting-platform confirmation. They were reconciled nightly and validated against the XML schema with 0 errors. 1,412 exceptions remain — 806 of them confirmations the Filing agent re-requests every night. Carla prepares the filing; the Chief Compliance Officer signs it.
“Schema-validated nightly; no line is filed without a signed vote behind it.”
The same proxy season, seen by five of the people who carry it — what it looked like with a pre-populated ballot, and what it looks like now.
Seven agents read every notice, apply your policy and check each other; analysts decide only what diverges.
Pulls meetings and ballots from the voting platform every night, matches them to record-date holdings, reconciles entitlements, flags share-blocking and power-of-attorney markets and missing materials, and proposes recalling shares on loan for significant votes.
Reads notices, proxy statements and annual reports in their original language, extracts the facts each rule needs, translates the deciding passage and pins every fact to its page.
Applies the house voting policy, or a client's own policy, item by item: the rule, the test, the result and its confidence. Codes proposed policy changes and replays the season under them.
Re-derives the deciding fact on its own from the same pages, with a different model family from the Policy agent, and challenges the result.
Brings the company's engagement history, commitments and past votes into the item, proposes the escalation the policy calls for, and drafts the letter to the company after the vote.
Drafts the public and internal vote rationales in plain words, consistent with past rationales, and the explanations of significant votes for SRD II and the UK Stewardship Code.
Writes the Form N-PX line when a vote is signed — fund series, proxy-card wording, category, shares voted, shares on loan and not recalled — reconciles it to the vote confirmation and validates the XML every night.
Approve, check, override, sign. The agents propose; a named person decides.
Every working screen has its own conversation with the agents. Ask about the item in front of you or tell them what to do; each answer cites the page or rule it came from, and anything that changes a vote, a position or a filing still goes to the person whose decision it is.
Why does the advisor say For?
The advisor counts all four outside directors as independent because the company registers them with the exchange (p.9). Our test excludes Ryoji Kanda (main lender, ¥38.6 billion, 41% of borrowings) and Emiko Tsuda (8.4% shareholder) (p.6). That is the whole difference: 4 of 11 (36.4%) versus 2 of 11 (18.2%).
Where should I start?
Start with the meetings that close Thursday, June 10. Then Oribe Kasei Holdings: your largest stake this week (3.1% of the company, $85.2M), 4 of 16 items diverge, and item 3.1 votes against the President (p.6). I filtered your queue to Thursday's meetings.
What happens if we reject it?
If the committee rejects OVR-0412, the vote returns to the policy result, Against, and Hana Seo is told with your reason code; the ballot still makes its cutoff on Monday, June 14. If a second member approves, the vote is final as For, recorded as an override (OV-2) on the audit trail and in the season report.
Are we on track for Aug 31?
99.6% of lines are ready and 1,412 exceptions remain, 806 of them confirmations I re-request nightly. At this rate the draft is clean in the first days after June 30, well before August 31. Preparing it is Carla Mendes's step; signing is Imran Qureshi's.
13 screens from the working solution, on its sample data. Pick one to see it large.
How much reaches a person, who approves what and when items escalate — settings the administrator changes and the Head of Investment Stewardship approves, every change versioned and logged.
| Setting | Default | Choose from |
|---|---|---|
| In line when both reading agents agree at | 90% | 75% to 99%; below this an item reaches an analyst |
| Checker sample of bulk approvals | 2% (change to 3% awaiting approval) | 1% to 10% of in-line meetings |
| Significant holding (always reaches a person) | $50M, or 1% of shares outstanding | $10M to $250M |
| Committee approvals for an override | 2, never the proposer | 2 · 3 |
| Propose recalls before the record date | 10 days | 3 to 20 days; for significant votes and overrides at committee |
| Item still open 72 hours before the cutoff | Escalate to the Head of Investment Stewardship | On · Off |
| Item still open 48 hours before the cutoff | Escalate to the Voting Committee Chair | On · Off |
| Votes, rationales and evidence | Kept 7 years, in the client's region | US · EU · Singapore regions; models run where the data lives |
Every figure is labelled: a target the solution is built to, an estimate, a typical published result, or a proven one.
“demo” = seen in the working solution, on its sample data · “target” = the design goal, measured in the live solution · “estimated” = our estimate · “typical” = published figures (Latham & Watkins on the December 11, 2025 executive order — two proxy advisors hold over 90% of US proxy advice; Skadden and the Harvard Law School Forum, October 2025 — one advisor ends its benchmark policy in 2027; SEC Release 33-11131 — Form N-PX in structured XML, due August 31 for the year to June 30; SEC 2019 guidance under Rule 206(4)-6). Quillfield Capital and the people, companies, funds and clients named on this page are fictional — characters and sample data in the working solution.
Proxy Voting Research is proxy voting research software for asset managers that applies your own written voting policy to every proxy. Seven agents read each meeting notice in its original language, apply the house policy item by item, check each other, draft the vote rationale and write the Form N-PX line when a vote is signed. Analysts decide only the items that diverge, and the voting committee approves every override.
Yes. Your written policy and market annexes become plain-language rules the committee approves — 96 rules from a 74-page policy and six annexes in the working solution. The Evidence agent reads the notice in its own language and pins each fact to its page, the Policy agent applies the rule, and the Check agent re-derives the deciding fact on its own with a different model. With AI proxy voting set up this way, an item goes in line only when both reading agents agree at 90% or more; everything else reaches an analyst.
The advisor's proxy vote recommendation stays on the ballot as one input beside management's and your house policy result, and is never voted automatically. Where they differ, the agents explain why from the issuer's own pages — on the sample Japanese AGM, the advisor counts four independent directors because of the exchange designation, while the house test counts two.
Form N-PX is due by August 31 each year for the twelve months to June 30, in structured XML for each fund series. The Filing agent writes each N-PX line when a vote is signed — fund series, proxy-card wording, category, shares voted and shares on loan, not recalled — reconciles it to the voting platform's confirmation and validates the XML every night. Proxy operations prepares the filing and the Chief Compliance Officer signs it, so August is a review rather than a summer project, well ahead of the Form N-PX filing deadline.
Yes. The Policy agent applies a client's own policy to that client's shares and the ballot shows a split vote by account. In the working solution, a public pension's separate account votes its 380,000 shares For a climate disclosure proposal under its own policy, while the house accounts vote Against.
Every vote cites the rule and the source page, every departure is an override with a reason code and two committee approvals, and every policy version is approved twice. Internal audit and the Chief Compliance Officer can export an evidence pack — policy versions, committee approvals, votes with rationales and sources, signatures, N-PX lines tied to confirmations and agent versions — including a sample of 40 votes for Rule 206(4)-6 testing, and the export itself is logged.
Yes. The agents may not vote, submit a ballot, send a letter, recall shares, file the N-PX or apply an unapproved policy version. An analyst approves each vote, a second analyst checks every vote against management, two committee members approve every override, and the Chief Compliance Officer signs the N-PX.
The Agentic Solution Engine builds and deploys it from your requirements and documents — your written voting policy, market annexes, client policies and the systems your ballots pass through — and it goes live once every quality gate has passed. First-time setup ends with a dry run that replays last season and compares the results with your signed votes.
Issuer questions answered in minutes, every claim pinned to its source page.
1-min demoESG Data ExtractionHoldings move from estimated to reported ESG data, each figure cited to its page.
1-min demoPortfolio Company ESG Data CollectionEach company confirms prefilled values, and no outlier reaches an LP unexplained.
1-min demoWe'll run Proxy Voting Research on your written voting policy and a sample of last season's meetings.