Data Considerations

This database is a work in progress. To get the most out of it, please review these important notes.

Back to Table

N-PX Filing Idiosyncrasies

Different filers describe the same company or proposal differently. For example, in the "proposal" field, Fund A might report "Microsoft" as "Microsoft Corporation", while Fund B uses "Microsoft Corp."

We attempt to standardize these inconsistencies to support bulk analysis and database searching. While our standardization methods are generally >99% accurate, we do not guarantee the accuracy of these standardizations. For transparency, we display both standardized and original ("as-filed") values side-by-side.

Standardized columns:
  • Proposal
    This field is difficult to standardize; users should exercise extra caution before relying on this standardization, especially in proxy contests or special meetings.
  • Company Name
  • Mgt. Rec.
  • Meeting Date
    We currently do not distinguish annual general meetings (AGMs) from other meetings. As a result, if a company holds multiple meetings in a single year, our standardization will consolidate them into one entry. This biases our standardizations toward being more accurate for larger companies (who hold special meetings less frequently).
  • Meeting Year
  • Vote Categories
  • Proposal Source
  • Company CUSIP
  • Company ISIN
  • Prop. #

Fund Structures

The relationship between the "Voting Institution Name" and "Voting Fund Name" columns can be ambiguous due to varying filer structures.

For example, the "Voting Fund Name" can be blank for different reasons:

  • The institution, such as a standalone mutual fund, is the fund itself and therefore has no separate sub-funds to list; or
  • The institution is a larger entity that does not offer sub-funds.
  • The institution is not an asset manager, so a fund structure is inapplicable.
  • Etc.

Because of these variations in filing practices, users should be cautious when interpreting the hierarchy and relationship between the voting institution and the specific fund.

We are working to improve clarity around these structures.

Split and Pass-Through Voting

Split votes (multiple votes cast by the same entity) manifest as distinct rows. E.g., if iShares Core S&P 500 ETF votes three times on the same proposal—30 votes FOR, 20 votes AGAINST, and 10 votes ABSTAIN—this will be recorded in three distinct rows in the data.

Note that the database currently does not condense filers' votes, in the sense that the same filer—e.g., Rhumbline Advisers—can have one row with 30 votes FOR, another row with 50 votes FOR, another with 12 votes FOR, etc. We are working to condense this information.

Filings do not clarify pass-through (voting-choice) usage. Split votes may reflect pass-through voting, but can also be recorded for other reasons: for example, shares controlled by different vote managers.