Inside the room: 5 insights from our wealth manager workshop

By Edd Micklem  (Global Head of Partnerships, Tumelo)

At a recent London roundtable co-hosted by LGT Wealth Management and Tumelo, representatives from prominent wealth managers — including Brewin Dolphin, Brooks Macdonald, Cadro, Charles Stanley, EQ Investors, Parmenion, Quilter, Rathbones, St. James's Place, and Virgin Money Investments — came together to dig into the details of implementing pass-through voting. Why? Because as regulatory pressures mount, client expectations rise, and stewardship becomes a differentiator rather than a duty, the conversation is no longer around why to implement investor voting choice, but how.

Tumelo's CEO, Georgia Stewart and I had the pleasure of spending the session with the above group. Having reflected on the conversation overall, here are our top five takeaways:

1. Get the benefit of "buy-in"

LGT Wealth Management shared how its firm-wide commitment to sustainability made it easier to adopt pass-through voting, with backing from fund selectors, portfolio managers, and senior leadership. But regardless of the starting point, one thing is essential for any firm considering pass-through voting: securing internal buy-in early.

2. Optimise and customise

The discussion turned to cases where institutional investors have shifted assets away from incumbent managers due to stewardship concerns — a rare but telling signal of growing unease with voting misalignment. While cost and market pressures make such shifts uncommon, they speak to a deeper demand for control. Pass-through voting emerged as a pragmatic alternative, offering wealth managers a way to assert influence and accountability. It can also serve as a differentiator, enabling wealth managers to establish their own view on voting rather than relying on asset-manager data (such as significant votes). Policy selection for US managers and policy customisation for EU managers was noted as the current trends, and that the general direction of travel was full customisation of voting.

3. Hone in on progress, not perfection

One manager raised concerns about current voting-choice programmes that don’t allow overrides of individual votes, arguing that some policies lack the sophistication needed to avoid ‘blind’ voting. However, most participants disagreed, seeing policy selection as a meaningful step forward for wealth managers because they can achieve alignment and consistency. While the dominance of proxy advisors like ISS and Glass Lewis is being challenged — particularly in the US — outsourcing remains essential for voting at scale across pooled funds and ETFs for wealth managers, just as it is for fund managers already today. As many noted, the perfect solution may not exist yet, but that shouldn't be a reason not to act.

4. Thinking actively (as well as passively)

Pass-through voting is often seen as a way to democratise the influence of the largest passive managers, but a handful of the group argued that it also has value in active management. Despite their discretion, some active managers still rely on benchmark policies, have limited stewardship resources, and can sometimes focus on short-term outcomes, raising questions about alignment. In contrast, wealth managers are becoming increasingly well resourced — both in investment expertise and stewardship — and are well positioned to take greater ownership of voting decisions.

5. More collaboration on the cards

There’s a common misconception that all asset managers are well resourced for stewardship, but in reality this is true only for a handful. Wealth managers are still building their teams, yet collaboration is growing — with initiatives like Rathbones’ Votes Against Modern Slavery showing the potential for joint efforts. There’s also scope to pool resources across different asset owners, including pension funds.

As the participants left, there was all-round intention to further pursue pass-through voting. It's great to see that the debate is no longer about PTV as a concept, but about the most effective way to implement it.