Asset managers' shareholder vote opposition rate edges up to 8.2%, but still trails national pension

Domestic asset managers edged up their shareholder voting participation and opposition rates last year, but their willingness to vote against resolutions still lags far behind the national pension fund, and some firms continue to rely on perfunctory disclosures and weak internal governance, a regulatory review found. The Financial Supervisory Service plans to hold a meeting with asset management company CEOs on Monday to issue detailed guidance aimed at encouraging more faithful exercise of shareholder rights.

The FSS said Monday it had reviewed a total of 46,827 voting items disclosed by 285 public and private asset managers between April last year and March this year, finding a participation rate of 91.8% and an opposition rate of 8.2%. The participation rate has risen steadily — from 79.6% in 2024 to 91.6% in 2025 and 91.8% this year — while the opposition rate has climbed from 5.2% to 6.8% and now 8.2%.

Of all items reviewed, 82.4 percent (38,602 items) received votes in favor, 8.2 percent (3,848) received opposing votes, and 9.4 percent (4,377) were either not voted on or received a neutral vote. Opposition was highest on executive compensation proposals, at 11.7 percent, followed by amendments to articles of incorporation at 9.2 percent and the election or dismissal of directors and auditors at 7.2 percent.

Still, asset managers' opposition voting remains well below the national pension fund's level. The FSS cited the national pension fund's 2025 figures as a reference point: a participation rate of 99.8 percent and an opposition rate of 23.1 percent.

Disclosure quality has improved, but rubber-stamp voting persists. Among the 285 firms reviewed, 121 — or 42.4 percent — recorded more than half of their voting items using boilerplate language such as "minimal impact on the shareholder meeting" or "no infringement of shareholder rights." Fifty firms abstained across the board on all items, while 82 voted in favor of every single resolution.

The review also revealed a wide gap in voting infrastructure by firm size. Of 67 public asset managers, only 18 — 26.9 percent — operated a dedicated team for exercising shareholder rights including voting. The remaining 49 handled the work through investment, research or back-office departments without a standalone unit. Only 40 firms, or 59.7 percent, had set up a separate decision-making body such as a stewardship committee to deliberate on major agenda items, and just 20 firms, or 29.9 percent, had incorporated voting-related duties into their key performance indicators.

The FSS designated Samsung Asset Management, NH-Amundi Asset Management and VIP Asset Management as best-practice examples. By contrast, Shinhan Asset Management, Woori Asset Management and Samsung Active Asset Management were flagged as cases requiring improvement in their internal governance frameworks and disclosure of voting rationales.

There are also signs that more assertive voting by asset managers is beginning to change actual shareholder meeting outcomes. At an extraordinary general meeting of Woldex held Monday, activist fund VIP Asset Management voted against a proposal to raise the ceiling on director compensation and, with the backing of domestic and foreign institutional investors as well as retail shareholders, defeated all three related resolutions. The FSS also recognized VIP Asset Management in this review as a best-practice case, citing the firm's deployment of the largest dedicated voting staff relative to its assets under management and its active exercise of shareholder rights.

The FSS will hold a CEO roundtable with asset management companies on Monday to discuss strengthening fiduciary duty compliance and improving shareholder rights practices. It also plans to hold briefing sessions for both public and private asset managers in July and August to share best-practice and underperforming examples from the review.