We uncover “halo voting” ties: conflicts of interest where corporate executives take employment with an asset manager, which provides the opportunity to influence corporate elections. We find that asset managers tend to vote 6.8 percentage points more pro-management after a halo voting tie is established. This pro-management bias is pronounced for proposal types where executives personally benefit from election results, particularly for pivotal proposals, thereby weakening principal-agent oversight. Asset managers seemingly benefit from halo voting ties because executives who are tied to the firm often reassign the firm’s pension plan assets, resulting in additional revenue.
