proxyvotesnow.com

Home › Asset managers › Prudential/PGIM › 2025-2026

Prudential/PGIM proxy voting record, 2025-2026

Prudential/PGIM reported 287,646 proxy votes on Form N-PX for the 2026 season. On the 198,795 ballot items the board itself put forward — directors, pay, the auditor, capital — it voted against the board or withheld 6.0% of the time. On the 2,343 environmental and social proposals put on the ballot by shareholders, it voted FOR 13.4% of the time.

2023-20242024-20252025-2026

On the board’s own proposals

6.0% of the 198,795 ballot items the board itself put forward in 2025-2026 — its nominees, its pay resolution, its auditor, its capital proposals — Prudential/PGIM voted AGAINST or withheld.

FOR — 186,794 items AGAINST — 10,100 items Abstained or withheld — 1,901 items

A board does not ask shareholders to reject its own nominee, its own pay resolution or its own auditor, so on these categories a vote of AGAINST — or a withheld vote, which is the only way to oppose a director in an uncontested election — is a vote against management. Denominator: all three directions, FOR + AGAINST + withheld.

On proposals shareholders put on the ballot

13.4% of the 2,343 environmental, social, workforce and diversity proposals Prudential/PGIM decided in 2025-2026, it voted FOR. These reach the ballot because a shareholder filed them over the board’s objection, so a FOR vote here is support for a proposal management opposed.

FOR — 314 items AGAINST — 2,029 items Abstained — 16 items (not in the denominator)

See the 314 shareholder proposals it backed →

By proposal type

A single “voted with management” figure makes every manager look the same: director elections are most of the volume and nearly everyone votes FOR them. The record is therefore reported per category, using the category the filer itself put on each item in its N-PX.

Prudential/PGIM, 2025-2026. “Decided” is FOR + AGAINST, the denominator of the two percentage columns; abstentions and withheld votes are shown separately and are never inside a percentage. Counted in ballot items — one fund’s vote on one proposal at one meeting — never in shares.
Proposal typePut on the ballot by ItemsDecided Voted FORVoted AGAINST Abstained / withheld
Director Elections Board 128,802 126,793 96.9% 3.1% 1,893
Corporate Governance Mixed 28,387 28,321 93.3% 6.7% 15
Capital Structure Board 18,481 18,445 86.6% 13.4% 6
Audit-related Board 17,986 17,981 100.0% 0.0% 0
Compensation Board 17,785 17,759 92.3% 7.7% 0
Say-on-Pay Board 16,432 15,397 82.9% 17.1% 2
Shareholder Rights and Defenses Mixed 2,249 2,231 66.9% 33.1% 18
Other Social Issues Shareholder 1,875 1,859 46.3% 53.7% 16
Environment or Climate Shareholder 1,484 1,483 11.9% 88.1% 1
Extraordinary Transactions Board 1,239 1,239 97.3% 2.7% 0
Human Rights or Human Capital/workforce Shareholder 742 725 13.8% 86.2% 17
Other Mixed 606 590 89.2% 10.8% 16
Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Shareholder 375 375 6.1% 93.9% 0
Investment Company Matters Board 16 16 68.8% 31.2% 0

Categories marked Mixed — corporate governance, shareholder rights and defences, and uncategorised items — contain both board proposals and shareholder proposals, so they are reported here but are not counted in either headline above. The rows marked Shareholder are shown in full, but only the part of them that is a US-listed company and reads as a shareholder proposal in its own text feeds the second headline: taken raw, these four categories are dominated by UK, Swiss and EU board resolutions — political donation authorisations and non-binding sustainability reports — which index funds routinely support.

Every proposal where Prudential/PGIM broke with the board (4,354 distinct proposals) →

What Prudential/PGIM said it would do

The page above is what Prudential/PGIM did. Its published proxy voting policy — what it said it would do — is in the voting policy library under PGIM, with the documents for each year and, where one exists, a year-on-year comparison.

What is being counted

The unit is a ballot item, not a share and not a filing line.
One ballot item is one fund’s vote on one proposal at one meeting. Prudential/PGIM filed 287,646 vote records for 2025-2026; after removing votes filed twice in different N-PX filings, and after collapsing a fund that reported several directions for the same item into a single vote (the direction carrying the most shares), that is 236,459 ballot items across 5,203 issuer names and 88 funds. “Issuer names” is literal: filers spell the same company several ways and those are counted separately here, so this runs higher than the number of distinct companies.
Share counts are not used anywhere on this page.
Share figures in N-PX carry their own long list of corrections in this dataset, and a share-weighted rate would inherit every one of them. Every percentage here is a count of items.
Abstentions are reported, never hidden inside a percentage.
On board-sponsored items a withheld vote is opposition, so it is in that denominator and in that numerator. On shareholder proposals an abstention is neither support nor opposition, so it is excluded from the denominator and shown on its own.
1,261 items are outside both headline figures.
Beyond the mixed categories above:
ExcludedItemsWhy
Not voted109 Reported as not voted, take no action or do not vote. No position was expressed, so there is nothing to count.
Other ballot type1,014 Frequency ballots (one / two / three years) and anything else that is not a FOR, AGAINST, abstention or withhold.
Direction indeterminate138 The fund reported several directions for one ballot item with no shares attached to any of them, so which way it voted cannot be established.

Why this page does not use the “management recommendation” field

Form N-PX has a managementRecommendation field on every vote record, and it is populated on 100 % of the 2025-2026 rows. It was tested against proposals whose own text settles the answer, and it does not hold up, so no figure on this page reads it.

250 randomly chosen 2026 companies with at least 50 disclosing managers.
Ballot items whose text says…Records Field agrees with the text Field says the opposite
“shareholder proposal” — a board recommends AGAINST these 1,37621.9%65.8%
auditor ratification — a board recommends FOR these 7,19593.0%6.7%

Two separate failures are mixed into one column. Some filers default it to FOR whatever the board actually said — hence 899 records reading “management FOR” against the filer’s own AGAINST vote on a shareholder proposal. Others copy their own vote direction into it: Vanguard’s 2026 filing has 5,403 blocks carrying one record per direction, each claiming management recommended whatever that record voted. Reading the field row by row would score real dissent as agreement. The proposal category, which the same filers fill in reliably, does not have that problem.

About this page

Every figure is derived from Form N-PX, the filing in which registered funds and institutional managers disclose how they voted every proxy. Figures are rebuilt weekly; this page was built on 2026-09-27. The interactive database shows the same votes company by company, including every individual fund.

Prudential/PGIM proxy season coverage: 2023-2024 · 2024-2025 · 2025-2026 (this page).