JPMorgan's decision to replace external proxy advisory firms with an internal AI platform called Proxy IQ represents more than a cost-saving measure. When a firm voting at over 3,000 shareholder meetings annually abandons ISS and Glass Lewis in favor of proprietary AI, it signals a fundamental shift in how institutional capital evaluates governance—and it arrives at precisely the moment when those traditional advisors face an executive order questioning their influence.
The timing isn't coincidental. It's clarifying.
JPMorgan's decision to replace external proxy advisory firms with an internal AI platform called Proxy IQ represents more than a cost-saving measure. When a firm voting at over 3,000 shareholder meetings annually abandons ISS and Glass Lewis in favor of proprietary AI, it signals a fundamental shift in how institutional capital evaluates governance—and it arrives at precisely the moment when those traditional advisors face an executive order questioning their influence.
The timing isn't coincidental. It's clarifying.
The Pressure Building on Both Sides of the Proxy Ecosystem
The executive order targeting ISS and Glass Lewis over their ESG and DEI policy recommendations creates obvious uncertainty for companies navigating proxy season. But JPMorgan's move suggests the more consequential pressure may be coming from a different direction: institutional investors concluding they can analyze governance data more effectively themselves.
BlackRock updated its 2026 proxy voting guidelines the same week Glass Lewis released revisions acknowledging AI's impact on shareholder rights. These aren't routine annual updates—they're responses to a market where the analytical advantage once held by specialized advisory firms is eroding. When AI can process thousands of proxy statements, cross-reference voting patterns, and identify governance outliers at scale, the value proposition of intermediaries changes dramatically.
The SEC's Division of Investment Management has signaled openness to AI in proxy voting as a "scalable solution" for investment advisers. That regulatory green light matters. It suggests authorities recognize that compliance-grade AI can handle complexity in ways that actually reduce risk rather than amplify it—provided the AI operates on verified data and maintains audit trails.
What Happens When Voters Build Their Own Intelligence
JPMorgan's Proxy IQ doesn't just replicate what Glass Lewis provided. It represents a different analytical model: one trained on the specific priorities of JPMorgan's portfolio managers, interpreting governance through the lens of their investment theses rather than industry-standard frameworks.
This creates an interesting dynamic for IR professionals. When your largest shareholders are analyzing your proxy materials through proprietary AI models rather than standardized advisory firm reports, the nature of effective disclosure changes. The question shifts from "will this satisfy Glass Lewis?" to "will this provide machine-readable clarity on the strategic questions our major investors are actually asking?"
Consider Nasdaq's new discretion to deny initial listings based on qualitative risk factors including potential price manipulation. That policy acknowledges something important: compliance is becoming less about checking standardized boxes and more about demonstrating substantive governance that withstands sophisticated analysis. AI-powered investors will surface inconsistencies between what companies disclose and how they behave faster than any human analyst could.
The Regulatory Landscape Is Adapting, Not Resisting
The House passed the bipartisan INVEST Act with measures to incentivize capital formation. The SEC published a comprehensive report on capital-raising trends. These aren't reactive gestures—they're evidence that regulators understand the market is evolving and are working to ensure disclosure frameworks keep pace.
Glass Lewis incorporating AI considerations into its 2026 guidelines suggests even traditional players recognize the shift. The Council of Institutional Investors called for SEC review of Rule 14a-8 on shareholder proposals. When investor coalitions seek regulatory updates to shareholder rights mechanisms, it often presages material changes in how those mechanisms function.
The most telling signal may be what's *not* happening: despite an executive order targeting proxy advisors and major asset managers building AI alternatives, there's no regulatory panic about AI in governance. Instead, there's pragmatic evaluation of how AI can handle analytical complexity while maintaining the verification standards public markets require.
The Question IR Teams Should Be Asking
If the world's largest asset managers are building proprietary AI to analyze your disclosures, is your IR strategy designed for that reality? Generic investor presentations optimized for human consumption may not surface the right information when AI is parsing your 10-K alongside three years of earnings calls, looking for patterns you didn't know were visible.
The companies that will navigate this transition successfully won't be those that resist AI analysis—that's not optional. They'll be those that recognize sophisticated investors now have tools to understand their business at a level of detail that demands equally sophisticated disclosure. Not more disclosure. More precise disclosure.
When JPMorgan chose to build Proxy IQ rather than continue paying advisory firms, they weren't making a technology decision. They were making a capital allocation decision about where analytical advantage now comes from. IR teams might consider what similar decisions their own investors are making—and what those decisions imply about the information environment they're operating in.