Non-Objecting Beneficial Owner (NOBO)

Key takeaways
* A NOBO (non‑objecting beneficial owner) is a shareholder who allows their broker or other intermediary to release their name and address to the issuing company.
* An OBO (objecting beneficial owner) instructs the intermediary not to release identifying information.
* Companies use NOBO lists to send shareholder communications (proxies, annual reports, rights offering circulars), though the SEC requires brokers to remain involved for proxy distribution.
* Corporations generally favor direct access to shareholders; brokers and OBOs favor privacy and the intermediary role.

What is a NOBO?
A non‑objecting beneficial owner (NOBO) is an owner of securities held through a financial intermediary (often a broker) who consents to having their name and address disclosed to the issuing company. That disclosure lets the company contact the shareholder directly about corporate matters.

An objecting beneficial owner (OBO) is the opposite: they instruct their intermediary not to share identifying information with the issuer, preserving privacy and reducing direct solicitations.

How it works
* Securities held in “street name” are registered in the intermediary’s name, with the intermediary maintaining the beneficial owner records.
* When a shareholder agrees to NOBO status, the intermediary releases the shareholder’s contact details to the issuer upon request.
* Issuers use NOBO information to send communications such as:
* Proxy statements and voting materials (note: SEC rules require brokers to be involved in proxy distribution)
* Annual and quarterly reports
* Circulars for rights offerings and other shareholder notices
* If a shareholder is an OBO, the intermediary forwards communications without releasing identifying details, and companies rely on intermediaries to reach those owners.

Relevant SEC rules
The SEC differentiates between NOBOs and OBOs and sets standards for how issuers and intermediaries interact:
* Proxy materials must be routed through the brokerage intermediary rather than sent directly in most cases.
* Other types of communications can be sent directly to NOBOs when the intermediary provides the information.
These rules balance issuer access to shareholders with investor privacy and intermediary responsibilities.

Arguments for and against NOBO disclosure
* Corporate perspective: Issuers often want direct access to shareholders to lower outreach costs, increase shareholder engagement, and target communications more effectively. They sometimes advocate removing the NOBO/OBO distinction.
* Broker/bank perspective: Intermediaries want to preserve the distinction to protect customer privacy, retain control over shareholder lists, and preserve revenue streams tied to forwarding materials and related services.
* Investor perspective: OBOs prioritize privacy and reduced unsolicited contact; NOBOs accept disclosure to receive corporate communications directly and possibly higher engagement.

Considerations for investors
* When opening a brokerage account you may be asked whether you permit disclosure to issuers—consider your preference for privacy versus direct access to issuer communications.
* NOBO status can result in more direct information from companies but also greater risk of solicitations.
* OBO status reduces direct solicitation and keeps holdings more private, but may add a layer between you and issuer communications.

Conclusion
NOBO and OBO designations control whether an issuer can obtain identifying information for shareholders held through intermediaries. The choice affects how directly you receive communications from companies, the level of privacy you maintain, and the roles intermediaries play in distributing materials. Investors should weigh privacy against direct access when choosing their preference.