Category Archives: Institutional Investors

Optimizing Proxy Communications

The following post comes to us from Ernst & Young LLP, and is based on a publication by the EY Center for Board Matters.

Proxy statements continue to evolve. New disclosure trends are sharpening company messaging to investors, while other disclosure practices leave investors seeking clarification.

To learn what kinds of disclosures are most valuable to investors, EY asked them where they would like to see disclosure enhancements and the kinds of disclosure practices they prefer.

The EY Center for Board Matters recently had conversations with 50 institutional investors, investor associations and advisors on their corporate governance views and priorities.

This post is the third in a series of four posts based on insights gathered from those conversations and previewing the 2015 proxy season. The first post (available here) focused upon board composition; the second (available here) upon shareholder activism. The upcoming final post will focus on the shareholder proposal landscape.

READ MORE »

Intermediation in Private Equity: The Role of Placement Agents

The following post comes to us from Matthew Cain, Financial Economist at the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Stephen McKeon of the Department of Finance at the University of Oregon, and Steven Davidoff Solomon, Professor of Law at the University of California, Berkeley.

In light of recent “pay to play” scandals, placement agents have been portrayed in a negative light, using inappropriate influence to gain business from pension funds and other institutional investors. In our paper Intermediation in Private Equity: The Role of Placement Agents, which was recently made publicly available on SSRN, we examine the determinants of placement agent usage and implications for performance using a dataset of 32,526 investments in 4,335 private equity funds.

READ MORE »

Further Recognition of the Adverse Effects of Activist Hedge Funds

Martin Lipton is a founding partner of Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, specializing in mergers and acquisitions and matters affecting corporate policy and strategy. This post is based on a Wachtell Lipton memorandum by Mr. Lipton. Earlier posts by Mr. Lipton on hedge fund activism are available here, herehere, and here. Recent work from the Program on Corporate Governance about hedge fund activism includes The Long-Term Effects of Hedge Fund Activism by Lucian Bebchuk, Alon Brav, and Wei Jiang (discussed on the Forum here) and The Myth that Insulating Boards Serves Long-Term Value by Lucian Bebchuk (discussed on the Forum here). For five posts by Mr. Lipton criticizing the Bebchuk-Brav-Jiang paper, and for three posts by the authors replying to Mr. Lipton’s criticism, see here.

Despite the continued support of attacks by activist hedge funds by the Chair of the SEC, and many “Chicago school” academics who continue to rely on discredited statistics, there is growing recognition by institutional investors and prominent “new school” economists of the threat to corporations and their shareholders and to the economy of these attacks and the concomitant short-termism they create.

In a “must read,” March 31, 2015 letter to the CEOs of public companies, Laurence Fink, Chairman of BlackRock and one of the earliest to recognize the danger from attacks by activist hedge funds, wrote:

READ MORE »

Shareholder Activism: an Engagement Opportunity

The following post comes to us from Ernst & Young LLP, and is based on a publication by the EY Center for Board Matters.

The recent surge in shareholder activism [1] continues to keep boards on alert heading into the 2015 proxy season. Some companies are taking proactive measures to prepare for potential activist investor campaigns, including engaging long-term institutional investors.

Based on what we’re hearing from long-term institutional investors, these efforts are worthwhile in that they foster constructive relationships and alignment with key shareholders.

The EY Center for Board Matters (the Center) recently had conversations with 50 institutional investors, investor associations and advisors on their corporate governance views and priorities. We also gained insights from investors, directors and other stakeholders through our proxy season dialogue dinners. [2]

This post is the second in a series of four posts based on insights gathered from those conversations and previewing the 2015 proxy season. The first post (available here) focused upon board composition. The upcoming two will focus on proxy statement disclosures, and the shareholder proposal landscape.

READ MORE »

2015 Proxy Season Insights: Board Composition

The following post comes to us from Ernst & Young LLP, and is based on a publication by the EY Center for Board Matters.

Heading into the 2015 proxy season, board composition and renewal are once again in the spotlight for a number of reasons.

  • Investors increasingly seek confirmation that boards have the skill sets and expertise needed to provide strategic counsel and oversee key risks facing the company, including environmental and social risks.
  • The continued lack of turnover on many boards and slow progress on increasing diversity, including by gender and ethnicity, are bringing director tenure and board succession planning under scrutiny.
  • A new widespread push for proxy access could make it easier for shareholders to nominate their own candidates to the board. [1]

These factors make it increasingly important for boards to explain their composition in a compelling way. Meeting this expectation is made all the more challenging by the fact that investors are assessing board composition using different factors.

READ MORE »

The Evolving Landscape of Shareholder Activism: Developments and Potential Actions

The following post comes to us from Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, and is based on a Sullivan & Cromwell publication by Jay Clayton, Mitchell S. Eitel, Joseph B. Frumkin, and Glen T. Schleyer.

It is clear that shareholder activism continues to evolve, expand and increase in influence. There is a growing emphasis, in particular by large mutual funds and other institutional investors, on shareholder engagement and shareholder-friendly governance structures that, together with the increased activity of activist hedge funds and other “strategic” activist investors, make shareholder engagement and preparedness an essential focus for public companies and their boards.

Most recently, BlackRock Inc. and the Vanguard Group, the largest and third largest U.S. asset managers with more than $7 trillion in combined assets under management, have made public statements emphasizing that they are focused on corporate governance and board engagement. Vanguard recently sent a letter to many of its portfolio companies cautioning them not to confuse Vanguard’s “predominantly passive management style” with a “passive attitude toward corporate governance.” The letter goes on to emphasize numerous corporate governance principles and to highlight in detail (as discussed further below) the importance of direct shareholder-director interactions. BlackRock recently updated its voting policies to make clear that they are more than just guides to how BlackRock votes–they represent “our expectations of boards of directors.” The new policies continue an emphasis on direct interaction between investors and directors.

READ MORE »

Disentangling Mutual Fund Governance from Corporate Governance

The following post comes to us from Eric D. Roiter of Boston University School of Law.

Disentangling Mutual Fund Governance from Corporate Governance addresses mutual fund governance, explaining how in recent years it has become entangled with the norms and rules of corporate governance. At one level, it is understandable that mutual funds have been seen simply as a type of ordinary corporation, leading the SEC and the courts to treat mutual fund governance as simply a variation on the theme of corporate governance. Both mutual funds and corporations are separate legal entities, having directors and shareholders. Directors of each are held to fiduciary duties, charged with serving shareholders’ interests, and aspire to best practices. But there are fundamental differences between mutual funds and ordinary corporations, and this article contends that these differences have important implications for the governance of mutual funds, differences that should lead not to further entanglement of fund governance with corporate governance but to disentanglement.

READ MORE »

Shareholders in the United Kingdom

The following post comes to us from Paul L. Davies, Senior Research Fellow at Harris Manchester College, University of Oxford. He was the Allen & Overy Professor of Corporate Law from 2009 to 2014 at University of Oxford, Faculty of Law. Work from the Program on Corporate Governance about lobbying includes Investor Protection and Interest Group Politics by Lucian Bebchuk and Zvika Neeman (discussed on the Forum here).

The United States and the United Kingdom are lumped put together as ‘dispersed shareholder’ jurisdictions and contrasted with the concentrated shareholdings found in the rest of the world. This paper, Shareholders in the United Kingdom, argues that it would be better to view the UK, at least over the past half century, as a semi-dispersed rather than as simply a dispersed shareholder jurisdiction, and that there are interesting contrasts between the UK and the US experience.

Whilst the typical company listed on the main market of the London Stock Exchange certainly lacks a single (or even a cohesive small group) of shareholders with legal control, neither does the typical company display atomised shareholdings, for example, where no single shareholder holds more than 1% of the voting rights. Typically, a coalition of six or so of the largest shareholders can put together enough votes to have a fighting chance of carrying a resolution at a shareholder meeting against the wishes of the management. The question thus becomes one of the incentives and disincentives for those shareholders to coordinate their actions.

READ MORE »

Proxy Advisors Clarify Proxy Access and Bylaw Amendments Voting Policies

The following post comes to us from Ariel J. Deckelbaum, partner and deputy chair of the Corporate Department at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, and is based on a Paul Weiss client memorandum.

On the heels of SEC Chair White’s direction to the Division of Corporation Finance to review its position on proxy proposal conflicts under Exchange Act Rule 14a-8(i)(9), both Institutional Shareholder Services (“ISS”) and Glass Lewis have issued clarifying policies on proxy access, entering the fray of what is becoming the hottest debate this proxy season. The publication of ISS’s updated policy in particular means that market forces may have outpaced the SEC’s review process. In order to avoid risking a withhold or no-vote recommendation from ISS against their directors, many companies will be faced with the choice of (i) including any shareholder-submitted proxy access proposal in their proxy materials (either alone or alongside a management proposal) (ii) excluding the shareholder submitted proposal on the basis of a court ruling or no-action relief from the Division of Corporation Finance on a basis other than Rule 14a-8(i)(9) (conflict with management proposal) or (iii) obtaining withdrawal of the proposal by the shareholder proponent.

READ MORE »

The Role of Institutional Investors in Open-Market Share Repurchase Programs

The following post comes to us from Thomas Chemmanur, Professor of Finance at Boston College, and Yingzhen Li of The Brattle Group.

In recent years, the number of firms undertaking stock repurchases has increased dramatically, while the proportion of firms distributing value through cash dividends has declined. The popularity of share repurchases has not been mitigated even after the passage of the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Act of 2003. In our paper, The Role of Institutional Investors in Open-Market Share Repurchase Programs, which was recently made publicly available on SSRN, we empirically analyze whether institutions have the ability to produce information about firms announcing open-market repurchase (OMR) programs, and how their information interacts with the private information held by firm insiders (which they may attempt to convey to the equity market through a repurchase program).

READ MORE »

  • Subscribe

  • Cosponsored By:

  • Supported By:

  • Programs Faculty & Senior Fellows

    Lucian Bebchuk
    Alon Brav
    Robert Charles Clark
    John Coates
    Alma Cohen
    Stephen M. Davis
    Allen Ferrell
    Jesse Fried
    Oliver Hart
    Ben W. Heineman, Jr.
    Scott Hirst
    Howell Jackson
    Wei Jiang
    Reinier Kraakman
    Robert Pozen
    Mark Ramseyer
    Mark Roe
    Robert Sitkoff
    Holger Spamann
    Guhan Subramanian

  • Program on Corporate Governance Advisory Board

    William Ackman
    Peter Atkins
    Joseph Bachelder
    John Bader
    Allison Bennington
    Richard Breeden
    Daniel Burch
    Richard Climan
    Jesse Cohn
    Isaac Corré
    Scott Davis
    John Finley
    Daniel Fischel
    Stephen Fraidin
    Byron Georgiou
    Larry Hamdan
    Carl Icahn
    David Millstone
    Theodore Mirvis
    James Morphy
    Toby Myerson
    Barry Rosenstein
    Paul Rowe
    Rodman Ward