Yearly Archives: 2019

Review and Analysis of 2018 U.S. Shareholder Activism

Melissa Sawyer is a partner and Lauren S. Boehmke and Nathaniel R. Ludewig are associates at Sullivan & Cromwell LLP. This post is based on their Sullivan & Cromwell memorandum. Related research from the Program on Corporate Governance includes Dancing with Activists by Lucian Bebchuk, Alon Brav, Wei Jiang, and Thomas Keusch (discussed on the Forum here); The Long-Term Effects of Hedge Fund Activism by Lucian Bebchuk, Alon Brav, and Wei Jiang (discussed on the Forum here); and Who Bleeds When the Wolves Bite? A Flesh-and-Blood Perspective on Hedge Fund Activism and Our Strange Corporate Governance System by Leo E. Strine, Jr. (discussed on the Forum here).

On the surface, the 2018 activism data is largely consistent with 2017, but with an uptick in overall activity. The amount of capital invested in new activist positions in 2018 was up approximately $2.5 billion from 2017, and activists won more board seats in 2018 than in 2017, mostly through settlements. Although several well-known activists (including Third Point, Pershing Square and Greenlight Capital) announced disappointing investment results in 2018, and the industry experienced negative net asset flows overall, activist funds continue to attract substantial new capital.

While Elliott was the most active fund globally in 2018, accounting for 9% of all campaigns, many other established activists were busy: nine of the top ten activist funds (calculated by aggregate market value of their activist positions at year-end 2018) each invested more than $1 billion in new campaigns in 2018. 52% of all board seats won globally since 2013 have been won by a group of 11 activists (in order of board seats won): Starboard, Elliott, Icahn, JANA, Engaged Capital, Sarissa Capital, ValueAct, Corvex, FrontFour, Glenview and Legion Partners. Many of these “name brand” activists have since spun-off new funds, or their key players have moved on to other funds, leading to a dispersion of skills and techniques across a wide playing field and resulting in 2018 producing a record number of first-time activists initiating campaigns.

READ MORE »

Russell 3000 Boards On Pace to Achieve Gender Parity by 2034

Amit Batish is Content Manager at Equilar Inc. This post is based on an Equilar memorandum by Mr. Batish, with data analysis contributed by Louisa Lan, Hailey Robbers, Lyla Qureshi, Matt Zellmer, Elizabeth Vellutini.

The Equilar Gender Diversity Index (GDI) has now increased for a fifth straight quarter. The percentage of women on Russell 3000 boards increased from 18.0% to 18.5% in Q4 2018. This acceleration once again moved the needle, pushing the GDI to 0.37, where 1.0 represents parity among men and women on corporate boards across the Russell 3000.

The State of California recently passed a piece of legislation—SB 826—that will require public companies headquartered in California to have a minimum of one female on its board of directors by December 31, 2019. That minimum will be raised to at least two female board members for companies with five directors or at least three female board members for companies with six or more directors by December 31, 2021. Violators of this legislation will be subject to financial consequences.

READ MORE »

Weekly Roundup: March 29-April 4, 2019


More from:

This roundup contains a collection of the posts published on the Forum during the week of March 29-April 4, 2019.

Director Onboarding and the Foundations of Respect


Independent Directors: New Class of 2018






Negative Activism


Proxy Preview 2019


The SEC and Self-Reporting of Financial Conflicts of Interest


FCPA and the Commodity Exchange Act: A New Relationship


The Politics of CEOs



Driving Diversity and Inclusion—the Role for Chairs and CEOs


The Perils of Lyft’s Dual-Class Structure


The Shareholder Rights Directive II


Firms’ Rationales for CEO Duality: Evidence from a Mandatory Disclosure Regulation


Governance and Performance in Emerging Markets

Governance and Performance in Emerging Markets

Davit Karapetyan is Regional Corporate Governance Lead for Latin America and the Caribbean at the International Finance Corporation (IFC); and Alexandre Di Miceli Da Silveira is professor at Alvares Penteado School of Business in Sao Paulo and partner at Direzione Management Consulting. This post is based on their IFC report.

Related research from the Program on Corporate Governance includes The Elusive Quest for Global Governance Standards by Lucian Bebchuk and Assaf Hamdani; Learning and the Disappearing Association between Governance and Returns by Lucian Bebchuk, Alma Cohen, and Charles C. Y. Wang (discussed on the Forum here); and What Matters in Corporate Governance? by Lucian Bebchuk, Alma Cohen, and Allen Ferrell.

Investors, including IFC and other development finance institutions, increasingly look at governance as an indicator of firm quality and a factor in investment selection. There is a strong business case for linking sound corporate governance practices to better firm performance. This proposition is based on the view that companies adopting governance best practices make better business decisions over time, better manage their risks, enjoy enhanced market reputation, and have improved access to capital. From a macro perspective, CG may also contribute to country-level social and economic development.

“Sound corporate governance helps businesses attract investment on better terms. Clients are more accountable to investors and responsive to stakeholder concerns. They also operate more efficiently and are able to better manage risks.”
—IFC website

Over the past two decades, numerous academic studies worldwide have investigated whether the link between CG quality and firm performance is supported by empirical data. Most research finds a positive relationship between following recommended CG practices and financial performance indicators, especially when using market value ratios such as Tobin’s Q, price-to-book value (P/ BV), and price-to-earnings (P/E). (See below.)

READ MORE »

Firms’ Rationales for CEO Duality: Evidence from a Mandatory Disclosure Regulation

Marc Goergen is Professor of Finance at IE Business School; Peter Limbach is Assistant Professor at the University of Cologne; and Meik Scholz-Daneshgari is a postdoctoral researcher at Karlsruhe Institute of Technology. This post is based on their recent paper.

The common practice of combining the roles of the CEO and chairman of the board (CEO duality) has been the topic of one of the longest debates in corporate governance. On the one side, a majority of S&P 500 firms combine the two roles. On the other side, investors and governance experts—via shareholder proposals and public campaigns—frequently pressure firms into separating the two roles, emphasizing a lack of effective managerial oversight under CEO duality. Nevertheless, most such proposals do not receive majority support, which suggests disagreement among shareholders about the value of CEO duality. Such disagreement is consistent with the inconclusive academic literature on the relation between CEO duality and firm performance (for a review, see Krause, Semadeni, and Cannella, 2014), as well as the lack of reliability of extant studies likely suffering from the non-random choice of board structures. The above discussion highlights the need for both practitioners and scholars to better understand why firms combine or separate the CEO and chairman roles.

Against this background, our paper entitled Firms’ Rationales for CEO Duality: Evidence from a Mandatory Disclosure Regulation exploits a 2009 amendment to Regulation S-K, which requires public firms to disclose the reasons for combining or separating the roles of CEO and chairman. We provide unique evidence on the first-time disclosure by S&P 500 companies of the reasons behind their board leadership structure. Thereby, we propose a novel approach to understanding why firms have opted for or against CEO duality. Examining the stock market reaction to firms’ disclosures, we also assess the value implications and informativeness of the stated reasons.

READ MORE »

The Shareholder Rights Directive II

Hans-Christoph Hirt is head of EOS and Andy Jones is EOS sector lead of mining at Hermes Investment Management. This post is based on their Hermes memorandum.

The Hermes Shareholder Rights Directive survey was conducted to gauge levels of awareness and readiness for the amendment to the 2007 Shareholder Rights Directive coming into force in 2019. Research was conducted by Citigate Dewe Rogerson among its panel of European institutional investors, including asset owners and asset managers, during December 2018. A total of 175 responses were collected from the UK, the Netherlands, Germany, Italy, Spain and the Nordics.

The Directive

With the aim of enhancing the stability and sustainability of EU companies, in May 2017, the European Parliament and Council agreed an amendment to the 2007 Shareholder Rights Directive (the Directive). The objectives of the Directive are to enhance transparency in the investment chain and to hold investors accountable for the integration of Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) factors in investment decisions, the level and quality of long-term shareholder engagement and the alignment of investors’ investment strategy and remuneration structures with the medium-to-long term performance of their clients’ assets. All asset owners and asset managers operating in Europe will be required to comply with the national laws implementing the amended Directive.

READ MORE »

The Perils of Lyft’s Dual-Class Structure

Lucian Bebchuk is the James Barr Ames Professor of Law, Economics, and Finance and Director of the Program on Corporate Governance, Harvard Law School. Kobi Kastiel is Assistant Professor of Law at Tel Aviv University, and a Research Fellow at the Harvard Law School Program on Corporate Governance. This post is the second in which they analyze the terms of dual-class IPOs by major companies, following their earlier post on The Perils of Dell’s Low-Voting Stock (discussed on the Forum here).

Related research from the Program on Corporate Governance includes The Untenable Case for Perpetual Dual-Class Stock (discussed on the Forum here), and The Perils of Small-Minority Controllers (discussed on the Forum here), both by Lucian Bebchuk and Kobi Kastiel, and the keynote presentation on The Lifecycle Theory of Dual-Class Structures.

Lyft, Inc. (“Lyft”) went public on March 29, 2019, with a dual-class structure in a well-subscribed IPO valuating it at over $23 billion. This post focuses on the governance costs and risks that Lyft’s public investors should expect to face down the road.

Our analysis builds on our earlier research work on multiclass structures, including The Untenable Case for Perpetual Dual-Class Stock (Virginia Law Review 2017) and The Perils of Small-Minority Controllers (Georgetown Law Journal 2019). Below we identify and analyze in turn two significant problems:

  • Tiny-minority controllers: Lyft’s IPO structure enables its co-founders to have a practically absolute lock on control (about 49% of the voting power) while holding only a very small stake (less than 5%) of the company’s equity capital; and
  • Extremely long-lasting lock on control: Lyft’s co-founders will be able to retain control for an extremely long period, which could well last for five or six decades, even if they become value-decreasing leaders.

Each of these governance risks can be expected to both (i) decrease the expected per share future value of Lyft by increasing agency costs and distortions, and (ii) increase the discount to a per-share value of Lyft at which low-voting shares of Lyft will trade. Each of these effects would operate over time to reduce the market price at which the low-voting shares of public investors would trade. These effects should thus be taken into account by any public investors that consider holding Lyft shares.

Tiny-Minority Shareholders in Control

Post-IPO, Lyft is a publicly traded dual-class company in which public investors hold low-voting shares entitling them to one vote per share. Lyft’s co-founders, Logan Green and John Zimmer, hold high-voting shares entitling them to twenty votes per share. In the case of Lyft, the design of its governance structure gives rise to what we define as tiny-minority controllers (see the typology we introduced in The Perils of Small-Minority Controllers).

READ MORE »

Driving Diversity and Inclusion—the Role for Chairs and CEOs

David Mills leads Commercial Strategy and Sector Operations, Rachel Middleton is a member of the Diversity and Inclusion Practice and the CEO & Board Practice knowledge team, and Harsonal Sachar leads Knowledge for the Diversity and Inclusion Practice, all at Russell Reynolds Associates. This post is based on their Russell Reynolds memorandum.

The case for diversity in corporate leadership has never been stronger. To learn more, Russell Reynolds Associates spoke to nearly 60 directors and senior executives at large global companies across 10 countries who have helped foster change in their organizations. They consistently emphasized the critical role that the chair and CEO play in driving diversity and inclusion (D&I) in the workplace, specifically in terms of creating inclusive environments where everyone can thrive. From their insights, we have distilled three sets of takeaways, detailing how chairs and CEOs can drive progress on the agenda.

1. Change Starts with the Chair

As board leaders, chairs can model an ideal culture within the boardroom by:

  • Ensuring that the board itself is diverse, including women, minorities and diverse points of view; engaging in creative efforts to build the board candidate pipeline; and eliminating bias from the ideal director profile.
  • Creating an inclusive boardroom environment that fully harnesses the benefits of a diverse board and encouraging all board members to contribute and constructively challenge assumptions and perspectives.
  • Setting the tone that D&I is important to the organization by keeping it on the board agenda, asking the right questions and monitoring the relevant data. Chairs and boards can and do have a direct impact on the success of D&I within the organizations they serve.

READ MORE »

Remarks at the 29th International Institute for Securities Market Growth and Development

Jay Clayton is Chairman of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. This post is based on Chairman Clayton’s recent remarks at the 29th International Institute for Securities Market Growth and Development, available here. The views expressed in this post are those of Mr. Clayton and do not necessarily reflect those of the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff.

Thank you, Erin [McCartney], for that warm introduction.

Welcome to the SEC’s 29th Annual International Institute for Securities Market Growth and Development. [1]

Thank you for being our guests over the next two weeks.

It is our honor to host 186 delegates from 69 countries this year. I know that many of you traveled long distances to be with us today, and I am appreciative of your dedication and your desire to engage in a dialogue with your international counterparts.

During your time at the Institute, you will hear from the SEC’s experts on a wide variety of subject matters, and you will also receive presentations from staff at the World Bank, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority. I am confident that you will gain new insights and approaches that you can apply when you return home.

READ MORE »

The Politics of CEOs

Alma Cohen teaches at Harvard Law School and Tel-Aviv University School of Economics. Moshe Hazan and David Weiss teach at Tel-Aviv University School of Economics. Roberto Tallarita is Associate Director of the Program on Corporate Governance, as well as Terrence C. Considine Fellow in Law and Economics, at Harvard Law School. This post is based on a new Harvard Law School Program on Corporate Governance study that they authored, The Politics of CEOs.

Related research from the Program on Corporate Governance includes The Untenable Case for Keeping Investors in the Dark by Lucian Bebchuk, Robert J. Jackson Jr., James David Nelson, and Roberto Tallarita (discussed on the Forum here); Corporate Political Speech: Who Decides? by Lucian Bebchuk and Robert J. Jackson, Jr. (discussed on the Forum here); Fiduciary Blind Spot: The Failure of Institutional Investors to Prevent the Illegitimate Use of Working Americans’ Savings for Corporate Political Spending by Leo E. Strine, Jr. (discussed on the Forum here); and Conservative Collision Course?: The Tension between Conservative Corporate Law Theory and Citizens United by Leo E. Strine Jr. and Nicholas Walter (discussed on the Forum here).

We have recently placed on SSRN a new study, The Politics of CEOs. The study, which was the subject of a recent New York Times column by Andrew Ross Sorkin last week, presents novel empirical evidence on the partisan leanings of public-company CEOs. We also discuss the policy implications of our findings.

Chief executive officers (CEOs) of public companies have substantial influence over the political spending of their firms, an issue that has attracted significant attention since the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United. Furthermore, the policy views expressed by CEOs receive both substantial media coverage and attention from policymakers. Therefore, we argue that the political preferences of CEOs are important for understanding the inner dynamics of U.S. policymaking and politics.

To measure CEO political views, we use Federal Election Commission (FEC) records to compile a comprehensive database of the political contributions made by public-company CEOs during the 18-year period 2000-2017. In particular, we examine the political spending of more than 3,500 individuals who served as CEOs of S&P 1500 companies during this period.

We find that these political contributions display substantial partisan preferences in support of Republican candidates. We classify CEOs as “Republican” if they contribute primarily to Republican candidates, “Democratic” if they contribute primarily to Democratic candidates, and “Neutral” if they split their financial support among the two major parties. We find that 58% of CEOs are Republicans (so defined), while only 18% are Democrat (and the remaining 24% Neutral). Furthermore, Republican CEOs lead companies with more than twice the asset value of companies led by Democratic CEOs.

We also investigate the extent to which the predominance of Republican CEOs varies across industries, geographical regions, and CEO gender. Additionally, we show that public companies led by Republican CEOs are less likely to disclose their political spending to their investors. Finally, we conclude by discussing the important policy implications of our analysis.

Below we provide a more detailed account of our analysis:

READ MORE »

Page 71 of 95
1 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 95