Daily Archives: Sunday, October 11, 2020

Short-Termism Revisited

Matt Orsagh is a director, Jim Allen is head of Americas capital markets policy, and Kurt Schacht is managing director of the Standards and Financial Market Integrity division at CFA Institute. This post is based on their CFA report. Related research from the Program on Corporate Governance includes The Myth that Insulating Boards Serves Long-Term Value by Lucian Bebchuk (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 The Uneasy Case for Favoring Long-Term Shareholders by Jesse Fried (discussed on the Forum here).

Improving fundamental analysis by considering agency problems

Since at least the 1980s, economists have discussed agency problems: when agents such as managers at a company act in their own interest rather than in the interests of their principals, the shareholders. CFA Institute is interested in learning how to address agency problems through better fundamental analysis that measures the costs of these problems (agency costs) and incentivizing managers to pursue an approach that is more fully aligned with the interests of their principals.

CFA Institute first focused on including agency problems in fundamental analysis in 2005 when the issue of “short-termism” was identified. Since that time, other opportunities to improve fundamental analysis have been identified, with environmental, social, and governance (ESG) issues coming to the fore most recently.

2005–2006: Short-termism identified and recommendations issued

In 2005, according to a survey of more than 400 financial executives, 80% of the respondents indicated that they would decrease discretionary spending on such areas as research and development, advertising, maintenance, and hiring to meet short-term earnings targets and more than 50% said they would delay new projects, even if it meant making sacrifices in value creation. [1] This admission that managers were willing to sacrifice long-term investment in favor of short-term gain was alarming.

READ MORE »

Board Diversity: No Longer Optional

Richa Joshi is an ESG Data Analyst at Truvalue Labs. This post is based on her Truvalue memorandum. Related research from the Program on Corporate Governance includes Politics and Gender in the Executive Suite by Alma Cohen, Moshe Hazan, and David Weiss (discussed on the Forum here).

Research finds correlation between board diversity and company’s financial performance

Several studies have established that there is a correlation between diversity and companies’ financial performance. In 2018, McKinsey’s report stated: “Diverse companies are 33% more likely to have greater financial returns than their less-diverse industry peers.” In another study, BCG reported that companies with above-average diversity at the management level generate 19% higher innovation revenues than companies with below-average diversity.

New laws and institutional investors put pressure on companies

In September 2018, California became the first U.S. state to pass a law like Senate Bill 826, mandating all public companies with executive offices in the state to have at least one woman on their boards by December 2019. Following the announcement, California companies added 68 new women on their boards, the highest among the 26 U.S. states analyzed by 2020 Women on Boards. Other U.S. states such as Massachusetts, Washington and others are following California’s lead on diversity (details on page 6). Along with the new laws, companies face pressure from institutional investors like Blackrock and State Street to improve the board diversity.

READ MORE »