Daily Archives: Friday, January 7, 2022

Vanguard’s Expectations for Companies with Significant Coal Exposure

John Galloway is global head of investment stewardship at Vanguard, Inc. This post is based on a publication by Vanguard Investment Stewardship.

Vanguard has explained its concerns about climate change and the financial risk it presents to long- term investors. [1] We have outlined expectations for companies where climate change is a material risk: They should have climate-competent boards, robust climate risk oversight and mitigation measures, and effective climate risk disclosure. In this post, we focus on the risks that coal production and consumption can pose to long-term investors.

The diminishing role of coal in the global economy

Governments, scientists, and NGOs around the world have made clear that burning thermal coal (or energy coal) contributes significantly to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and climate change. Coal burning is the most GHG-intensive way to generate electricity, [2] and coal-fired power plants are the single largest contributor of global emissions, accounting for 30% of global CO2 emissions. [3]

As governments and policymakers around the world seek to address the risk of climate change, many have focused on coal and have committed to phasing out coal power and/or not building new coal-fired power plants. [4] This focus was reaffirmed by the Glasgow Climate Pact, which calls upon countries to accelerate the “efforts towards the phasedown of unabated coal power…” [5]

READ MORE »

Insider Giving

Nejat Seyhun is the Jerome B. & Eilene M. York Professor of Business Administration and Professor of Finance at the University of Michigan Ross School of Business. This post is based on a recent paper by Mr. Seyhun; Sureyya Burcu Avci, Research Scholar at Sabanci University; Cindy A. Schipani, Merwin H. Waterman Collegiate Professor of Business Administration and Professor of Business Law at the University of Michigan Ross School of Business; and Andrew Verstein, Professor of Law at UCLA. Related research from the Program on Corporate Governance includes Lucky CEOs and Lucky Directors by Lucian Bebchuk, Yaniv Grinstein and Urs Peyer (discussed on the Forum here).

Would any of us refuse a gift? We typically do not, unless of course the gift resembles a Trojan Horse. In this blog, we hope to convince you that even if you do not refuse it, you should treat a gift from insiders with upmost care. The problem is that previous studies have shown that corporate insiders earn abnormal returns on not only open market sales and purchases of their firms’ stock, but also on their gifts. Specifically, corporate executives tend to make charitable gifts of their firms’ common stock just prior to a decline in the company’s share prices. If insiders win, who loses? The timing of these gifts is troublesome since the evidence suggests that corporate executives may be defrauding not only their shareholders but also the charities that receive the stock and possibly the taxpayers. If insiders manipulate the information flow in their companies to maximize their benefit, this can potentially hurt the shareholders. Similarly, if insiders’ actions send a wrong signal about corporate governance in their firms, this can also hurt the shareholders. If they donate overvalued stock, the donation will not benefit the charities as much as they claim. Finally, if they unfairly maximize their tax deductions, this can hurt taxpayers. Given the significant policy implications of these findings, we revisit this important issue in an attempt to clarify why insiders are able to time their gifts successfully.

A recent case that illustrates this troublesome development occurred on July 29, 2020 in Kodak stock. After surging 2,757%, a large shareholder and member of Kodak’s board of directors, George Karfunkel donated three million shares of Kodak shares on a day when stock prices fluctuated between $17.50 and $60, (or valued between $50 million and $180 million) to a charitable synagogue in New York state (See, Devine, Curt, CNN Business, “Kodak insider’s stock donation raises new concerns around the company’s government loan“.) Less than one month later, Kodak shares were trading below $6. Had the same donation taken place on August 27, 2020, it would have been worth less than $20 million. This suspicious donation contributed to concerns about unfair business practices at Kodak and jeopardized a large government loan promise to Kodak. In return, these troubling developments have contributed to a precipitous drop in Kodak stock price, thereby severely hurting Kodak shareholders.

READ MORE »

Weekly Roundup: December 31, 2021–January 6, 2022


More from:

This roundup contains a collection of the posts published on the Forum during the week of December 31, 2021–January 6, 2022.



SEC’s Focus on Advisory Fees—Implications for Private Fund Managers



Are All Risks Created Equal? Rethinking the Distinction between Legal and Business Risk in Corporate Law



Board Dialogue on DEI


Why We Should Trust Investors for Promoting Sustainability Goals




Board Responsibility for Artificial Intelligence Oversight





The Mainstreaming of ESG Investing Through Policymaking