Monthly Archives: November 2024

When You Should (and Shouldn’t) Have an AI Leader in the C-suite

Posted by Fawad Bajwa, Russell Reynolds Associates, on
Thursday, November 7, 2024
, , ,
More from: ,

Fawad Bajwa is a Managing Director at Russell Reynolds Associates and leads the firm’s Global AI, Data and Analytics practice. This post is based on his Russell Reynolds memorandum.

There’s a growing imperative for companies to take a comprehensive approach to AI–but do you really need a Chief AI Officer in the C-suite for that?

Many organizations today think hiring a Chief AI Officer role (or similar) is enough to get ahead of the GenAI curve. While these leaders can help define the AI strategy for the organization, they might not be right for every business. Who you need at the AI helm largely depends on what you want to achieve.

For some organizations, hiring someone in a big AI role might be the best approach. But in this Leadership Labs Insight, Fawad Bajwa, Russell Reynolds’ Global AI Practice Leader, argues it’s worth assessing the different types of people needed for your AI strategy, as well as your organization’s ambition in this space.

Read on to learn how to drive a connected and cohesive approach to AI that goes beyond a ‘one-and-done’ recruitment drive.

READ MORE »

Lobbying Against Enforcement

Posted by Reilly S. Steel (Columbia Law School), on
Thursday, November 7, 2024
, , ,
More from:

Reilly Steel is an Academic Fellow and Lecturer in Law at Columbia Law School. This post is based on his recent paper.

How pervasive is the strategic use of corporate political spending to avoid agency enforcement? In a new working paper, I attempt to gain traction on this question with data on nearly two decades of corporate political spending and investigations by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), which I obtain in part through an original Freedom of Information Act request.

Despite high-profile scandals periodically thrusting these issues into the spotlight, we have limited systematic empirical evidence on the pervasiveness of corporate political spending as a strategic tool to avoid agency enforcement. Our limited understanding of these issues reflects an unfortunate gap in the literature. Corporate political spending has grown significantly in recent decades (Coates 2012; Drutman 2015), a development that may be linked to increased representational inequality (Hacker and Pierson 2010; Schlozman, Verba, and Brady 2012). These trends have prompted calls from the nascent “law and political economy” movement for researchers to better understand how “economic power translates into political power” (Britton-Purdy et al. 2020). Meanwhile, this growth in corporate political spending appears to have followed a similarly large growth in government investigative activity, raising questions about the connections between these developments.

READ MORE »

What Does a Shareholder Engagement Program Look Like?

Posted by Broc Romanek, Cooley LLP, on
Thursday, November 7, 2024

More from: ,

Broc Romanek is a Senior Strategic Advisor at Cooley LLP. This post is based on his Cooley memorandum.

Companies need an organized set of engagement procedures with priorities and the ability to call on internal cross-department coordination – and director participation – when needed, depending on what is on the engagement agenda. Some companies have a written shareholder engagement policy to memorialize their processes and procedures and help set the company’s ground rules.

You should tailor your engagement approach depending on which investor you’re dealing with and the issues to be discussed. A mature and seasoned engagement program is key to successful engagement. Like most things in life, it’s quality over quantity.

READ MORE »

2024 CPA-Zicklin Index of Corporate Political Disclosure and Accountability

Posted by Dan Carroll, David Pahlic, and Bruce Freed, Center for Political Accountability, on
Wednesday, November 6, 2024
, , ,
More from: , , ,

Dan Carroll is the Vice President for Programs and Counsel, David Pahlic is the Director for Programs, and Bruce Freed is the President at Center for Political Accountability. This post is based on their CPA memorandum.

The 2024 CPA-Zicklin Index is published shortly before Election Day and at an unparalleled time in the nation’s political history. The Index’s data reflect leading companies holding firm overall to established norms of political disclosure and accountability, despite fierce headwinds against environmental, social, and governance (ESG) and related principles for investors and U.S. corporations.

Moreover, when the 2024 Index results are compared against the last presidential election years of 2020 and 2016, the picture is striking: Many large public companies have realized major gains in disclosure and accountability for their election-related spending from corporate funds, and the gains are permanent. Whether examining the overall number of S&P 500 companies in 2024 or the 331 companies that have been a constant in the Index since 2015, the Trump years (2017 to 2021) plus Biden years (2021 to the present) have seen solid and dramatic increases in corporate political disclosure and accountability.

READ MORE »

Box Jumping: Portfolio Recompositions to Achieve Higher Morningstar Ratings

Posted by Lauren H. Cohen (Harvard Business School), David Sunghyo Kim (MIT), and Eric C. So (MIT), on
Wednesday, November 6, 2024
, , ,
More from: , ,

Lauren H. Cohen is the L. E. Simmons Professor of Business Administration at Harvard Business School, David Sunghyo Kim is a PhD student at MIT Sloan School of Management, and Eric C. So is the Sloan Distinguished Professor of Management at the MIT Sloan School of Management. This post is based on their recent paper.

How money is managed in the stock market is of first-order importance, particularly in the United States, where the plurality of individuals participate in equity markets through delegated portfolio management (i.e., professional portfolio managers). A central player in this process is Morningstar – who provides widely recognized and accepted star ratings for mutual funds. These ratings guide investors on where to allocate their money, with higher-rated funds on average attracting significantly more investor capital. Morningstar’s star ratings are based on a clear and standardized process, which helps investors compare funds easily. However, this transparency also opens the door for mutual fund managers to adjust their strategies to receive higher ratings, boosting their appeal to investors and, in turn, the mutual fund managers’ revenues.

READ MORE »

How Leading CEOs are Engaging in Politics

Posted by Brian Bartlett, and Piotr Pillardy, Kekst CNC, on
Tuesday, November 5, 2024
, , ,
More from: , ,

Brian Bartlett is a Partner and Piotr Pillardy is a Research Principal at Kekst CNC. This post is based on a Kekst memorandum by Mr. Bartlett, Mr. Pillardy, Ellie Taylor, Bay Dotson, Olivia Kim, and Allie Worchell.

Tracking Campaign Contributions to Candidates, PACs and Parties

As companies navigate evolving public and stakeholder expectations around political and policy engagement, CEOs are at the forefront of shaping the approaches of their organizations. Beyond setting institutional policies, CEOs play an individual role via their personal political contributions. As these donations are part of the public record, they can serve as a de facto communication channel for the company. Consequently, CEO contributions may be seen as reflecting the company’s stance on a political race, particularly in the absence of other overt company messaging.

Understanding CEO political giving trends is key to grasping how Corporate America engages in political and policymaking dynamics. We analyzed the contribution patterns of Fortune 100 CEOs over two electoral cycles (the 2020 and 2022 elections), offering insights that can help inform best practices for executives.

READ MORE »

SEC 2025 Exam Priorities

Posted by James R. Burns, Brant Brown, and Robin M. Bergen, Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP, on
Tuesday, November 5, 2024
, , , ,
More from: , , ,

James R. Burns, Brant Brown, and Robin M. Bergen are Partners at Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP. This post is based on a Cleary Gottlieb memorandum by Mr. Burns, Mr. Brown, Ms. Bergen, Rachel Gerwin, Anna Bintinger, and Ben Rosenblum.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) Division of Examinations (the “Division”) released its 2025 examination priorities on October 21, 2024 (the “2025 Priorities”).  The 2025 Priorities highlight a wide range of topics for entities subject to SEC examinations, particularly investment advisers and broker-dealers.  The topics should be very familiar, as they largely continue recent focus areas for not only the Examinations Division but also the Enforcement Division.

READ MORE »

Governance Protections of the 1940 Act and Abuses Allowed by Annual Meetings

Posted by Paul G. Cellupica and Kevin Ercoline, Investment Company Institute, on
Monday, November 4, 2024
, , , ,
More from: , ,

Paul G. Cellupica is a General Counsel and Kevin Ercoline is an Assistant General Counsel at the Investment Company Institute. This post is supplemental to the Investment Company Institute’s comment letter.

The New York Stock Exchange’s (NYSE) 1920s-era annual shareholder meeting requirement for listed closed-end funds (CEFs) has left open an end-run around the governance protections of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (1940 Act), the landmark law governing mutual funds and other registered investment companies. Recently, the NYSE proposed a rule amendment that would realign its listing standards for CEFs with the governance protections that Congress specifically thought appropriate for investment companies. As it considers whether to permit the NYSE to change its listing rule, the SEC ought to recognize that Congress chose consciously not to mandate annual meetings for CEFs and other investment companies registered under the 1940 Act (either at its inception in 1940 or any time after 1940), which is why no other type of registered fund is subject to such a requirement.

ICI has written a detailed analysis of the issue here, explaining why the NYSE’s rule, which predates the 1940 Act, is unnecessary and in fact facilitates abusive practices. However, we have noted that some well-known academic commentators, in at least one case commissioned by an activist hedge fund that relies on the annual shareholder meeting requirement to take over CEFs, have sought to portray the NYSE rule change as anti-shareholder and poor corporate governance.[1] We respectfully think this academic critique is misinformed and actually encourages hostile practices harmful to retail shareholders and other investors.

READ MORE »

SEC Charges Four Companies for Misleading Cyber Disclosures

Posted by Charu Chandrasekhar, Erez Liebermann, and Benjamin R. Pedersen, Debevoise & Plimpton LLP, on
Monday, November 4, 2024
, , ,
More from: , , ,

Charu Chandrasekhar, Erez Liebermann, and Benjamin R. Pedersen are Partners at Debevoise & Plimpton LLP. This post is based on a Debevoise memorandum by Ms. Chandrasekhar, Mr. Liebermann, Mr. Pedersen, Julie Riewe, and Andrew J. Ceresney.

Key Takeaways:

  • On October 22, 2024, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission announced settled charges in separate actions against four technology companies who had been downstream victims of the unprecedented 2020 SUNBURST cyber-attack.
  • These actions represent the SEC’s first resolutions based on its multi-year investigations into the adequacy and accuracy of disclosures made by victims of that attack, and of related compromises believed to be committed by the same state-sponsored threat actors.
  • Although the disclosures and statements at issue in these four matters pre-date the SEC’s new cybersecurity disclosure rules, companies should closely consider these cases as reflecting the Commission’s latest views on materiality assessments and disclosure decisions regarding cybersecurity incidents.

READ MORE »

The Case for Multigenerational Corporate Boards

Posted by Bob Herr and Luke Pryor, AllianceBernstein, on
Sunday, November 3, 2024
, , ,
More from: , ,

Bob Herr is a Director of Corporate Governance, and Luke Pryor is a Portfolio Manager and Senior Research Analyst at AllianceBernstein. This post is based on their AllianceBernstein memorandum.

Just 5% of board directors are under the age of 50. But research indicates that more age-diverse boards may possess unique business advantages.

A company’s governance practices can provide valuable insights into its risk management and sustainability—and a company’s board composition is a key factor to consider. Research—our own included—indicates that the age diversity of a company’s board of directors may correlate with operational performance and shareholder returns, making a strong case for multigenerational boards. READ MORE »

Page 5 of 6
1 2 3 4 5 6