Category: Corporate Governance
Does hedge-fund activism really increase shareholder value?
The public debate about hedge-fund activism has long been informed by academic literature that found increases in shareholder value and operating performance after activist interventions. But do hedge-fund activists actually do any long-term good for the companies that they target? Long-Term Economic Consequences of Hedge Fund Activist Interventions, from the Rock Center for Corporate Governance, examines just that question. The answer? Not so much. But not so much harm either.
Heat’s on for climate change disclosure rules
A new rulemaking petition advocating that the SEC mandate environmental, social and governance disclosure under a standardized comprehensive framework has just been submitted by two academics and multiple institutional investors, representing over $5 trillion in assets. Not only is ESG disclosure material and relevant to understanding long-term risks, the petition contends, but the variety of approaches currently employed highlight the need for a more coherent standard that will provide clarity, completeness and comparability. In the past, concerns have been raised about whether uniform disclosure rules could really be effective for ESG. Can those concerns be overcome?
Why do auditors so rarely find fraud?
Are we just reading the wrong newspapers and reports or does it seem that auditors—although they spend hours and hours performing audits—rarely identify instances of fraud? Most companies rely on their auditors to uncover irregularities and breathe a sigh of relief when the audit comes up “clean.” Is that reliance misplaced? Probably so, according to this article from CFO.com. “Audits almost never find fraud,” the author writes; the data shows that “external audits find it 4% of the time, and internal 15%.” Instead, the author suggests, to detect fraud, management should look in a different direction.
California mandates quotas for board gender diversity—will it fuel a movement?
As discussed in this PubCo post from February, a California bill, SB 826, addressing the issue of board gender diversity, has been making its way through the California legislature. On Sunday, Governor Jerry Brown signed that bill into law. Interestingly, one factor apparently influential in his decision to sign the bill was the recent hearing in Washington. As you may have heard, the legislation requires, as Brown phrases it, a “representative number” of women on boards of public companies, including foreign corporations with principal executive offices located in California. Will other states now follow suit? Will corporations incorporated in other states observe its provisions or challenge the application of this California law?
Were reports of the demise of universal proxy premature?
The possibility of the imposition of mandatory universal proxy has long been with us. The SEC apparently considered requiring universal proxies back in 1992 and, in 2014, the Council of Institutional Investors filed a rulemaking petition asking the SEC to reform the proxy rules to facilitate the use of universal proxies in proxy contests. Then, in 2016, the SEC proposed amendments to the proxy rules that would have mandated the use of universal proxy cards in contested elections. And there it sat. With the change of administrations in the White House, followed by the change of administrations at the SEC, the proposal for universal proxy fell off the SEC’s near-term agenda and was relegated to the long-term agenda. Moreover, disfavored by House Republicans, universal proxy would have been prohibited by various bills, including the Financial Choice Act of 2017 (which passed the House but not the Senate). (See this PubCo post.) Then, in July of this year, “several people familiar with the matter” advised Reuters that SEC Chair Jay Clayton “has in fact shelved the proposal.” (See this PubCo post.) The possibility of mandatory universal proxy had been transfigured into more of a spectral presence.
ISS reveals results of most recent Governance Principles Survey
ISS has posted the results of its most recent Governance Principles Survey, which can sometimes guide future ISS policies. The key areas of focus were auditors and audit committees, director accountability and track records, board gender diversity and the principle of one-share one-vote.
Equilar reports board gender diversity improvements for Q2 2018
According to consultant Equilar’s Gender Diversity Index, for the second calendar quarter of 2018, the percentage of women on the boards of companies in the Russell 3000 increased from 16.9% to 17.7%, representing the third consecutive quarter of increase. Also in Q2, 39 boards reached gender parity—an increase of eight from the previous quarter. And, for 71 boards, the percentage of women directors was between 40% and 50%, representing an increase of nine from the prior quarter. But what’s most interesting about the data, however, is that, of appointments to new board seats during the period, 34.9% went to women—almost twice the percentage recorded in 2014. Equilar views that fact as “a promising sign that companies are making a concerted effort to promote diversity in corporate boardrooms.” The increase moves Equilar’s GDI to 0.35, where 1.0 represents board gender parity.
Senator Warren introduces the Accountable Capitalism Act
According to this column in the LA Times, it’s the “single most pernicious idea in modern American finance.” Can you guess? It’s the idea “that the corporation exists to ‘maximize shareholder wealth,’” the columnist proclaims. “As the mantra has evolved since it was declared by conservative economist Milton Friedman in 1970, it has come to mean ‘maximize shareholder wealth to the exclusion of everything else.’ The harvest has been stagnating worker wages, squeezed suppliers, noxious government economic policies, and the steady flow of corporate income to the top 1%. It’s long past time to bury this bad idea in the grave.” Needless to say, many would take issue with the columnist’s view, but probably not Senator Elizabeth Warren, who has recently introduced the “Accountable Capitalism Act,” which would mandate that specified large companies have as a corporate purpose identified in their charters—their new federal charters—the creation of a “general public benefit.”
Are rumors of the demise of the public company greatly exaggerated?
As you’ve surely read and heard, there’s been a tremendous amount of hand wringing, particularly at the agency and congressional levels, about the steep decline in the number of public companies and IPOs. For example, in congressional testimony in 2017, SEC Chair Jay Clayton expressed concern regarding the decline in the number of public companies, contending that it is Mr. and Ms. 401(k) who bear the cost of this trend because they now have “fewer opportunities…to invest directly in high quality companies.” (See this PubCo post.) The topic has also been taken up by various House committees, SEC advisory committees and SEC forums, as well as by securities and industry organizations. (See this PubCo post, this PubCo post and this PubCo post.) However, in this article, a Cambridge professor cries “nonsense”: the primary dangers to public company status, such as buyouts by private equity and a recent bias against conducting IPOs, do not pose “an existential threat to the American public company.” While there are certainly fewer public companies than in decades past, “the public company remains as crucial a feature of the American economy as it has ever been.”
You must be logged in to post a comment.