Hedge funds,insiders, and the decoupling of economic and voting ownership: Empty voting and hidden (morphable) ownership

Most U.S. public companies have a single class of voting common shares: voting power is proportional to economic ownership. Linking votes to shares is often thought to be desirable, because, as residual claimants, shareholders have an incentive to exercise voting power well. The linkage also facilitates the market for corporate control. On the other hand, decoupling is efficient in some situations. Equity derivatives and other capital market developments now allow shareholders to readily decouple voting rights from economic ownership of shares, often without public disclosure. Hedge funds are prominent users of decoupling. Sometimes they hold more votes than economic ownership (a situation we term “empty voting”). Sometimes they hold undisclosed economic ownership without votes, but often with the de facto ability to acquire votes if needed (a situation we term ‘‘hidden (morphable) ownership”). This Article analyzes empty voting and hidden (morphable) ownership, which we term the “new vote buying.” We offer a framework for unpacking its functional elements and assess its potential benefits and costs. Two companion legal articles (Hu, Henry T.C., and Bernard S. Black, 2006a. The New Vote Buying: Empty Voting and Hidden (Morphable) Ownership, Southern California Law Review 79, 811–908#, and Hu, Henry T.C., and Bernard S. Black, 2006b. Empty Voting and Hidden Ownership: Taxonomy, Implications and Reforms, Business Lawyer 61, 1011–1069.) provide more details on current disclosure rules and offer a disclosure reform proposal.     

Heterogeneity and peer effects in mutual fund proxy voting

This paper studies voting in corporate director elections. We construct a comprehensive data set of 2,058,788 mutual fund votes over a two-year period. We find systematic heterogeneity in voting: some funds are consistently more management-friendly than others. We also establish the presence of peer effects: a fund is more likely to oppose management when other funds are more likely to oppose it, all else being equal. We estimate a voting model whose supermodular structure allows us to compute social multipliers due to peer effects. Heterogeneity and peer effects are as important in shaping voting outcomes as firm and director characteristics.     

Legislating stock prices

We demonstrate that legislation has a simple, yet previously undetected, impact on stock prices. Exploiting the voting record of legislators whose constituents are the affected industries, we show that the votes of these “interested” legislators capture important information seemingly ignored by the market. A long-short portfolio based on these legislators' views earns abnormal returns of over 90 basis points per month following the passage of legislation. Industries that we classify as beneficiaries of legislation experience significantly more positive earnings surprises and positive analyst revisions in the months following passage of the bill, as well as significantly higher future sales and profitability. We show that the more complex the legislation, the more difficulty the market has in assessing the impact of these bills. Further, the more concentrated the legislator's interest in the industry, the more informative are her votes for future returns.     

Self‐Expropriation versus Self‐Interest in Dual‐Class Voting: The Pirelli Case Study

Called to vote for a reduction in their dividend privileges, Pirelli's nonvoting shareholders appeared to expropriate themselves and favor the voting class of shares. However, what initially seemed to be self‐expropriation became self‐interest when the media coverage, voting decisions, and dual‐class ownership of 36,361 shareholders were investigated. Most of the institutional investors voting “for” the proposal were found to have ownership ties with controlling shareholders or to have held voting shares. Moreover, dual‐class ownership significantly increased the likelihood of shareholders voting to expropriate one class of shares if they benefited from the other class in their portfolios.     

Corporate diversification,refocusing and shareholder voting

We examine if shareholders' attitude towards firm diversification strategy is revealed in their votes on management-initiated acquisition and divestment proposals using data on voting by shareholders of UK public firms between 1997 and 2019. We find that voting dissent is higher for diversifying acquisitions and lower for refocusing divestments, especially when these involve diversified firms. We also find a negative relationship between diversification premium and voting dissent. Our results provide evidence that diversification characteristics of firms and deals have a significant impact on shareholders' dissent in acquisitions and divestments.     

The Role of Institutional Investors in Voting: Evidence from the Securities Lending Market

This paper investigates voting preferences of institutional investors using the unique setting of the securities lending market. Investors restrict lendable supply and/or recall loaned shares prior to the proxy record date to exercise voting rights. Recall is higher for investors with greater incentives to monitor, for firms with poor performance or weak governance, and for proposals where returns to governance are likely higher. At the subsequent vote, recall is associated with less support for management and more support for shareholder proposals. Our results indicate that institutions value their vote and use the proxy process to affect corporate governance.     

Shareholder election of CSR committee members and its effects on CSR performance

We examine the election of directors to corporate social responsibility (CSR) committees and whether shareholder votes influence CSR committee effectiveness. Our study is motivated by the importance that shareholders place on CSR and the responsibilities of the board in overseeing a firm's CSR practices. We find that CSR committee members receive greater shareholder support than other directors. We further find that among CSR committee members, those who are more experienced and skilled receive greater shareholder support. Furthermore, when a firm's CSR performance is poorer (better), CSR committee members receive lower (greater) shareholder support compared with other directors. Finally, we find that through voting, shareholders can increase the efficacy of the CSR committee, leading to improvements in CSR committee structure and performance. Overall, our results suggest that shareholders value the services and expertise of CSR committee members and hold them accountable for CSR performance. Shareholder votes are also effective in enhancing CSR performance.     

Timing and Wealth Effects of German Dual Class Stock Unifications

This paper studies the reasons and the costs of separating ownership from control by analysing the decision of German dual class firms to consolidate their share structure from dual to single class equity between 1990 and 2001. We find that the firm value increases significantly by an average 4% on the announcement day. A significant part of the variation in abnormal returns can be explained by the ownership structure and by changes in liquidity. A logit analysis of the unification decision yields that firms are more likely to unify if their controlling shareholder loses only little voting power in a stock unification. Also, firms that are financially constrained are more likely to abolish dual class shares; these firms often issue additional shares after the stock unification.     

Business ties and proxy voting by mutual funds

The magnitude of mutual funds’ business ties with their portfolio firms is documented and is linked to funds’ proxy votes at specific firms and to overall voting practices. Aggregate votes at the fund family level indicate a positive relation between business ties and the propensity to vote with management. Votes at specific firms, however, reveal that funds are no more likely to vote with management of client firms than of non-clients. Because the votes took place when funds knew their votes would be publicly scrutinized, fund families with a larger client base may have adopted voting policies that led to less frequent opposition to management at all firms.     

Debt,Equity and Hybrid Decoupling: Governance and Systemic Risk Implications

We extend here our prior work, which focused on equity decoupling ( Hu and Black, 2006, 2007, 2008 ), by providing a systematic treatment of debt decoupling and an initial exploration of hybrid decoupling. Equity decoupling involves unbundling of economic, voting, and sometimes other rights customarily associated with shares, often in ways that may permit avoidance of disclosure and other obligations. We discuss a new U.S. court decision which will likely curtail the use of equity decoupling strategies to avoid large shareholder disclosure rules. Debt decoupling involving the unbundling of the economic rights, contractual control rights, and legal and other rights normally associated with debt, through credit derivatives and securitisation. Corporations can have empty and hidden creditors, just as they can have empty and hidden shareholders. ‘Hybrid decoupling’ across standard equity and debt categories is also possible. All forms of decoupling appear to be increasingly common. Debt decoupling can pose risks at the firm level for what can be termed ‘debt governance’? the overall relationship between creditor and debtor, including creditors' exercise of contractual and legal rights with respect to firms and other borrowers. Widespread debt decoupling can also involve externalities and therefore create systemic financial risks; we explore those risks.     

THE EFFECTS OF MUTUAL FUNDS ON M&A COMPENSATION

Motivated by shareholders’ interest in combating executive wealth expropriation through the merger and acqusition (M&A) process, we study how mutual funds influence firm behavior around an acquisition through votes against management proposals. We find that mutual funds reduce the chief executive officer's ability to extract rents during the M&A process by voting against management‐sponsored compensation proposals after the acquisition, thus lowering both excess compensation and increasing pay‐for‐performance sensitivity. Furthermore, mutual fund voting magnifies the impact on negatively performing firms and firms with a larger amount of the mutual fund's holdings in the firm.     

Takeover bids and the relative prices of shares that differ in their voting rights

The relative prices of shares that differ only in their voting rights are modelled. In our model, voting rights become valuable when a control contest is decided through takeover bids for outside votes. The study shows how the value of the voting right depends on the initial ownership distribution, the share structure, and the ability of the incumbent manager versus a rival for control. Empirical support for the model is provided using Swedish stock market data.     

Managerial ownership dynamics and firm value

From 1988 to 2003, the average change in managerial ownership is significantly negative every year for American firms. We find that managers are more likely to significantly decrease their ownership when their firms are performing well and more likely to increase their ownership when their firms become financially constrained. When controlling for past stock returns, we find that large increases in managerial ownership increase Tobin's q. This result is driven by increases in shares held by officers, while increases in shares held by directors appear unrelated to changes in firm value. There is no evidence that large decreases in ownership have an adverse impact on firm value. We rely on the dynamics of the managerial ownership/firm value relation to mitigate concerns in the literature about the endogeneity of managerial ownership.     

Shareholder Votes and Proxy Advisors: Evidence from Say on Pay

We investigate the economic role of proxy advisors (PAs) in the context of mandatory “say on pay” votes, a novel and complex item requiring significant firm‐specific analysis. PAs are more likely to issue an Against recommendation at firms with poor performance and higher levels of CEO pay and do not appear to follow a “one‐size‐fits‐all” approach. PAs’ recommendations are the key determinant of voting outcome but the sensitivity of shareholder votes to these recommendations varies with the institutional ownership structure, and the rationale behind the recommendation, suggesting that at least some shareholders do not blindly follow these recommendations. More than half of the firms respond to the adverse shareholder vote triggered by a negative recommendation by engaging with investors and making changes to their compensation plan. However, we find no market reaction to the announcement of such changes, even when material enough to result in a favorable recommendation and vote the following year. Our findings suggest that, rather than identifying and promoting superior compensation practices, PAs' key economic role is processing a substantial amount of executive pay information on behalf of institutional investors, hence reducing their cost of making informed voting decisions. Our findings contribute to the literature on shareholder voting and the related policy debate.     

The American keiretsu and universal banks: Investing,voting and sitting on nonfinancials’ corporate boards

This paper investigates the equity investments and voting rights that American banks control through their trust business. The paper also studies whether the voting rights American banks control through their trust business help explain their presence on firms’ corporate boards. We find that on average the largest 100 American banks control 10% of the voting rights of S&P 500 firms. We also find that there are several firms in the S&P 500 index in which the top banks control more than 20% of their voting rights, and several firms in the country in which these banks control more than 60% of their voting rights. Our investigation into the presence of American bankers on corporate boards shows that bankers are more likely to join the boards of firms in which they control a large voting stake. We also find that banks’ lending relationships help explain bankers’ board memberships. Our results further show that bankers who have both a voting stake in a firm and a lending relationship with it have a higher likelihood of joining the firm's board of directors.     

Managerial ownership of voting rights: A study of public corporations with dual classes of common stock

Managers of firms with dual classes of common stock can choose different quantities of votes for a given cash flow interest by choosing different quantities of the two securities. We study managerial stock holdings in 45 dual class firms and find that vote ownership per se is an important motivation for these holdings in that corporate officers and their families hold a median 56.9% of the votes and 24.0% of the common stock cash flows. We also find significant family involvement in many sample firms, and document four case studies in which explicit acquisition premiums were paid for superior voting shares.     

The market for shareholder voting rights around mergers and acquisitions: Evidence from institutional daily trading and voting

This paper explores the market for voting rights and shareholder voting around 350 mergers and acquisitions between 1999 and 2005 by examining institutional-investor trading and voting outcomes. Our results show institutions in aggregate buy shares and hence voting rights before merger record dates. This trading is not related to proxies for merger arbitrage or trading around merger announcements, and thus is not simply a continuation of the latter. Trading and buying before record dates are positively related to voting turnout and negatively related to shareholder support of merger proposals. We explore several possible interpretations of these results.     

Voice and power: Do institutional shareholders make use of their voting power?

I investigate the role of voting power – the ability to influence a vote's outcome – in the voting behavior of institutional shareholders. Using hand-collected data from Israel, an environment with concentrated ownership, I employ a power index borrowed from the political science literature to examine the voting power wielded by institutional shareholders and the voting patterns they display. I find that institutional shareholders' voting power is negatively related to their tendency to vote against management: the stronger the shareholder, the higher the probability they will vote in favor of a management-sponsored proposal. Based on evidence obtained here, this behavior is attributable to pre-vote negotiations as well as to the voting strategy of “counting on my vote not counting.” Next, I use detailed data on shareholders' votes to identify the channel through which a voting rule affects minority shareholder protection. I find that powerful institutional shareholders almost never use their voting power to vote against management, not even when signals of poor governance are discernible. I conclude that the effect of a voting rule on minority shareholder protection operates through proposal selection, rather than through direct voting.     

Are CEOs’ purchases more profitable than they appear?

Little is known about why CEOs voluntarily purchase shares of their firm other than to earn direct profits. Since CEOs are risk-averse, undiversified, and face litigation costs from trading on private information, direct profits are unlikely to be the sole motive—especially since many purchases are ultimately unprofitable. We find that CEOs who have recently purchased shares are less likely to be terminated following poor performance and that this relation varies predictably with (i) their cost of purchasing shares, (ii) the profitability of their prior purchases, and (iii) their board's access to alternative sources of information about them. We find that some CEOs voluntarily purchase shares despite the cost of foregone diversification—and, sometimes outright unprofitability—to indirectly benefit by prolonging their tenure. Our estimates imply that the average abnormal returns that CEOs earn from their purchases increases from 3% to 58% after incorporating the indirect benefit of prolonged tenure.     

Compensation consultants: Does reputation matter?

In this paper, we analyze the role of hiring a reputable compensation consultant for firms wanting to secure affirmative Say on Pay (SoP) votes. We provide evidence that reputation influences shareholders voting behavior positively when CEO pay is excessive and when peer CEOs are paid less. We employ two methods to account for endogeneity, instrumental variables as well as examining firms switching up to more reputable compensation consultants. Our results are robust with respect to CEO pay and complexity as well as fees and alternate measures of reputation. Firms concerned with the negative feedback associated with negative SoP votes should factor reputation in their decision to hire consultants, especially if trying to adopt compensation packages that may appear excessive.