It's Showtime: Do Managers Report Better News Before Annual Shareholder Meetings?

Annual shareholder meetings provide an opportunity for shareholders to express their concerns with corporate performance, pressuring managers to demonstrate good performance. We show that managers respond to the shareholder pressure by reporting positive corporate news before the annual shareholder meetings. Specifically, we find significantly positive average cumulative abnormal returns (CARs) during the 40 days before the annual meeting date. The premeeting returns are significantly higher when shareholder discontent with managerial performance is likely to be stronger. The decile of companies with the worst past stock price performance exhibits average CARs of 3.4% and buy‐and‐hold returns of 7.0% during the 40‐day premeeting period. Companies with poor past performance exhibit even higher premeeting returns when shareholder pressure on management is greater, such as when institutional ownership is high, when CEO compensation is high, and when shareholders submit proxy proposals on corporate governance. We complement the evidence based on CARs by showing how managers of poorly performing firms manage the timing and content of earnings announcements and management forecast announcements before the annual shareholder meetings. Overall, the results suggest that managers attempt to influence shareholders before annual shareholder meetings through positive news.     

Mutual funds as monitors: Evidence from mutual fund voting

We address how mutual funds vote on shareholder proposals and identify factors that help determine support of wealth-increasing shareholder proposals. We examine 213,579 voting decisions made by 1799 mutual funds from 94 fund families for 1047 shareholder proposals voted on between July 2003 and June 2005. In an analysis of voting across funds within the same fund family, we find significant divergence in voting within families, emphasizing the importance of focusing on voting by individual funds. We also find that, in general, mutual funds vote more affirmatively for potentially wealth-increasing proposals and funds' voting approval rates for these beneficial resolutions are significantly higher than those of other investors. Our results suggest that funds tend to support proposals targeting firms with weaker governance. We also find that funds with lower turnover ratios and social funds are more likely to support shareholder proposals. Finally, fund voting approval rates significantly impact whether a proposal passes and whether one is implemented.     

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.     

Costs of voting and firm performance: Evidence from RegTech adoption in Chinese listed firms

Employing the 2014 mandatory adoption of online shareholder voting in China, we show that the reduction of voting costs through online voting is positively related to participation in shareholder meetings and future firm performance. Our mechanism analysis suggests that the improved firm performance is mainly driven by the enhanced governance role played by informed investors and institutional investors. Further analysis shows that online shareholder voting makes the firms more attractive to mutual fund managers who are far away from the firms. Moreover, we find that the improved firm performance is concentrated in firms with low controlling shareholder ownership, and that online shareholder voting is associated with an increased likelihood of vetoing proposals and lower tunneling.     

Ties That Bind: How Business Connections Affect Mutual Fund Activism

We investigate whether business ties with portfolio firms influence mutual funds' proxy voting using a comprehensive data set spanning 2003 to 2011. In contrast to prior literature, we find that business ties significantly influence promanagement voting at the level of individual pairs of fund families and firms after controlling for Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS) recommendations and holdings. The association is significant only for shareholder‐sponsored proposals and stronger for those that pass or fail by relatively narrow margins. Our findings are consistent with a demand‐driven model of biased voting in which company managers use existing business ties with funds to influence how they vote.     

Electronic voting in shareholder meetings and the market value of cash holdings

Electronic voting in shareholder meetings facilitates shareholders' direct monitoring by reducing the cost of attending the meetings. This study investigates how adopting electronic voting in shareholder meetings affects the market value of cash holdings. We document that the value of cash holdings is higher for firms adopting electronic voting than for non-adopting firms, especially for firms with large minority ownership and free cash flows. The increased value of cash is attributable to firms engaging in investments that are more value relevant. Collectively, the findings suggest that shareholders perceive corporate governance as strengthened with the adoption of electronic voting. This study contributes to the literature by providing initial empirical evidence on the benefits of electronic voting.     

Approval of shareholder-sponsored proposals: Evidence from Canada

Little is known about shareholder voting at firms incorporated outside of the United States. Proposals sponsored at such firms and the voting patterns and factors associated with these proposals should conceivably be similar to those in the U.S. if the legal and governance structures of the countries are similar. We examine 264 shareholder proposals sponsored at Canadian firms between 2001 and 2005 in order to determine if differences created by the Canadian governance system, being more voluntary than that of the U.S. system, lead to differences in shareholder voting. We find many similarities between voting at the Canadian firms and those found in the literature for their U.S. counterparts, including some types of frequently submitted proposals and factors impacting the level of shareholder approval. However, unlike the concurrent literature on U.S. firms, we find very few majority approved proposals and a much lower overall level of affirmative voting returns.     

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.     

Shareholder Activism through Proxy Proposals: The European Perspective

This paper is the first to investigate the corporate governance role of shareholder‐initiated proxy proposals in European firms. Proposal submissions in Europe remain infrequent compared to the USA, especially in Continental Europe. In the UK proposals typically relate to a proxy contest seeking board changes, while in Continental Europe they are more focused on specific governance issues. There is some evidence that proposal sponsors are valuable monitors, because the target firms tend to underperform and have low leverage. Sponsors also consider the ownership structure of the firm, because proposal probability increases in the target's ownership concentration and the equity stake of institutional investors. While proposals enjoy limited voting success across Europe, they are relatively more successful in the UK. The outcomes are strongest for proposals targeting the board but are also affected by the target characteristics including the CEO's pay‐performance sensitivity. Proposals are met with a significant negative abnormal return of ?1.23%, when they are voted upon at general meetings. The low voting support gathered by proposals and the strongly adverse market reaction suggest that shareholders of European companies use proposals as an emergency brake rather than a steering wheel.     

Electing Directors

Using a large sample of director elections, we document that shareholder votes are significantly related to firm performance, governance, director performance, and voting mechanisms. However, most variables, except meeting attendance and ISS recommendations, have little economic impact on shareholder votes—even poorly performing directors and firms typically receive over 90% of votes cast. Nevertheless, fewer votes lead to lower "abnormal" CEO compensation and a higher probability of removing poison pills, classified boards, and CEOs. Meanwhile, director votes have little impact on election outcomes, firm performance, or director reputation. These results provide important benchmarks for the current debate on election reforms.     

The Efficacy of Shareholder Voting: Evidence from Equity Compensation Plans

This study examines the effects of shareholder support for equity compensation plans on subsequent CEO compensation. Using cross‐sectional regression, instrumental variable, and regression discontinuity research designs, we find little evidence that either lower shareholder voting support for, or outright rejection of, proposed equity compensation plans leads to decreases in the level or composition of future CEO incentive compensation. We also find that, in cases where the equity compensation plan is rejected by shareholders, firms are more likely to propose, and shareholders are more likely to approve, a plan the following year. Our results suggest that shareholder votes for equity pay plans have little substantive impact on firms’ incentive compensation policies. Thus, recent regulatory efforts aimed at strengthening shareholder voting rights, particularly in the context of executive compensation, may have limited effect on firms’ compensation policies.     

Less timely earnings announcements and voluntary disclosure

The release of earnings information has become less timely in recent years partly because firms increasingly disclose earnings concurrently with their periodic reports (e.g., 10-Ks, 10-Qs). We examine whether firms use voluntary disclosure to mitigate the negative economic consequences of less timely earnings announcements (EAs). We find that firms with less timely EAs are more likely to provide voluntary 8-K filings over the period leading to the EA. We also find that investors’ demand for timely information, the nature of earnings news and litigation risk affect the extent to which firms provide voluntary disclosure to compensate for less timely EAs. The negative effect of less timely EAs on information asymmetry is attenuated when firms provide voluntary 8-K filings prior to EAs. Overall, our findings suggest that firms voluntarily communicate with investors using voluntary disclosure when their EAs are less timely.     

The dark side of strengthened minority voting power: An innovation perspective

Based on the 2014 regulatory reforms aimed at strengthening the protection of legitimate rights and interests of minority investors in China, we investigate minority shareholders’ short-termism and how minority voting impacts firm innovation. We find that the 2014 reforms effectively motivate minority shareholders to attend shareholder meetings and greatly enhance their voting influence. We also find that enhanced minority voting power after the reforms lowers the number of firms’ patent applications, and this effect is more pronounced for the firms that see the greatest increase in shareholder attendance at shareholder meetings. Moreover, enhanced minority voting power boosts executive turnover-performance sensitivity, thereby undermining firm innovation. Finally, we show that different types of minority shareholders have distinct impacts on firm innovation, depending on their investment horizons. The negative effect of minority voting power is more pronounced for state-owned enterprises (SOEs) than for non-SOEs.     

Conflict of interest and proxy voting by institutional investors

Political pressures can bias public pension funds (PPFs) toward activist shareholders. The pension business ties mutual fund families (MFFs) have with portfolio firms can bias them toward firm management. We examine how these contrasting conflicts of interest affect institutional investors' proxy voting behavior and show PPFs (MFFs) are considerably more supportive of activist shareholders (firm management) in voting, even if doing so may harm investment value. The biases are more pronounced when incentive conflicts are stronger. PPFs support shareholder (management) proposals more (less) when Democrats gain more power in the fund's home state. Conflicted PPFs are particularly active in supporting value reducing shareholder proposals.     

Firm performance and mutual fund voting

We employ a new comprehensive proxy voting records database to investigate whether mutual funds consider prior firm performance when they vote on a diverse range of management- and shareholder-sponsored proposals relating to governance, compensation, and director election. We argue that prior firm performance plays a role in the monitoring effort of mutual funds as they fulfill their fiduciary duties. Results show that voting is related to prior firm performance for selected management and shareholder proposals and that it is consistent with Institutional Shareholder Services’ recommendations. Mutual funds support management (shareholder) proposals less (more) when prior firm performance has been weak. Furthermore, even when mutual funds deviate from their fund family’s voting policies, they attach importance to prior firm performance, and their voting is, to a certain degree, affected by business ties.     

Vote Trading and Information Aggregation

The standard analysis of corporate governance assumes that shareholders vote in ratios that firms choose, such as one share‐one vote. However, if the cost of unbundling and trading votes is sufficiently low, then shareholders choose the ratios. We document an active market for votes within the U.S. equity loan market, where the average vote sells for zero. We hypothesize that asymmetric information motivates the vote trade and find support in the cross section. More trading occurs for higher‐spread and worse‐performing firms, especially when voting is close. Vote trading corresponds to support for shareholder proposals and opposition to management proposals.     

Nonbinding Voting for Shareholder Proposals

Shareholder proposals are a common form of shareholder activism. Voting for shareholder proposals, however, is nonbinding since management has the authority to reject the proposal even if it received majority support from shareholders. We analyze whether nonbinding voting is an effective mechanism for conveying shareholder expectations. We show that, unlike binding voting, nonbinding voting generally fails to convey shareholder views when manager and shareholder interests are not aligned. Surprisingly, the presence of an activist investor who can discipline the manager may enhance the advisory role of nonbinding voting only if conflicts of interest between shareholders and the activist are substantial.     

Can online annual general meetings increase shareholders’ participation in corporate governance?

We find that annual shareholder meetings conducted online can significantly increase the participation of shareholders, especially minority shareholders. This finding is more evident when the cost of physically attending the annual meeting is higher and when the firm's ownership is more dispersed. We further document significant positive stock returns when firms initiate annual online meetings. We also find that such online meetings help improve corporate governance. Overall, we provide evidence that online shareholder meetings provide shareholders a cost-effective way to participate in governance issues.     

Board of directors' responsiveness to shareholders: Evidence from shareholder proposals

In recent years boards have become significantly more likely to implement non-binding, majority-vote (MV) shareholder proposals. Using a sample of 620 MV proposals between 1997 and 2004, we find that shareholder pressure (e.g., the voting outcome and the influence of the proponent) and the type of proposals are the main determinants of the implementation decision, while traditional governance indicators do not seem to affect the decision. We then examine the labor market consequences of the implementation decision for outside directors and find that directors implementing MV shareholder proposals experience a one-fifth reduction in the likelihood of losing their board seat as well as other directorships.     

The wealth effects of shareholder-sponsored proposals

Shareholder-sponsored proposals represent direct attempts to improve the operating and governance performance of publicly held corporations. This study examines the different types of shareholder proposals to determine their impact on value. While some recent studies show positive wealth effects for small or specific samples associated with shareholder proposal announcements or no wealth effects at all, this study documents significant negative abnormal returns for a large sample of firms. The results of previous studies suggest that shareholder proposals are beneficial to shareholders, and this study shows that to be true for only a fraction of them. Although management opposes the overwhelming majority of shareholder proposals, there are rare instances in which they either support the proposal and negotiate a settlement or in which the proposal receives enough support at the annual meeting to pass. This study documents positive abnormal returns for these cases.