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.     

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.     

Shareholder proposals in the new millennium: Shareholder support,board response,and market reaction

Although the owners of publicly traded companies have had the right to offer shareholder proposals using Rule 14a-8 for several decades, the effectiveness of the rule has been frequently questioned because few of these proposals received substantial support from other shareholders and even fewer have been implemented by boards. Using new data from the 2002–2004 proxy seasons, we analyze shareholder voting patterns on these proposals, board reactions to them, and market responses. We find some big changes from earlier periods: many more proposals are receiving majority shareholder support during our sample period relative to earlier studies, and this support has translated into directors implementing more of the actions called for by shareholders. In particular, boards are increasingly willing to remove important anti-takeover defenses, such as the classified board and poison pill, in response to shareholders' requests, something rarely seen in the past. Despite the increase in support for shareholder proposals and board action in response, we find small and insignificant stock market reaction. We conclude that shareholder proposals under Rule 14a-8 have an emerging role in reducing agency costs by increasing director responsiveness to shareholder concerns to open the market more fully to corporate control.     

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.     

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.     

Trading and Shareholder Democracy

We study shareholder voting in a model in which trading affects the composition of the shareholder base. Trading and voting are complementary, which gives rise to self-fulfilling expectations about proposal acceptance and multiple equilibria. Prices and shareholder welfare can move in opposite directions, so the former may be an invalid proxy for the latter. Relaxing trading frictions can reduce welfare because it allows extreme shareholders to gain more weight in voting. Delegating decision-making to the board can help overcome collective action problems at the voting stage. We also analyze the role of index investors and social concerns of shareholders.     

中小股东仅能“搭便车”么?——来自深交所社会公众股东网络投票的经验证据

本文利用深交所的社会公众股东网络投票数据,研究了中小股东参与网络投票与公司决策的影响因素和经济后果。结果表明,大股东代理问题严重、机构投资者持股比例较高的公司,中小股东的网络投票参与率较高;中小股东的网络投票参与率与公司股票异常回报正相关,并且这种关系随着大股东代理问题的严重程度而增强。与小股东利益更为相关的股权分置改革提案中,中小股东投票参与率更高,并且这种更高的投票参与率在股权分置改革提案中能为中小股东增进财富。     

The evolution of shareholder voting for executive compensation schemes

We examine shareholder voting on management-sponsored compensation proposals from 1992 through 2003 to determine how voting has evolved as a result of changes in the corporate governance environment. We investigate three questions: have regulatory changes and changes in investor sentiment affected voting; do the same factors appear to influence voting over time and has the impact of the various factors changed over time; and do additional factors such as the level of compensation and alternate definitions of dilution influence voting support? We find evidence of changing trends in voting, that shareholders have become more sensitive to potentially harmful plan provisions, and that additional factors do affect voting.     

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.     

Why are shareholders not paid to give up their voting privileges? Unique evidence from Italy

Dual-class share unifications have typically been argued to be beneficial for voting shareholders, who are usually compensated for the loss of their superior voting privileges. However, no covenants exist that make this compensation mandatory for voting shareholders. In this paper, we examine a subset of dual class share unifications from Italy where, in the main, voting shareholders are not offered any compensation in lieu of the loss of their superior voting rights. We present a simple model describing the conditions under which the controlling voting shareholder will choose not to offer compensation to minority voting shareholders as part of a share unification. Our empirical results support the model predictions.     

Large Shareholder Entrenchment and Performance: Empirical Evidence from Canada

Abstract:  Recent empirical evidence indicates that the largest publicly traded companies throughout the world have concentrated ownership. This is the case in Canada where voting rights are often concentrated in the hands of large shareholders, mostly wealthy families. Such concentrated ownership structures can generate specific agency problems, such as large shareholders expropriating wealth from minority shareholders. These costs are aggravated when large shareholders don't bear the full costs of their decisions because of the presence of mechanisms (dual class voting shares, pyramids) which lead to voting rights being greater than the cash flow rights (separation). We assess the impact of separation on various performance metrics while controlling for situations when the large shareholder has (1) the opportunity to expropriate (high free cash flows in the firm) and (2) the incentive to expropriate (low cash flow rights). We also control for when the large shareholder has the power to expropriate (high voting rights, outright control and insider management) and for the presence of family ownership. The results support our hypotheses and indicate that firm performance is lower when large shareholders have both the incentives and the opportunity to expropriate minority shareholders.     

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.     

The Idealized Electoral College voting mechanism and shareholder power

Increasing concern over corporate governance has led to calls for more shareholder influence over corporate decisions, but allowing shareholders to vote on more issues may not affect the quality of governance. We should expect instead that, under current rules, shareholder voting will implement the preferences of the majority of large shareholders and management. This is because majority rule offers little incentive for small shareholders to vote. I offer a potential remedy in the form of a new voting rule, the Idealized Electoral College (IEC), modeled on the American Electoral College, that significantly increases the expected impact that a given shareholder has on election. The benefit of the mechanism is that it induces greater turnout, but the cost is that it sometimes assigns a winner that is not preferred by a majority of voters. Therefore, for issues on which management and small shareholders are likely to disagree, the IEC is superior to majority rule.     

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.     

The spillover effect of shareholder activism: Evidence on firm reporting

This study examines the spillover effect of shareholder activism against target firms on financial reporting by non-target firms in portfolios held by the same activist shareholders. We find that firms that are not the target of institutional shareholders’ activism campaigns report more positive abnormal accruals. Cross-sectional tests indicate that the effect is more pronounced i) for firms that have more opportunities to engage in upward earnings management, or for firms with less effective alternative monitoring forces, and ii) when investors are more sensitive to good news. We also find that the effect is stronger when activist shareholders are more experienced, are waging more confrontational campaigns against target firms, and have larger holdings in non-target firms. We further find that non-target firms tend to report lower magnitude of asset write-downs, are more likely to restate financial statements and meet or beat earnings benchmarks, and exhibit a more optimistic tone in their 10-K/10-Q filings. Overall, our findings suggest that firms tend to window-dress their mandatory reporting to preempt possible shareholder activism against them.     

Labor Unions as Shareholder Activists: Champions or Detractors?

We examine the impact of labor union shareholder activism through the submission of shareholder proposals during the period 1988–2002. We examine the effect of labor union‐sponsored shareholder proposals on announcement period returns; on the corporate governance environment of the firm including shareholder rights, board composition, and CEO compensation; on changes in unionization rates and labor expense; and on long‐run shareholder wealth. We do not find any observable patterns for the overall sample of proposals. However, subsets of proposals associated with union presence at the target firm and shareholder voting support for the proposal are associated with significant effects surrounding and subsequent to targeting.     

The Rise of Agency Capitalism and the Role of Shareholder Activists in Making It Work

The past 50 years have seen a fundamental change in the ownership of U.S. public companies, one in which the relatively small holdings of many individual shareholders have been supplanted by the large holdings of institutional investors, such as pension funds, mutual funds, and bank trust departments. Such large institutional investors are now said to own over 70% of the stock of the largest 1,000 U.S. public corporations; and in many of these companies, as the authors go on to note, “as few as two dozen institutional investors” own enough shares “to exert substantial influence, if not effective control.” But this reconcentration of ownership does not represent a complete solution to the “agency” problems arising from the “separation of ownership and control” that troubled Berle and Means, the relative powerlessness of shareholders in the face of a class of “professional” corporate managers who owned little if any stock. As the authors note, this shift from an era of “managerial capitalism” to one they identify as “agency capitalism” has come with a somewhat new and different set of “agency conflicts” and associated costs. The fact that most institutional investors hold highly diversified portfolios and compete (and are compensated) on the basis of “relative performance” provides them with little incentive to engage in the vigorous monitoring of corporate performance and investor activism that could address shortfalls in such performance. As a consequence, such large institutional investors—not to mention the large and growing body of indexers like Vanguard and BlackRock—are likely to appear “rationally apathetic” about corporate governance. But, as the authors also point out, there is a solution to this agency conflict—and to the corporate governance “vacuum” that has been said to result from the alleged apathy of well‐diversified (and indexed) institutional investors: the emergence of shareholder activists. The activist hedge funds and other specialized activists who have come on the scene during the last 15 or 20 years are now playing an important role in supporting this relatively new ownership structure. Instead of taking control positions, the activists “tee‐up” strategic business and financing choices that are then decided upon by the vote of institutional shareholders that are best characterized not as apathetic, but as rationally “reticent”; that is, they allow the activists, if not to do their talking for them, then to serve as a catalyst for the expression of institutional shareholder voice. The institutions are by no means rubber stamps for activists' proposals; in some cases voting for the activists' proposals, in many cases against them, the institutions function as the long‐term arbiters of whether such proposals should and will go forward. In the closing section of the article, the authors discuss a number of recent legal decisions that appear to recognize this relatively new role played by activists and the institutions that choose to support them (or not)—legal decisions that appear to confirm investors' competence and right to be entrusted with such authority over corporate decision‐making.     

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.     

Say-on-pay judgements: the two-strikes rule and the pay-performance link

We undertake an experiment to explore shareholder voting behaviour when the pay-performance link is weak or strong; and when there has (has not) been a first strike in the preceding year. We find shareholders are more supportive of a remuneration package evidencing a strong pay-performance link than a weak link. Further, shareholders are less supportive of a remuneration package when there has been a first strike in the preceding year than when there has not been a first strike. Importantly, we find that a first strike reduces the effect of the pay-performance link on voting intentions.     

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.