Archive for the ‘Proxy Access’ Category

New in Stanford Closer Look Series: “And then a Miracle Happens!: How Do Proxy Advisory Firms Develop Their Voting Recommendations?

Monday, February 25th, 2013

“And then a Miracle Happens!: How Do Proxy Advisory Firms Develop Their Voting Recommendations? (PDF)

Authors: David F. Larcker, Allan L.McCall and Brian Tayan, Stanford Graduate School of Business
Date: February 25, 2013
Rock Center for Corporate Governance at Stanford University Closer Look Series: Topics, Issues and Controversies in Corporate Governance and Leadership No. CGRP- 31

Abstract:

Proxy advisory firms are independent, for-profit consulting companies that provide voting recommendations to individual and institutional investors.  Research shows that these firms have significant influence on voting outcomes.  Given this influence, it is important that investors ensure that the policies of these firms are “accurate”—i.e., that they successfully and reliably differentiate between good and bad future outcomes.

In this Closer Look, we carefully examine the process by which proxy advisory firms formulate their voting policies.  In doing so, we identify serious issues that raise questions about the accuracy of their recommendations.

We ask:

  • How exactly do proxy advisory firms determine that a policy is “correct”?
  • Who participates in the policy development process with these firms?  How do we know that their opinions are representative of shareholder broadly?
  • Why don’t proxy advisory firms disclose the research that supports each of their voting recommendations?

New in Stanford Closer Look series: Shareholder Lawsuits: Where Is the Line Between Legitimate and Frivolous?

Tuesday, November 27th, 2012

Shareholder Lawsuits: Where Is the Line Between Legitimate and Frivolous? [PDF]

Authors: Professor David F. Larcker, Stanford Graduate School of Business, and Brian Tayan, Researcher, Center for Leadership Development and Research, Stanford GSB.
Published: November 27, 2012

Shareholders of public companies are not responsible for designing executive compensation packages. Still, a shareholder vote on compensation is required in two circumstances:  when a company wants to establish an equity-based compensation plan, and annually as part of the Dodd Frank requirement shareholders have an advisory “say on pay.”  In deciding how to vote, shareholders rely on information provided in the annual proxy.

Recently, shareholder groups have sued companies for inadequate disclosure.  They allege that the companies provide insufficient disclosure to determine how they should vote on these matters.

We explore this issue in closer detail and ask:

  • How much disclosure is too much disclosure?
  • If a company follows SEC guidelines, why is this not sufficient?
  • When do lawsuits cross the line from legitimate to frivolous?
  • If disclosure litigation is successful, what other board decisions would be subject to potential lawsuits?

Read the Closer Look and let us know what you think!

To view the entire collection of Stanford Closer Looks please click here. You can also follow more corporate governance and leadership news at @StanfordCorpGov and  @StnfrdLeadrship.

Link Your Website to Handy Corporate Governance Glossary of Terms

Saturday, April 21st, 2012

Glossary

The following glossary of terms are frequently used in discussions of corporate governance. Link the Stanford Corporate Governance Research Program glossary of terms to your website:  http://www.gsb.stanford.edu/cgrp/research/glossary

 

 

New research from Stanford Rock Center, The Conference Board & NASDAQ released today on the influence of proxy advisors on say-on-pay voting & the design of executive compensation packages.

Monday, March 12th, 2012

This report examines current evidence regarding the influence of third-party proxy advisory firms’ voting recommendations on shareholder proposal voting outcomes, particularly say-on-pay votes. It also presents the findings of a study, conducted by The Conference Board, NASDAQ, and the Rock Center for Corporate Governance at Stanford University, which shows that proxy advisory firms have a substantial impact on the design of executive compensation programs.  Read the entire study results in the link above.

Stanford Closer Look: Seven Myths of Corporate Governance (CGRP-16)

Thursday, June 2nd, 2011


 CGRP16 – Seven Myths of Corporate Governance (PDF) by Professor David F. Larcker and Brian Tayan, MBA '03

In recent years, there has been much discussion over how to improve governance systems broadly. In the process, certain myths have developed that continue to be accepted, despite a lack of robust supporting evidence.

These myths include the beliefs that:

1. The structure of the board always tells you something about the quality of the board

2. CEOs in the U.S. are overpaid

3. Pay for performance does not exist in CEO compensation contracts

4. Companies are prepared to replace the CEO if needed

5. Regulation improves corporate governance

6. The voting recommendations of proxy advisory firms are correct

7. Best practices are the solution to bad governance

We examine each of these myths in closer detail and explain why they are false.

So long as these myths are accepted by practitioners and the public, how can we expect managerial behavior and firm performance to improve? Read the attached Closer Look and let us know what you think!

Larcker and Tayan are the authors of recently published book: Corporate Governance Matters: A Closer Look at Organizational Choices and Their Consequences, FT Press

Topics, Issues and Controversies in Corporate Governance: The Closer Look series is a collection of short case studies through which we explore topics, issues, and controversies in corporate governance. In each study, we take a targeted look at a specific issue that is relevant to the current debate on governance and explain why it is so important. To see the full series of  Stanford Closer Looks click here.

Why Does Corporate Governance Really Matter? New Book from Stanford Showcases Research into How Boards Can Govern Better

Thursday, May 19th, 2011

Corporate Governance Matters by Professor David Larcker and Brian Tayan

STANFORD, Calif.–(BUSINESS WIRE)–“The debate on the role of boards in the wake of the financial crisis has created a lot of hype and rhetoric about corporate governance,” says David Larcker, who is James Irvin Miller Professor of Accounting and Director of the Corporate Governance Research Program at the Stanford Graduate School of Business and coauthor with Brian Tayan of the new book Corporate Governance Matters (FT Press). According to Larcker, many so-called experts are heavy on opinions about governance, but light on the facts.

“The fight for ‘say on pay’ and proxy access has gotten a lot of ink – but it is unclear whether it will actually create shareholder value.”

“The FDA requires research on drug outcomes before approving a pharmaceutical,” he says. “Shouldn’t experts that prescribe ‘cures for bad governance’ be subject to a similar standard of review?”

In their book, Larcker and Tayan, a researcher at Stanford GSB, challenge the conventional wisdom of the many books, reports, and recommendations of blue-ribbon panels on what constitutes “good” governance. The authors researched hundreds of companies and interviewed many board directors to uncover the real-life consequences of corporate governance practices – from director independence to designing appropriate executive pay packages.

“A lot of people want to measure what’s measurable – we wanted to measure what’s informative,” says Tayan. “For example, certain lightning-rod issues, such as ‘excessive’ risk taking and CEO compensation, get a lot of attention from outside observers, while important issues that are considerably more difficult to assess – such as corporate strategy and succession planning – tend to get the short shrift.”

Trends Getting in the Way of Good Governance

“Our research shows that many emerging developments that were intended to improve governance – purportedly to avert the kind of financial disaster we just experienced – just don’t hold water,” Larcker explains. These include:

  1. Compliance drowning out strategy – “A check-the-box approach is not what we need from directors. We need instead their best thinking and ability to manage risk appropriately for corporate growth.”
  2. “Federalization of corporate governance” – “As corporate governance becomes increasingly, and probably inexorably, ‘federalized’ through regulations such as Dodd-Frank, there is a real question as to whether these laws make boards govern better,” he says. “We’re still debating whether the 10-year-old Sarbanes Oxley was good for the economy.”
  3. “Shareholder democracy” movement – “The fight for ‘say on pay’ and proxy access has gotten a lot of ink – but it is unclear whether it will actually create shareholder value.”
  4. Rise of proxy advisory firms – “Proxy advisory firms exhibit substantial influence over the proxy voting process. What is the evidence that their recommendations lead to the kinds of positive outcomes that stakeholders really care about?”

“We wrote our book for thinkers – for practitioners who want to see how important governance issues play out in the real world,” says Tayan.

“By integrating several different approaches to the topic – both business and legal – we have created a practical framework for directors that will help them make decisions that lead to organizational success.”

To speak with the authors, contact Davia Temin or Suzanne Oaks at 212-588-8788 or news@teminandco.com.

For information on Corporate Governance Research Program: http://www.gsb.stanford.edu/cgrp/about/

Contacts

Stanford Graduate School of Business

Helen Chang, 650-723-3358

chang_helen@gsb.stanford.edu

 

 

Proxy Advisory Firms and Stock Option Exchanges: The Case of Institutional Shareholder Services

Monday, May 9th, 2011

STANFORD, Calif. — May 09, 2011

Many institutional investors rely on a proxy advisory firm to assist them in voting company proxies and fulfilling the fiduciary responsibility they have to vote in the interest of beneficial shareholders. But according to a new study at the Stanford Graduate School of Business, proxy advisory firm recommendations may actually decrease shareholder value.

The recommendation of proxy advisory firms is not inconsequential. Studies conducted by Stanford GSB faculty member David F. Larcker, who is Director of the Corporate Governance Research Program, and doctoral students Allan L. McCall and Gaizka Ormazabal, show that an unfavorable recommendation from the largest proxy advisory firm (Institutional Shareholder Services, ISS) can reduce shareholder support significantly, depending on the matter of the proposal.

While there are potential benefits and drawbacks to relying on the voting recommendations of proxy advisory firms, little empirical research to date has been performed on whether the voting recommendations of these firms are “correct.” That is, are shareholders really better off if they follow their recommendations?

To answer this question the researchers examined the impact of ISS voting policies on 264 exchange offers during 2004 to 2009. They find that companies that design their exchange offer so that it receives a positive recommendation from proxy advisory firms exhibit a statistically lower market reaction, lower operating performance, and higher executive turnover than those firms that do not design their plans in accordance with the proxy advisory firm guidelines. These results indicate that proxy advisory firm recommendations on stock option exchanges do not increase, and in fact actually decrease, shareholder value.

The research paper, “Proxy Advisory Firms and Stock Option Exchanges: The Case of Institutional Shareholder Services,” and companion case study, “Do ISS Voting Recommendations Create Shareholder Value?” are available online from the Stanford Corporate Governance Research Program: http://www.gsb.stanford.edu/cgrp/topics/shareholder/closer_look.html.

Larcker is coauthor, with Brian Tayan, of the book, “Corporate Governance Matters: A Closer Look at Organizational Choices and their Consequences” (FT Press-Pearson Prentice Hall, 2011).

Contact:

Stanford Graduate School of Business
Helen Chang, 650-723-3358
chang_helen@gsb.stanford.edu

Do ISS Voting Recommendations Create Value? (Stanford Closer Look Series)

Tuesday, April 19th, 2011

Do ISS Voting Recommendations Create Value? (PDF)
Authors: Professor David F. Larcker and Brian Tayan, MBA ’03

Many institutional investors rely on a proxy advisory firm to assist them in voting the company proxy and fulfilling their fiduciary responsibility to vote in the interest of beneficial shareholders.  The largest and most influential proxy advisory firm is Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS).  The recommendations of ISS are not inconsequential.  Academic and professional research suggests that a recommendation by ISS can change the outcome of a vote by 15 to 20 percent, depending on the matter of the proposal.

At the same time, there is little evidence that proxy advisory recommendations are correct or that they improve corporate outcomes.  In fact recent research suggests that they might actually decrease shareholder value.

We examine these issues as they relate to ISS guidelines for exchange offers and option repricings:

Do proxy advisors have appropriate incentive to verify that their recommendations are correct?

  • Should board members require evidence that ISS guidelines are value increasing before they adjust their policies to gain a favorable recommendation?
  • Proxy advisory firms enjoy significant barriers to entry and little competition.  Is this desirable for shareholders?

Read the attached Closer Look, and let us know!

Related Research Paper on SSRN: The Role of Proxy Advisory Firms in Stock Option Exchanges
Authors: David F. Larcker Allan L. McCall and Gaizka Ormazabal , Stanford Graduate School of Business

The Closer Look series is a collection of short case studies through which we explore topics, issues, and controversies in corporate governance. In each study, we take a targeted look at a specific issue that is relevant to the current debate on governance and explain why it is so important.

The market reaction to corporate governance regulation

Friday, March 11th, 2011

Journal of Financial Economics
Article in Press,
Accepted Manuscript Available online 10 March 2011.
Authors: David F. Larckernext terma, Corresponding Author Contact Information, E-mail The Corresponding Author, Gaizka Ormazabala, E-mail The Corresponding Author and Daniel J. Taylorb, E-mail The Corresponding Author

a Graduate School of Business, Rock Center for Corporate Governance, Stanford University, 655 Knight Way, Stanford, CA 94305 b The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania

Abstract

This paper investigates the market reaction to recent legislative and regulatory actions pertaining to corporate governance. The managerial power view of governance suggests that executive pay, the existing process of proxy access, and various governance provisions [e.g., staggered boards and Chief Executive Officer (CEO)-chairman duality] are associated with managerial rent extraction. This perspective predicts that broad government actions that reduce executive pay, increase proxy access, and ban such governance provisions are value-enhancing. In contrast, another view of governance suggests that observed governance choices are the result of value-maximizing contracts between shareholders and management. This perspective predicts that broad government actions that regulate such governance choices are value destroying. Consistent with the latter view, we find that the abnormal returns to recent events relating to corporate governance regulations are, on average, decreasing in CEO pay, decreasing in the number of large blockholders, decreasing in the ease by which small institutional investors can access the proxy process, and decreasing in the presence of a staggered board.

star, openWe thank the Rock Center for Corporate Governance and Equilar Inc. for providing a portion of the data used in this paper, Michelle E. Gutman for outstanding research assistance, and Robert Daines, Joseph Grundfest, Michael Klausner, and an anonymous referee for helpful comments. Daniel Taylor gratefully acknowledges funding from the Deloitte Foundation. A prior version was circulated under the working title “The Regulation of Corporate Governance.”

Corresponding Author Contact InformationCorresponding author: