Archive for February, 2011

Elective Shareholder Liability for Systemically Important Financial Institutions

Tuesday, February 22nd, 2011

New research paper titled: Elective Shareholder Liability for Systemically Important Financial Institution (newly titled as: Solving the Problem of Bailouts: A Theory of Elective Shareholder Liability)
by Peter Conti-Brown
Date: February 16, 2011

Stanford University, Rock Center for Corporate Governance
Rock Center for Corporate Governance at Stanford University Working Paper No. 97

Abstract:
Despite the passage of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank) and the initial proposal of Basel III, the debate regarding the regulation of systemically important financial institutions (SIFIs) continues unabated. Prominent among the present proposals is one led by prominent financial economists who argue in favor of 15% capital adequacy requirements for banks. So far, banks and their political supporters have resisted this proposal, claiming that it presents the banks with prohibitive and unnecessary costs. This Article proposes a mechanism, called elective shareholder liability, that provides the shareholders of the largest banks with a way to identify the costs of higher capital adequacy beyond simply the subsidies that come by way of the implicit governmental guarantees that the SIFIs presently enjoy. Elective shareholder liability gives SIFIs the option to subject themselves to the 15% capital adequacy, or, if not, grant a bailout exception to the SIFI’s present limited shareholder liability status. The latter is structured as an obligatory governmental cause of action for the recoupment of all bailout costs against the shareholders, assessed on a pro-rata basis. The cause of action would include an up-front stay on litigation to ensure that there are, in fact, taxpayer losses to be recouped, and to dampen government incentives for over-bailout, political manipulation, and crisis exacerbation. The cause of action would also give the government the authority to declare the shareholders’ use of the corporate form to evade liability null and void. After explaining the structure and benefits of elective shareholder liability, the Article addresses more than a dozen potential objections. Close inspection of these objections, however, reveals that the overall case for elective shareholder liability is strong as a matter of history, law, and economics.

New Stanford teaching case: Keller Williams Realty (B)

Thursday, February 17th, 2011

Keller Williams Realty (B)
Case No: HR-29B
Publication Year:2011
Author(s): David F. Larcker; James N. Baron, Brian Tayan

This case is a follow up to Keller Williams (A) HR-29A, and explains the actions taken by Keller Williams in response to the residential real estate market downturn in 2008 and 2009. The case explains the programs and initiatives put in place by the company to boost agent count, increase productivity, and reduce expenses throughout the organization. It also explains how the company relied on these initiatives to not only survive the market downturn but to thrive, achieving success by leveraging the strengths of the company’s operating model, core principles, and values.

Thees cases are available for purchase on the Social Science Research Network and will soon be available at  Harvard Business Publishing.

The  entire collection of Stanford Corporate Governance teaching cases are found here.

Do US Market Interactions Affect CEO Pay? Evidence from UK Companies

Friday, February 4th, 2011

New working paper on SSRNhttp://ssrn.com/abstract=1738083
Paper Date: January 2011

Abstract

This paper examines the extent that interactions with US markets impact the compensation practices of non-US firms. Using a sample of large UK companies, we find that the total compensation of UK CEOs is positively related to the extent of the firm’s interactions with US markets, as captured by the percentage of total sales generated in the US, the presence of prior US acquisition activity, the presence of a US exchange listing, and CEO and director-level US board experience. More importantly, we find that exposure to US product markets is associated with the adoption of US-style compensation arrangements (i.e., incentive-based pay packages). In contrast, we find no such association with exposures to other (non-US) foreign product markets.

Together, our evidence is consistent with US market interactions impacting UK compensation practices through two mechanisms: (1) to alleviate internal and external pay disparities arising from the presence of US operations and businesses (proxied by the percent US Sales and prior US acquisitions) and (2) to compensate CEOs for bearing the additional risk and responsibility associated with exposure to foreign securities laws and legal environment (proxied by both US and non-US exchange listings).

Authors

Joseph Gerakos
University of Chicago – Booth School of Business

Joseph D. Piotroski
Stanford University Graduate School of Business

Suraj Srinivasan
Harvard Business School