The Journal of Financial Economics has recently accepted for publication our study, Learning and the Disappearing Association between Governance and Returns. The paper, which was earlier issued as a working paper of the Program on Corporate Governance, is available here.

Our study seeks to explain a pattern that has received a great deal of attention from financial economists and capital market participants: during the period 1991-1999, stock returns were correlated with the G-Index based on twenty-four governance provisions (Gompers, Ishii, and Metrick (2003)) and the E-Index based on the six provisions that matter most (Bebchuk, Cohen, and Ferrell (2009)). We show that this correlation did not persist during the subsequent period 2000-2008. Furthermore, we provide evidence that both the identified correlation and its subsequent disappearance were due to market participants’ gradually learning to appreciate the difference between firms scoring well and poorly on the governance indices. Consistent with the learning hypothesis, we find that:

      (i) The disappearance of the governance-return correlation was associated with an increase in the attention to governance by a wide range of market participants;
      (ii) Until the beginning of the 2000s, but not subsequently, stock market reactions to earning announcements reflected the market’s being more positively surprised by the earning announcements of good-governance firms than by those of poor-governance firms;
      (iii) Stock analysts were also more positively surprised by the earning announcements of good-governance firms than by those of poor-governance firms until the beginning of the 2000s but not afterwards;
      (iv) While the G-Index and E-Index could no longer generate abnormal returns in the 2000s, their negative association with Tobin’s Q and operating performance persisted; and
      (v) The existence and subsequent disappearance of the governance-return correlation cannot be fully explained by additional common risk factors suggested in the literature for augmenting the Fame-French-Carhart four-factor model.

Here is a more detailed account of our analysis:

…continue reading: Learning and the Disappearing Association between Governance and Returns

Hedge fund activism has received a lot of attention in the legal and financial communities since the middle of the last decade, and has been identified as a major threat to U.S. public companies. Some of the early literature suggested that hedge funds avoid companies with high levels of R&D (such as technology and life science companies), in part because their businesses are more complicated and it takes longer for efforts of the hedge funds to be appreciated by the investment community and to generate returns. There has also been an assumption among legal practitioners that many technology and life science companies are dependent on the skills of their founders, and thus a hedge fund campaign faces the risk that the main assets of the company may walk out the door. However, a review of campaigns of 33 hedge funds from 2005 through the end of 2011 indicates that hedge fund activism is not only a significant risk that technology and life science companies face, but one that may disproportionately target them relative to companies in other industries. This Commentary summarizes some of the findings regarding the funds involved and their campaigns, and makes recommendations to technology and life science companies on how to address the risks.

…continue reading: Hedge Fund Activism in Technology and Life Science Companies

This column looks at four circumstances having special impact on the governance of executive pay today and then focuses on one of them, proxy advisers (with particular attention to the largest one, Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS)). It concludes with suggestions as to steps that might be taken to better regulate proxy advisers.

Four Influential Factors

Increasing Complexity of the Executive Pay Discussion. Discussions of executive pay in proxy statements are often extremely complex and lengthy (frequently 30 to 40 pages of narrative and tables). Many companies are putting into the Compensation Discussion and Analysis (CD&A) their own tables (most especially their own competing version of the Summary Compensation Table) in order to express their own views on the correct way to explain and justify executive pay at the issuer. It has become a challenge to understand any one company’s executive pay arrangements and an even greater challenge to understand how that company’s executive pay arrangements relate to those at competitor companies.

Institutional Shareholders. Institutional shareholders represent an overwhelming proportion of the vote at publicly traded companies. (They own approximately 75 percent of the market value of exchange- traded companies.) These institutional shareholders owe a fiduciary duty to the persons who own their shares or are beneficiaries of the trust funds managed by them. This duty includes understanding how the companies in which they have invested are managed, including management of executive pay. The explosion of data noted in the preceding paragraph has meant a challenge to these institutional shareholders in trying to understand the executive pay practices at thousands of companies that they (collectively) are investing in.

…continue reading: Say on Pay: Who Is Watching the Watchmen?

This post provides information about thirty-six precatory board declassification proposals, submitted by institutional investors represented and advised by the Harvard Law School Shareholder Rights Project (SRP), that are expected to go to a vote at annual meetings during this proxy season.

During the 2011-12 proxy season, the SRP has been representing and advising several institutional investors – Illinois State Board of Investment (ISBI) , the Los Angeles County Employees Retirement Association (LACERA), the Nathan Cummings Foundation (NCF), the North Carolina Department of State Treasurer (NCDST), and the Ohio Public Employees Retirement System (OPERS) – in connection with the submission of precatory shareholder proposals to more than eighty S&P 500 companies that have classified boards. The proposals urge repealing the classified board and moving to annual elections, which are widely viewed as corporate governance best practice.

Through active engagement with companies receiving declassification proposals, the SRP and the institutional investors working with the SRP have been able to reach negotiated outcomes with (as of today) forty-four of the companies receiving such proposals. These companies have entered into agreements committing them to bring management proposals to declassify their boards. (A partial list of companies entering into such agreements, including only companies that have already made public filings that disclose the planned management proposals, is available here.)

In many other companies receiving proposals, however, the SRP and the institutional investors working with the SRP have not been able to obtain such negotiated outcomes. In such cases, the shareholder proposals urging board declassification are expected to go, or have already gone, to a vote at 2012 the annual meeting.

Thus far, only one proposal has gone to a vote. The proposal, submitted by the Illinois State Board of Investments to the F5 Networks, Inc. (FFIV), won 77% of the votes cast.

Below is a list of thirty-six companies where shareholders are expected to vote at the 2012 annual meeting on shareholder proposals submitted by institutional investor represented and advised by the SRP. Where the proxy statement has already been issued, the date of the meeting and a link to the proxy statement are also provided. The list does not include companies where a dialogue is still ongoing. The list will be updated periodically and the most updated version is available here.

…continue reading: Thirty-Six Precatory Declassification Proposals Going to a Vote at Annual Meetings

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. However, the impact of those firms on governance quality and shareholder value is still unknown.

A growing body of evidence demonstrates the influential role that third-party proxy advisory firms play in affecting the voting outcome of proposals made to shareholders in the annual proxy, particularly say-on-pay votes, which became mandatory for most public companies in 2011. There is less evidence, however, to establish the extent to which companies respond to this influence by changing the size and structure of executive compensation plans to conform to proxy advisor voting polices. A recent study conducted by The Conference Board, NASDAQ, and the Rock Center for Corporate Governance at Stanford University found that proxy advisory firms have a substantial impact on the design of executive compensation programs.

…continue reading: The Influence of Proxy Advisory Firm Voting Recommendations

Since the Harvard Law School Shareholder Rights Project (SRP) issued its March 19 News Alert (reprinted in a post here), ten additional companies have made filings disclosing management proposals to declassify their boards made pursuant to agreements that these companies entered with institutional investors represented and advised by the SRP. With these ten additional companies, the number of companies that have made filings disclosing such management proposals during this proxy season – all listed here – has increased to 31.

During the 2011-12 proxy season, the SRP has been representing and advising several institutional investors – the Illinois State Board of Investment (ISBI), the Los Angeles County Employees Retirement Association, the Nathan Cummings Foundation (NCF), the North Carolina State Treasurer (NCDST), and the Ohio Public Employees Retirement System – in connection with the submission of shareholder proposals to over eighty S&P 500 companies with a staggered boards. The proposals urge a move to annual elections, which are widely viewed as corporate governance best practice.

Through active engagement with companies receiving declassification proposals, the SRP and the institutional investors working with the SRP have been able to reach negotiated outcomes with forty-three companies receiving such proposals (one additional company entered into an agreement since the March 19 News Alert). These forty-three companies have entered into agreements committing them to bring management proposals to declassify their boards.

The new companies disclosing management proposals made in accordance with such agreements (with the proponent submitting the shareholder proposal in parenthesis) are: C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. (NCF); CenturyLink, Inc. (ISBI); Coventry Health Care, Inc. (ISBI); Flowserve Corporation (NCDST); FMC Technologies Inc (NCDST); Hudson City Bancorp, Inc. (NCF); Juniper Networks, Inc. (ISBI); O’Reilly Automotive, Inc. (NCF); Western Union (NCF); and Wyndham Worldwide Corporation (NCF). The full list of companies that have made filings disclosing management proposals made pursuant to agreements with institutional investors represented and advised by the SRP is available here. The list will be updated periodically as additional companies of those entering into agreements to bring management declassification proposals make such filings.

All of these companies, including the ten companies newly announcing management proposals, should be commended for their willingness to engage in a dialogue with shareholder proponents and their representatives and advisers – and for their responsiveness to shareholders’ preferences regarding classified boards.

The HLS Forum recently published a post by Martin Lipton and Theodore Mirvis titled “Harvard Shareholder Rights Project is Wrong.” The post was based on a memorandum issued by their law firm, Wachtell, Lipton, Rozen & Katz (“Wachtell”), and signed by the authors of the post and two other top partners at the firm. The memo and post offer a strongly worded critique of Harvard Law School for permitting the operation of the Shareholder Rights Project (SRP) clinical program. The objections were twofold: First, the results achieved by the clinic – agreements by 42 large public companies to propose charter amendments declassifying their boards – are undesirable as a public policy matter. Second, the clinic was wrong to represent public pension funds and charitable endowments because this representation went beyond “provid[ing] educational opportunities while benefiting impoverished or underprivileged segments of society for which legal services are not readily available.”

I think the Wachtell memo-writers’ strongly held belief about the virtue of classified boards as a governance feature of large public firms has spilled over into an unfair attack on the Harvard SRP clinic based on a straitjacketed conception of clinical legal education not followed by leading American law schools. Wachtell has, of course, long been known for its invention of the poison pill and its expertise in takeover defenses. Because staggered boards make poison pills more powerful and fortify takeover defenses, it is understandable that Wachtell, and some of the clients it serves, do not welcome large-scale declassification of boards. Whether such declassification would benefit shareholders and the American economy is a legitimate question for debate. However, criticizing Harvard Law School for permitting the SRP to operate should not be part of this debate.

…continue reading: Wachtell Lipton’s Critique of Harvard Law School

Recently, the staff of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has issued a number of no-action letters responding to company requests to exclude shareholder proxy access proposals from the proxy statement for the company’s 2012 annual meeting. The SEC staff permitted the exclusion of the most common form, a precatory 1% or 100-holder proposal based on a model issued by the United States Proxy Exchange, but did not allow exclusion of others, including the Norges Bank binding 1% proposal. These no-action letters serve as a reminder that, although changes to SEC Rule 14a-8 that took effect last year permit shareholders to propose the adoption of proxy access provisions, these proxy access proposals will not be afforded special treatment under the SEC rules and will continue to be subject to exclusion under the traditional bases set forth in Rule 14a-8.

As a result of the SEC staff’s concurrence as to the excludability of the most common form of proposal, there will be a more limited number of proxy access proposals coming to a vote in the 2012 proxy season. The terms of proxy access proposals in future years are likely to depend, to a large extent, on the level of shareholder support received by this limited group.

…continue reading: SEC Permits Exclusion of Most Common Proxy Access Proposal

The SEC enforcement agenda and whistleblower bounty program, CEO succession, executive compensation, and IT risk were among the issues on audit committee members’ minds as they met in December and January at three audit committee peer exchanges hosted by the PwC Center for Board Governance. The exchanges were part of the 2011 Year-end considerations for audit committees seminar held in Arizona, New York and Florida.

PwC Vice Chair, Assurance, Tim Ryan facilitated the exchanges, which included over 200 audit committee members. Following are the major recurring themes at each of the venues.

Compliance

Among all the rulemaking and enforcement actions that have taken place over the past year, one that caused significant consternation among the audit committee members is the new SEC whistleblower bounty program. Many are concerned about the program undercutting existing company whistleblower programs that came into existence following the passage of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in 2002. That law calls for public company audit committees to oversee whistleblower hotlines.

…continue reading: Top Concerns for Directors in 2012

The Harvard Law School Shareholders Rights Project (SRP) recently issued joint press releases with five institutional investors, principally state and municipal pension funds, trumpeting SRP’s representation of and advice to these investors during the 2012 proxy season in submitting proposals to more than 80 S&P 500 companies with staggered boards, urging that their boards be declassified. The SRP’s “News Alert” issued concurrently reported that 42 of the companies targeted had agreed to include management proposals in their proxy statements to declassify their boards – which reportedly represented one-third of all S&P 500 companies with staggered boards. The SRP statement “commended” those companies for what it called “their responsiveness to shareholder concerns.”

This is wrong. According to the Harvard Law School online catalog, the SRP is “a newly established clinical program” that “will provide students with the opportunity to obtain hands-on experience with shareholder rights work by assisting public pension funds in improving governance arrangements at publicly traded firms.” Students receive law school credits for involvement in the SRP. The SRP’s instructors are two members of the Law School faculty, one of whom (Professor Lucian Bebchuk) has been outspoken in pressing one point of view in the larger corporate governance debate. The SRP’s “Template Board Declassification Proposal” cites two of Professor Bebchuk’s writings, among others, in making the claim that staggered boards “could be associated with lower firm valuation and/or worse corporate decision-making.”

…continue reading: Harvard’s Shareholder Rights Project is Wrong