Fonds d’investissement passifs (indexés par exemple) : devraient-ils voter ?
En voilà une question qui ne manque pas de pertinence ! La professeure Dorothy Shapiro Lund aborde la question des fonds passifs et de leur conséquence en matière de gouvernance d’entreprise dans un article publié sur l’Oxford Business Law Blog : « The Case Against Passive Shareholder Voting » (11 septembre 2017).
In the past few years, investors have begun to embrace the reality that academics have been championing for decades—that a broad-based passive indexing strategy is superior to picking individual stocks or actively managed mutual funds. As a result, millions of investors have abandoned actively managed mutual funds, or ‘active funds,’ in favor of passively managed funds, or ‘passive funds.’ This past year alone, investors in the United States withdrew $340 billion from active funds (approximately 4 percent of the total) while investing $533 billion into passive funds (growing the total by 9 percent).
This historically unprecedented shift in investor behavior is good news for investors, who benefit from greater diversification and lower costs. But the implications for corporate governance are ominous. Unlike active funds, which pick stocks based on their performance, passive funds—a term that includes index funds and ETFs—are designed to automatically track a market index. For this reason, I contend that the growth of passive funds will exacerbate agency cost issues at corporations.
That is because passive funds do not choose investment securities for their performance but automatically to match an index or part of the market.
(…)
What can be done to prevent the governance distortion created by the rise of passive investing? I offer a novel policy proposal: Restrict passive funds from voting at shareholder meetings.
À la prochaine…
Ivan Tchotourian