engagement et activisme actionnarial

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

Yin Wilczek synthétise une intéressante étude qui remet en question le dogme de la souveraineté actionnariale. Dans « Study : Executives Act in Company Interest when Challenging Résolutions » (30 décembre 2016), l’auteure résume habillement un article publié récemment établissant que des dirigeants d’une entreprise agissent dans le meilleur intérêt de cette dernière lorsqu’ils contestent une proposition actionnariale.

This may surprise some shareholder advocates, but executives appear to act in the company’s best interest when they challenge shareholder resolutions via the Securities and Exchange Commission’s no-action process.

(…) The study concluded that corporate managers resist these shareholder resolutions because they could hurt the company’s bottom line, and that investors agree the proposals are “value-destroying.” The study also found that investors are especially skeptical of resolutions by so-called “gadfly” proponents, i.e., individual shareholders who submit numerous resolutions at companies.

“Among the different types of shareholders whose proposals are challenged by managers, we find that proposals from individual shareholders are the most value-destroying,” the study said.

À la prochaine…

Ivan Tchotourian