engagement et activisme actionnarial

Le Code de gouvernance allemand vient d’être réformé récemment : « Germany corp gov code to emphasise investor responsibility » (Susanna Rust, IPE, 15 février 2017). Vous trouverez dans cet article une belle synthèse de cette réforme.

Germany’s corporate governance code is being amended to emphasise that institutional investors have a responsibility to exercise their ownership rights.

The amendments follow a six-week consultation period that generated a strong response, both positive and critical, according to the government-appointed commission responsible for the code. The commission decided on changes to the code itself and the preamble, which sets out the spirit behind the code.

The preamble has been extended to argue that good corporate governance requires companies and their directors to conduct business ethically and take responsibility for their behaviour. The German word used by the commission for the latter is “Eigenverantwortung” – literally translated as “self-responsibility” or “own-responsibility”.

The guiding principle of an “honourable businessperson” (“ehrbarer Kaufmann”) was introduced to the preamble to reflect this.

À la prochaine…

Ivan Tchotourian

Critique acerbe du professeur Stephen Bainbridge sur la récente réforme française du Say on pay : « Binding say on pay coming (probably) to France: What a terrible idea » (14 juin 2016). Au regard de sa réputation et de la grande qualité de son travail dans le domaine de la gouvernance d’entreprise, cette critique est à prendre en compte.

Voici un extrait :

Professor Jeffrey Gordon argues that the U.K. experience with say on pay makes a mandatory vote a “dubious choice.” First, because individualized review of compensation schemes at the 10,000-odd U.S. reporting companies will be prohibitively expensive, activist institutional investors will probably insist on a narrow range of compensation programs that will force companies into something close to a one size fits all model. Second, because many institutional investors rely on proxy advisory firms, a very small number of gatekeepers will wield undue influence over compensation. This likely outcome seriously undercuts the case for say on pay. Proponents of say on pay claim it will help make management more accountable, but they ignore the probability that say on pay really will shift power from boards of directors not to shareholders but to advisory firms like RiskMetrics. There is good reason to think that boards are more accountable than those firms. “The most important proxy advisor, RiskMetrics, already faces conflict issues in its dual role of both advising and rating firms on corporate governance that will be greatly magnified when it begins to rate firms on their compensation plans.” Ironically, the only constraint on RiskMetrics’ conflict is the market—i.e., the possibility that they will lose credibility and therefore customers—the very force most shareholder power proponents claim does not work when it comes to holding management accountable.

 

À la prochaine…

Ivan Tchotourian

À la prochaine…

Ivan Tchotourian

Jeffrey N. Gordon connu pour ses écrits dans le domaine de la gouvernance d’entreprise offre une belle tribune dans le Morning Consul du 22 mars 2016. Intitulé « Shareholder Activism, the Short-Termist Red-Herring, and the Need for Corporate Governance Reform », cet écrit revient sur l’activisme des hedge funds et la concentration dont ils font l’objet.

Jeffrey Gordon demande qu’une réforme de la gouvernance d’entreprise soit mise en place, non pour contrer l’activisme mais pour réformer le conseil d’administration et lui donner un rôle nouveau `s’assurer de la crédibilité de la haute direction.

It’s the attack of hedge funds, shareholder activists looking for short term gain even at the expense of investments that would produce higher returns over the long run, and, along the way, would lead to employment gains and then wage gains. What follows, then, is a prescription for changes in tax policy and legal rules that would hamper the activists, all to promote the “long run.” But this is a misdiagnosis, which fails to realize that the shareholders activists’ success reveals a major shortfall in corporate governance for large public corporations.

(…) Reform should move not in the direction of closing down the activists who are bringing the news about this design flaw. Rather we should develop a new role for the board: credibly evaluating and then verifying that management’s strategy is best for the company (or making changes if it is not). Boards need directors who will have that credibility, which is won through deep knowledge about the company and its industry and an appropriate time commitment.

À la prochaine…

Ivan Tchotourian