Gouvernance | Page 12

Le bien informé Financial Times (« Brussels deal to give shareholders more clout on directors’ pay« , 8 décembre 2016) vient de révéler une information qui fera réagir les lectrices et lecteurs de ce blogue. L’UE serait sur le point d’adopter un accord donnant plus de pouvoir aux actionnaires en matière de rémunération des dirigeants, l’objectif étant de contrecarrer le court-termisme dont feraient preuve les CA.

Pour les points essentiels, voici ce qui a été décidé :

Under the deal struck between negotiators from the European Parliament and Slovakia, which holds the EU’s presidency, shareholders will get a vote on companies’ pay policy at least every four years.

The agreement reached will leave individual nations to decide whether to opt for a system of binding shareholder votes on pay, or to allow votes to be advisory. However, even an advisory vote against pay structures would require companies to present a revised policy for another vote at the next general meeting of shareholders.

Investors will also get an advisory say on listed companies’ annual remuneration reports, which provide an individual breakdown of pay and benefits given to individual directors over the last financial year.

À la prochaine…

Ivan Tchotourian

Quel bel article d’Alana Semuels dans The Atlantic (ici) ! Cette étude revient sur la politique des fonds de couverture (hedge funds) et l’implication de leur activisme sur les politiques et les stratégies mises en place par les entreprises américaines.

Extrait :

DuPont is one of dozens of American companies that have abandoned a long-term approach to doing business after being the target of so-called activist investors. These investors buy up shares of a company and attempt to maximize the returns to their shares, usually by replacing members of the board of directors with hand-picked candidates who will push the company to cut costs. Activity by such investors has skyrocketed of late. In a 20-month stretch in 2005 and 2006, there were only 52 activist campaigns, according to John C. Coffee, a professor at Columbia University Law School. Between 2010 and early 2014, by contrast, there were 1,115 activist campaigns. “Hedge-fund activism has recently spiked, almost hyperbolically,” Coffee writes in a 2016 paper, “The Wolf at The Door: The Impact of Hedge Fund Activism on Corporate Governance.”

These campaigns are damaging to the long-term outlook of individual companies like DuPont and also to America’s economy more generally. They often result in big cuts to research and development, substantial reductions in the workforce, and a focus on outcomes—in particular short-term profit—that hurt a company’s ability to survive in the long-term. The threat of activism affects companies across the economy: Even public companies not targeted by activists often change their behavior and cut costs to avoid becoming a target. This may be one of the reasons why America is slipping in funding research and development projects when compared with other countries.

À la prochaine…

Ivan Tchotourian

C’est sous le titre d’« actionnaire propriétaire » que Gérard Bérubé publie une intéressante tribune dans Le Devoir de ce matin. Si cet article revient sur les propos tenus lors d’une conférence (et notamment de l’importance de reconnaître la place des actionnaires propriétaires, je ne peux que douter de cette assimilation faite entre les actionnaires et les propriétaires (entendons-nous, je me place sur le terrain juridique). Répétons-le : l’actionnaire n’est pas le propriétaire de l’entreprise, entreprise qui n’appartient à personne !

L’étiquette d’actionnaire touriste a été popularisée par Yvan Allaire, président exécutif du conseil d’administration de l’Institut sur la gouvernance (IGOPP). Gaétan Morin a plutôt évoqué lundi la notion d’actionnaire propriétaire. Mais tous deux font l’éloge d’un certain « capitalisme de propriétaires » et dénoncent la dictature de marchés obnubilés par les rendements de court terme ou imposant leur diktat de l’immédiat.

À la prochaine…

Ivan Tchotourian

Un article du Timely Disclosure de Me Lindzon Russell aborde la situation des entreprises canadiennes face à l’activismes des investisseurs : « Canadian Issuers Continue To Have Success Against Activist Investors ». Résultat : elles résistent bien !

As noted in the Globe and Mail’s recent article, “In Canada’s boardrooms, activist investors are striking out” (subscription to the Globe and Mail required), Canadian listed public companies have continued to have success against activist investors. In fact, since January 1, 2015, Canadian listed issuers have a perfect record against “professional” activists in formal proxy contests, having won all six such contests to make changes to the board which were initiated by hedge funds or institutional investors. This success may be driven, at least in part, by issuers’ increased emphasis on advance preparation, including shareholder engagement. If issuers are more attuned to the views of their shareholders, it stands to reason that they will be in a better position to assess the likelihood of successfully defending against an activist in a formal proxy contest and pre-emptively settle those situations that they do not believe they can win. This explanation, while compelling, may be incomplete. With that in mind, I offer the following five observations based on a review of the public record of unsuccessful contests recently initiated by “professional” activists.

Je vous laisse découvrir les 5 observations de l’auteur…

À la prochaine…

Ivan Tchotourian

Voici un rapport très intéressant sur l’activisme actionnarial : « Activist Investing in Europe: A Special Report » publié par Armand Grumberg (novembre 2016). Ce rapport démontre la croissance de l’activisme…

The inaugural edition of this report, published nearly two years ago, suggested that so long as opportunities presented themselves, activists would continue to seek governance, strategy and capital allocation reforms from European issuers. Indeed they have. After ebbing briefly in 2014, when only 51 companies were publicly targeted (after 61 in 2012 and 59 in 2013), activism has roared back, with 67 companies targeted in 2015 and 64 in the first half of 2016 alone. Assets under management for European activists have grown slowly in that period—from $21.7 billion in 2012 to $27.5 billion in 2015—suggesting the growth has been funded by new entrants and foreign players.

Even publicity-shy activists who have been working with companies behind closed doors for many years concede that the growth in activism in Europe is accelerating. Some see a cyclical boom, with activists hoping to catalyse M&A. Yet on topics such as remuneration, and with the launch of specialist European activist funds, the change appears built to last. Part of the evolution of activism in Europe has been the success of tactics seen as more common in the U.S., including proxy contests. Although longer-term participants and the bulk of campaigns suggest lowkey, collaborative approaches are still more common, activists are becoming less shy about testing where the boundaries lie.

Merci à Jacques Grisé d’avoir diffusé cette information sur son blogue : ici.

À la prochaine…

Ivan Tchotourian