Gouvernance | Page 16

« Big funds push back against activist investor settlements » (Reuters, 18 juillet 2016)… Cet article est à lire, tant il témoigne d’une évolution lente et progressive vers un modèle de gouvernance moins axé vers le court-termisme. Le temps de faire siéger les investisseurs court-termistes (tels les fonds de couverture) dans les CA serait-il révolu ?

After years of support for companies that hand board seats to activists to avoid a bruising public fight, some of the world’s largest institutional investors are pushing back.

BlackRock Inc (BLK.N), the world’s largest asset manager, and Norges Bank Investment Management, Norway’s $872 billion sovereign wealth fund are among the major funds resisting, encouraging companies to consult them before responding to an activist.

These investors argue that in certain cases, giving board seats to frustrated shareholders with a shorter-term investment horizon could jeopardize the company’s long-term performance.

Activist investors, which Thomson Reuters data show launched a record 511 campaigns last year, are usually hedge funds that buy up a minority stake in a company they believe is undervalued, and push publicly for changes to boost the stock.

À la prochaine…

Ivan Tchotourian

Les entreprises japonaises feraient-elles l’objet d’une gouvernance de type anglo-américaine ? C’est ce qu’il semble à la lecture de cet article : « Shareholders put Japan’s corporate governance to the test » (Nikkei Asian Review, 25 juin 2016).

Voici quelques extraits :

Many stockholders at security company Secom’s annual meeting Friday demanded explanations over why then-Chairman Shuji Maeda and then-President Hiroshi Ito were fired in May, despite the company’s strong performance last fiscal year. (…) Secom voluntarily created an executive nomination and compensation committee, but has not made the members’ names public. Attendees raised questions over the effectiveness of the company’s governance structure. « There’s still room for improvement in the selection process for executives, » one said.

Shareholders at Mitsubishi Chemical Holdings’ meeting the same day focused on earnings power and dividends. The chemical company had logged extraordinary losses from restructuring its petrochemical business, while return on equity fell under 5% for the year ended in March. Shareholders demanded more details over the loss, and urged the company to try to raise its stock price. (…)

Kobe Steel logged a group net loss last fiscal year, and its ROE has long remained low. Just 87.3% of shareholders voted for the proposal to retain Chairman and President Hiroya Kawasaki, down 8 percentage points from last year. (…)

Toshiba came under harsh criticism at its Wednesday meeting, with shareholders blaming the company’s top-down culture and the lack of independence at its accounting department for its bookkeeping scandal. Only 87.06% of shareholders voted to reappoint President Satoshi Tsunakawa,

À la prochaine…

Ivan Tchotourian

May expressed discontent with the current model of corporate governance used by FTSE companies and in particular the effectiveness of supposedly independent non-executive directors. ‘In practice, they are often drawn from the same narrow social and professional circles as the executive team and the scrutiny they provide is often limited,’ she said. So, she suggests, workers and even consumers should be given a seat at the table.

May wrote she wants to tackle the ‘unhealthy and growing gap between what these companies pay their workers and what they pay their bosses.’ Specifically she wants to make shareholder votes on corporate pay packages binding instead of advisory and ‘simplify the way bonuses are paid so that the bosses’ incentives are better aligned with the long-term interests of the company.’