Gouvernance | Page 3

Yvan Allaire de l’Institut sur la gouvernance (IGOPP) va publier sous peu un nouvel article intitulé « The Canadian Coalition for Good Governance strikes a false note » qui a été soumis au Financial Post pour publication.

Jacques Grisé qui anime le blogue Gouvernance nous en livre un extrait en exclusivité (ici). Je me permets de le reprendre, le voici…

No doubt that “proxy access” is the next governance battlefield, with arguments and studies launched at each other in massive quantity by both sides. This debate raises important issues which must be considered carefully before adopting a position on the subject. But both sides agree on one point: if policy makers were to allow shareholders some “proxy access” so that candidates proposed by them would go on the same proxy voting ballot sent to all shareholders, that right should be exercised under a very specific set of conditions:

1. The shareholders should own a substantial quantity of shares: for instance 1% or 2% or, most frequently, 3% of all outstanding shares (with provision of a larger percentage for companies with small market capitalization);
2. To acquire the right to proxy access, these shareholders should have owned their shares for a given period of time: for at least 1 year or 2 years or, most frequently 3 years, or 5 years;
3. The number, or percentage, of board members that may be nominated through this process in any given year should be limited: 3 members or a maximum of 20% or 25% of board members, for instance;
4. There should be a cap on the number of shareholders that may join together to reach the minimum shareholding threshold: for instance 5 shareholders or 15 or 25, etc.

Proponents of “proxy access” all agree to these conditions or some variant thereof; but in a policy paper issued this week the Canadian Coalition for Good Governance (CCGG) stands apart and alone in the North American investment world on a most important condition of proxy access: the CCGG would place no holding time requirement whatsoever before shareholders acquire the right to nominate board members…

Pour celles et ceux qui veulent accéder à la position de la Coalition canadienne pour la bonne gouvernance (« Shareholder Involvement in the Director Nomination Process: Enhanced Engagement and Proxy Access »), cliquez ici.

À la prochaine…

Ivan Tchotourian

Dans une entrevue sur la BBC (ici), Le chef économiste de la Banque d’Angleterre (Andy Haldane) a livré une belle critique du court-termisme invoquant le fait que les sociétés devraient investir davantage dans le futur plutôt que verser des dividendes en argent aux actionnaires ou de racheter leurs actions. Très intéressant à lire !

Morceaux choisis :

Last Friday on Newsnight the Bank of England’s chief economist Andy Haldane sought to kick-start a debate on how companies run themselves. He told me that companies risk « eating themselves » as shareholders and management were gripped by a form of short-termism. Instead of investing in their futures firms are choosing to pay out too much of their cash to shareholders in the form of dividends or by buying back their own shares. (…)

It’s perfectly possible that shareholders might be too powerful and too disinterested. The issue could be that management is too focussed on short-term shareholder returns and so prioritises returning cash to them and increasing the share price in the short term, even if that isn’t in the company’s long-term interest. (…)

To understand how this situation might have arisen over the last few decades, one only needs to look at two trends. As Haldane argued last week – shareholding periods have fallen. There are fewer and fewer investors willing to take a long-term view. And secondly the trend has been to increasingly tie top management payment to share price performance. In other words, whatever the long-term benefits of investment in machinery, research or training five or six years down the line, we may have a system in which the rational thing to do is to focus on the next six months, not the next six years. The possible fixes to this situation are many and varied – from embracing a Germanic system of stakeholder capitalism (in which the workforce as well as the owners have a role in decision making), to looking again at executive compensation or maybe to an intermediate situation – perhaps ordering directors to act in the interest of a theoretical « perpetual shareholder », rather than existing (often short-term) investors. None of those options are a quick fix, all involve reform of the Companies Act, which is a mammoth bit of legislation. (…)

This is a big agenda and a big debate. On one level it could even be described as an attempt to save capitalism from capitalists, an argument that the ultimate owners of capital have stopped working in their own long-term interest. But, perhaps in those terms, it sounds too radical. On a more micro level this is a debate about economic incentives. It may simply be that the incentive structure in Anglo-Saxon capitalism has become skewed towards rewarding short-term behaviour.

À la prochaine…

Ivan Tchotourian