objectifs de l’entreprise | Page 3

Intéressant article dans The Sydney Morning Herald sous la plume de Mme Vanessa Desloires intitué : « BlackRock, Vanguard, State Street are not passive on corporate governance ». Cet article illustre l’activisme croissant (et la lente disparition de la prétendue passivité des actionnaires) des actionnaires d’aujourd’hui. Il faut dire que ces derniers (devenus des investisseurs institutionnels) sont de plus en plus puissants autant financièrement qu’économiquement !

Investment behemoths BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street now hold the « balance of power » in corporate governance disputes. And they’re no longer content to be the silent giants in the background, forcing company boards to balance the long-term view of passive fund managers with the short-termism of active managers.

The underperformance of the majority of Australian active managers over the past few years, coupled with the low cost of passive funds, has driven investors into products such as exchange-traded funds en masse, with total funds under management topping $23 billion this year.

As such, the three biggest providers of passive funds, BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street, have a growing presence on company registers.

À la prochaine…

Ivan Tchotourian

Intéressant ce que relaie le Time. Il y a un des candidats à l’élection présidentielle américaine a invoqué le devoir fiduciaire pour justifier les politiques d’évitement fiscales qu’il a mises en œuvre pendant de nombreuses années : « Donald Trump’s ‘Fiduciary Duty’ Excuse on Taxes Is Just Plain Wrong ». Qu’en penser ? Pour la journaliste Rana Foroohar, la réponse est claire : « The Donald and his surrogates say he has a legal responsibility to minimize tax payments for his shareholders. It’s not a good excuse ».

It’s hard to know what to say to the New York Times’ revelation that Donald Trump lost so much money running various casino and hotel businesses into the ground in the mid-1990s ($916 million to be exact) that he could have avoided paying taxes for a full 18 years as a result (which may account for why he hasn’t voluntarily released his returns—they would make him look like a failure).

But predictably, Trump did have a response – fiduciary duty made me do it. So, how does the excuse stack up? Does Donald Trump, or any taxpayer, have a “fiduciary duty,” or legal responsibility, to maximize his income or minimize his payments on his personal taxes? In a word, no. “His argument is legal nonsense,” says Cornell University corporate and business law professor Lynn Stout,

À la prochaine…

Ivan Tchotourian

Marc T. Moore offre un beau papier sur la place de la valeur actionnariale en Grande-Bretagne dans une perspective historique : « Shareholder Primacy, Labour and the Historic Ambivalence of UK Company Law » (Oxford University, 20 septembre 2016).

Most directors and senior managers of British companies would likely regard it as trite law that, in undertaking their functions, they are accountable first and foremost to their employer firm’s general body of shareholders. It follows that the interests of other corporate constituencies – and, in particular, those of employees – must ultimately cede to those of shareholders in the event of conflict. Although frequently taken for granted today, the lexical priority that the British company law framework affords to the interests of shareholders is remarkable, not least when viewed alongside the correspondingly disempowered corporate governance status of labour in the UK.

On first reflection, it is somewhat curious that the interests of employees have not figured more prominently within British company law, especially when one considers the general political disposition of the country in modern times. Throughout the course of the last century, the UK has witnessed 37 years of Labour government (or 42 years if one includes Labour’s participation in the wartime coalition government). And although the UK is acknowledged on the whole as having a more neo-liberal (ie right-wing) political orientation than many of its northern European counterparts, it nonetheless has a comparatively strong social-democratic (ie left-wing) political tradition in relation to other English-speaking and former-Commonwealth countries, at least since the Second World War. It is thus not unreasonable to expect that, at some point during the post-war era, democratic public policy measures might have been taken to effect the direct integration of worker interests into the heart of the British corporate legal structure.

Une de ses conclusion est intéressante :

However, whilst the centrality of shareholders’ interests to the doctrinal and normative fabric of contemporary UK company law is both manifest and incontrovertible, this has curiously not always been the case. With respect to the fundamental question of the proper corporate objective (that is, as to whose interest British company directors are expected to serve while carrying out their functions), UK company law up until 2006 adopted a highly ambiguous position. Moreover, British company law has in the fairly recent past come precariously close to adopting a radically different board representation model, in which worker interests would formally have shared centre-stage with those of shareholders in a similar vein to the traditional German corporate governance model.

À la prochaine…

Ivan Tchotourian

Yvan Allaire et François Dauphin publient un article dans Le Devoir : « L’activisme actionnarial est-il un sport payant? ». Les auteurs reviennent sur l’intervention de l’activiste Bill Ackman au Canadian Pacific. Qu’en déduisent-ils ?

1. Aucune entreprise n’est à l’abri de l’assaut d’un activiste. Peu importe la taille de l’entreprise ou la composition du conseil, toute société est une cible potentielle. D’ailleurs, la réglementation canadienne est très favorable aux actionnaires activistes.
2. Pour éviter d’apparaître sur le radar de ces activistes, les conseils d’administration et la direction des grandes sociétés peuvent être tentés de tout mettre en oeuvre pour atteindre les objectifs trimestriels, les « attentes » des analystes de façon à ce que la valeur de l’action croisse sans cesse ou, à tout le moins, ne chute pas. Bref, la menace de l’activisme actionnarial, que le passage d’Ackman au CP aura rendue bien réelle, pourrait bien avoir comme conséquence d’ajouter aux autres sources de pression exercées sur la direction pour l’inciter à prendre des décisions qui auront un effet positif à court terme.

Voici l’introduction de leur article :

La saga Bill Ackman au Canadien Pacifique (CP) est terminée. Le milliardaire américain à la tête du fonds de couverture activiste Pershing Square a liquidé ce qui restait de ses actions dans le CP après un passage pour le moins remarqué au sein du chemin de fer canadien. Un « succès » qui laissera peut-être un goût amer aux administrateurs et dirigeants des sociétés canadiennes inscrites en bourse.

Selon différentes sources, les gains réalisés par son placement dans le CP atteindraient 2,6 milliards de dollars américains pour Pershing Square. Au total, c’est entre 6 000 et 7 000 emplois qui auront été supprimés au CP pour réaliser ce beau profit.

À la prochaine…

Ivan Tchotourian

Michael J. Mauboussin et Alfred Rappaport ont publié il y a quelques jours un article dans la Harvard Business Review qui revient sur la valeur actionnariale : « Reclaiming the Idea of Shareholder Value ». Les auteurs insistent sur l’importance de définir et de communiquer clairement l’objectif des entreprises.

Corporate governance issues are constantly in the headlines. Activist investors challenge management strategies. Investors and others ask why companies binge on buybacks while skimping on value-creating investment opportunities. But discussions of corporate governance invariably miss the real problem: most public companies have extensive governance procedures but no governing objective. As a result, there is no sound basis for stakeholders, including shareholders, to assess the performance of the company and its executives.

Corporate governance is a system of checks and balances that a company designs to ensure that it faithfully serves its governing objective. The governing objective is the cornerstone upon which the organization builds its culture, communications, and choices about how it allocates capital. Think of it as a clear statement of what a company is fundamentally trying to achieve.

Today there are two camps that aim to define the idea of governing objective, but neither is effective. The first believes the company’s goal is to maximize shareholder value. Countries that operate under common law, including the United States and the United Kingdom, lean in this direction.

The second advocates that the company balance the interests of all stakeholders. Countries that operate under civil law, including France, Germany, and Japan, tend to be in this camp.

À la prochaine…

Ivan Tchotourian

« The American corporation has been transformed by globalization and new technology. But equally powerful is the belief on Wall Street and in boardrooms that the sole responsibility of a corporation is to maximize profits for its shareholders ». Ce résumé du rapport de Marketplace « The price of profits » illustre parfaitement les 5 beaux chapitres (pas trop longs et accessibles à tout public) qu’il nous est donné de lire. Revoilà la primauté de la valeur actionnariale sur le devant de la scène pour être critiquée…

Listen to business news on cable TV, and you’ll hear bankers, fund managers and CEOs talk about a corporation’s legal responsibility to “maximize shareholder value.” The idea that the product of a corporation is profits is gospel. It’s taught in business school. But it’s not true.

(…) If jobs were the first target, how to spend a company’s profits was next. A corporation can invest in itself and grow or — what? Giant investment funds pressed for higher returns — higher share prices. An increasingly favorite strategy was to spend profits buying back the company’s own shares. It was financial engineering: fewer shares, higher share price.

The former corporate raider Carl Icahn, for example, started buying shares of Apple in 2013, and eventually owned more than 50 million, nearly 1 percent. He pressured Apple to buy back shares — and Apple is spending more than $100 billion doing so.

Icahn sold his shares this spring. Economist William Lazonick, the author of a shareholder-value analysis, “Profits Without Prosperity,” noted that Icahn was a share-renter, not a shareholder. He never invested a dollar in Apple itself.

Icahn said his investment in Apple shares netted him $2 billion. Apple? Its shares are below what the company paid for them. So far, Apple is a loser.

À la prochaine…

Ivan Tchotourian

Bonjour à toutes et à tous, le Financial Times apporte un regard critique sur les politiques de distribution des dividendes des entreprises : “Alarm grows as investors get bulk of listed groups’ profits” (9 mai 2016).

The world’s listed companies have paid out more than half their profits to shareholders in the form of dividends over the past year, an unusual situation that tends to occur only in periods of widespread economic weakness.  “The implication is companies have kept paying out dividends even as earnings have fallen away, and the risk is companies are paying out dividends that are not sufficiently covered by their profits,” said Robert Buckland, global equity strategist for Citi Research…. Directors of public companies must balance demands from shareholders to receive an income from their ownership of a company against the need to reinvest profits in the cause of expansion and future growth.

À la prochaine…

Ivan Tchotourian