It’s been two months since the SRI Conference in Colorado Springs but I’m still digesting content, like the potential of Folio Investing, and following up with other attendees. #AllinForImpact continues in San Francisco, Portland, Chicago, New York City, Boston and then Denver. Get to at least one of these conferences this year so you too can get inspired. The people and idea are about as progressive as I have found in the investing community. Continue Reading →
Tag Archives | shareowner
I’ve previously written two posts on California’s Savings Plus program and how one major contractor, Northern Trust has voted. (Part I & Part II) Below, I compare the votes of Northern Trust on proxy proposals with those recommended by the AFL-CIO. A similar exercise could be performed at any deferred compensation plan.
Shareholders have voting rights, usually one vote per share, to decide who will serve on the board and to advise on pay and other issues. Funds, such as CalPERS and the CalHR Savings Plus program, have a legal duty to ensure shares are voted in the best interest of program participants. Continue Reading →
Amy L. Goodman and John F. Olson, both of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP posted Shareholder Proposal Developments During the 2014 Proxy Season on the Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation yesterday. It included some good information and analysis but seemed a bit too much like the response to a shareholder proposal should be a lawsuit — an advertisement for Gibson Dunn to this, admittedly biased, eye.
David Bogoslaw, Editor of the Corporate Secretary sent out an email in response that was more balanced with regard to shareholder proposals and lawsuits. I was heading out to Ottawa yesterday, so only had time for a brief response. The following is my open email to Mr. Bogoslaw. Continue Reading →
Those were the opening sentences of another excellent editorial at Pensions & Investments (Test of Governance Wills, June 30). See their cartoon at right, which is very close to portraying the truth about Nabors. (P&I’s other outstanding recent editorial was Winning over proxy voters, May 12.) Continue Reading →
The following on shareholder rights by Timothy Smith, Director of ESG Shareowner Engagement at Walden Asset Management, originally appeared in the Summer 2014 Edition of Walden’s Values Newsletter, which included the usual disclaimer at the bottom.
I’ve added the links and have tacked on some additional reformatted comments from Timothy Smith regarding the role of individual investors in prompting reform.
Every once in a long while a group of companies, usually led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, launches a campaign to change the rules allowing investors to file shareholder resolutions. Welcome to the latest iteration. Continue Reading →
EMC Corporation $EMC is one of the stocks in my portfolio. Their annual meeting is coming up on 4/30/2014. ProxyDemocracy.org had collected the votes of four funds when I checked and voted on 4/22/2014. I voted with management 13% of the time. View EMC’s Proxy Statement, which is user friendly. Continue Reading →
Announcing the second Foxhole of the Year Award for the company that makes it the most difficult for shareowners turn up at their annual meeting. Last year’s winner was Peabody Energy for their choice of Gillette, Wyoming, a town with less than 30,000 residents. Nominations are now being accepted for 2014.
Yuanzhi Li and David Yermack studied the location and timing of annual shareholder meetings in their study Evasive Shareholder Meetings. When companies move their annual meetings a great distance from headquarters, they tend to announce disappointing earnings results and experience pronounced stock market underperformance in the months after the meeting. Continue Reading →
I joined for what was billed as a ‘fireside chat’ style presentation featuring Anne Simpson of CalPERS, Ralph Whitworth of Relational Investors, LLC, and Katherine Rabin of Glass, Lewis & Co., who will address the hot topics of this year’s proxy season. “Bring your burning questions and get the opinions of these experts.” Continue Reading →
Below are some notes I took during the morning sessions at the Corporate Directors Forum 2014, held on the beautiful campus of the University of San Diego, January 26-28, 2014. This year, I was only able to attend on January 27th. The program was subject to the Chatham House Rule, so there will be little in the way of attribution below but I hope to provide some sense of the discussion. Continue Reading →
After posting Cisco Systems: Prime Target For Proxy Advisor Competition, Cisco Systems: Proxy Proposal #5 – 11 Q&A, and Cisco Systems (CSCO): How I Voted – Proxy Score 56 I am still getting the most basic question from funds trying to determine how to vote. That’s understandable. People lack the time necessary to analyze proxy issues. That’s one of the reasons behind the proposal. More resources and more competition could make for better voting at Cisco for all shareowners.
I keep getting the same fundamental question. How would it work in practice? Here’s what I tell them. Continue Reading →
This timely book, edited by Joan Loughrey, brings together academics and practitioners to assess the efficacy of directors’ duties, or lack thereof, regarding shareholder litigation in the wake of the financial crisis. Although primarily focused on the UK and the Companies Act of 2006, the part played by the US and its regulatory scheme is not ignored. Americans reading the book will benefit from a better understanding of the UK framework and how portions may or may not apply here.
For example, the UK Code of Corporate Governance makes boards responsible for determining the nature and extent of the risks that companies should undertake. Yet, even in the wake of extreme circumstances and huge financial losses, Continue Reading →
Mr. Norton previously served as corporate secretary of The New Economy Fund and SMALLCAP World Fund, Inc., two of Capital’s retail mutual funds, as well as American Funds Insurance Series, which serves Continue Reading →
Rose, Paul and Sharfman, Bernard S., Shareholder Activism as a Corrective Mechanism in Corporate Governance (September 11, 2013). Ohio State Public Law Working Paper No. 225. Available at SSRN.
Research Issue: How can activism be utilized to allow corporate decision making to be executed in the most efficient manner? Continue Reading →
Inside Investor Relations (IR) had an important article on July 30th, On the Way to the Investor Forum that raised the question: do companies really want to encourage their shareholders to chat about them in online forums? Wouldn’t it create a lot of work for investor relations officers (IROs) “who are responsible for monitoring these online groups, responding to any misinformation posted on them, dealing with legal and other consequences?” Continue Reading →