The ongoing global economic crisis is not only causing incumbent governments to lose elections; it is also shaking corporate boards. When stock prices and profits seemed to defy gravity, shareholders’ meetings resembled US political conventions: a show to promote a company’s image, rather than a forum to debate contentious issues. This year’s round of annual general meetings has been different. Frustrated by low returns, investors are much feistier.
At Credit Suisse and Barclays, for example, more than a quarter of shareholders rejected the pay package proposed by management. At Citigroup, a majority of shareholders rejected managers’ pay at Citigroup — the first S&P 500 company at which that happened.
Shareholder activists can also claim other (at least partial) victories at Yahoo, where a shareholder activist forced the newly appointed chief executive to resign for falsifying his educational credentials.
However, many commentators’ hyperbolic depiction of a “shareholders’ spring,” with its resonance of ousted Arab dictators, is inappropriate for several reasons, not the least of which is the fact that the Arab Spring actually toppled regimes. At the moment, the current shareholders’ revolt is failing to achieve any significant result.
For starters, the votes on company mangers’ pay are non-binding. To be sure, compensation committees and boards tend to follow shareholders’ wishes, even if they are not legally obliged to do so. However, they do so mostly out of embarrassment and a sense of guilt, and the changes can be entirely cosmetic. For example, after receiving only 43 percent of shareholders’ support, Bruce Gans, an independent director of Hospitality Properties Trust, resigned. The company then quickly invited him to rejoin the board, filling the vacancy created by his own departure.
When describing shareholders’ struggle to make board members accountable, the right analogy is not the Arab Spring, but the protests at Beijing’s Tiananmen Square two decades ago. In 1989, the Chinese government sent troops to repress the country’s pro-democracy movement. In a similar vein, the Business Roundtable, composed of chief executives of major US corporations, has deployed brigades of lawyers to squelch shareholders’ aspirations.
One of the (few) positive achievements of the US’ Dodd-Frank legislation, enacted to address the causes of the financial crisis of 2008, is — or should have been — the requirement that the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) repeal the current rules that prevent institutional investors from appointing their own representatives to corporate boards. In fact, the requirement was very timid, posing so many restrictions in terms of quantity and length of ownership as to leave the bar to institutional investors effectively in place.
Still, it was too much for the Business Roundtable, which sued the SEC to stop it. Argued by Eugene Scalia, the son of US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, the case against the SEC was won in the US Court of Appeals, DC Circuit, on a technicality — the SEC’s failure to conduct a cost-benefit analysis ahead of time.
This small victory turned into a major defeat for shareholders when the SEC, rather than performing such an analysis and re-proposing the rule, chose to stall. At a conference in December last year, I asked SEC Chairwoman Mary Schapiro when her agency was planning to reintroduce the rule. I even offered to do the cost-benefit analysis for free. However, she confessed that the SEC had many other items on its agenda, and had placed the issue on the back burner — a polite way to say that the SEC, like the heroic students in Tiananmen Square, had surrendered under irresistible pressure.
The violent repression in Tiananmen Square set back China’s move toward democracy by at least 20 years. Let’s hope that Business Roundtable et al. v. SEC does not mean the same thing for shareholder democracy. This is not a shareholders’ spring: It is the winter of their discontent.
Luigi Zingales is a professor of entrepreneurship and finance at the University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.