As we now know all too well, the credit crisis and the global recession stemmed, in important part, from stark failures of boards of directors and operating business leadership in important financial institutions: the witch's brew of leverage, poor risk management, creation of toxic products, lack of liquidity---all made more poisonous by compensation systems which rewarded short-term revenues/profits without regard to risk.
Buffeted by the recession and the seizing up of the credit markets, GM and Chrysler veered into bankruptcy, burdened by decades of questionable decisions.
As a result of these dramatic collapses in both the financial and industrial sectors, trust in corporate leaders--indeed in the ability of corporations to govern themselves--has eroded dramatically (even though there are, of course, well run corporations in both areas of the economy). This crisis in confidence, due to problems real or perceived, has spawned numerous public sector initiatives, both here and abroad, to impose new limits on private sector governance and self-determination.
In the financial sector, the regulatory debate is robust. It has focused on imposing direct, substantive government rules limiting private sector discretion: e.g. counter-cyclical capital requirements, liquidity protections, revised accounting standards, credit rating agency reform, regulatory review of executive compensation, regulatory approval of certain complex products, better consumer protection, assessment of systemic risk, and special oversight for large complex financial institutions.
But for all publicly held corporations, financial and industrial, a dominant, recurring theme has been to "improve" the process of corporate governance by mandating an enhanced role for shareholders as a check on boards of directors and business leadership.
But a fundamental, recurring question needs to be asked and answered: are "shareholders" part of the solution or part of the problem in this governance crisis of confidence ?
• One public policy initiative would be to give shareholders more "voice," primarily through advisory votes at annual meetings on the executive compensation regimes approved by the boards of directors ("say on pay"). This would mandate uniform federal "process." Historically, this area of law has been governed by states and company-by-comp
• A second regulatory change would increase the ability of small groups of shareholders to nominate alternative candidates in the annual shareholder election of directors ("ballot access"). Today, shareholders customarily vote for slates of directors nominated by the directors themselves---and it is expensive and cumbersome for shareholders to field additional candidates. (Of course, powerful economic interests can buy large blocks of stock and force directors onto boards or launch a hostile takeover for the whole company.)
These are "hot" shareholder issues. Both the Obama Administration and Congress support "say on pay" shareholder votes for all publicly held corporations in the U.S. And the SEC, which has debated the subject for years, now has a Democratic majority to approve some version of a "ballot access" rule.
The problem: the easy assumption about "shareholder" as "solution" ignores some obvious issues which have gained force in recent years.
• There is no such animal as "the" shareholder. Instead there is an extraordinary menagerie: large and small individual investors; public and private pension funds; a wide array of mutual funds; endowment funds for educational, health and other non-profit institutions; and an equally wide array of hedge funds. Almost all these institutional shareholders are trying, in one way or another, to beat their "benchmarks." These benchmarks could include the Dow Jones, the NASDAQ, relevant S&P or MSCI indexes, or the goal to make annual, absolute profits for themselves to justify the fees charged clients (in part, the 2 percent fee and 20 percent of profits often required by hedge funds).
• Institutional investors now own approximately 60 percent of U.S. equities (using other people's money). Some observers say, while there are some long-term value holders, many of these investors are driven by the goal of short-term performance in their portfolios, and so they engage in relatively short-term trading strategies and have little interest in corporate creation of long-term economic value by the corporations whose securities they own and trade. (Shares of stock are now held, on average, for far shorter periods than was the case 10 or 20 years ago.)
• Indeed, important questions have been raised about the role institutional investors played in causing the melt-down by pressuring financial service entities to take undue risk for short-term profits. Did the short-term investors crowd out long-term value investors in influencing corporations, and, if so, is this likely to be the future pattern?
• Questions have also been raised about what kinds of salary and bonus plans do the institutional investors provide to their fund managers--the people who drive the stock market and may be an important source of the short-term pressure on companies? And, how are powerful institutional investors--from pension to mutual to hedge funds--governed and what are their fiduciary duties to individuals whose money they "manage"?
• Ultimately, how imperfect are shareholders and the stock market in valuing companies given the widely divergent time frames and objectives of institutional investors and the irrationalities (e.g. herd mentality) and inefficiencies of the market at any moment in time?
As Henry Kaufman, a prominent Wall Street economist for decades has written in a recent book The Road to Financial Reformation, most "investment relationships today are very fickle. Portfolio performance is measured over very short time horizons...Day trades and portfolio shifts based on the price momentum of the stock---rather than anything having to do with the underlying fundamentals---are commonplace."