Skip to content

14 August, 2022

Subscribe Advertise About Us
  • My Account
  • Register
  • Log In
  • Log Out

Board Agenda

  • Governance
  • Strategy
  • Risk
  • Ethics
  • News
    • Categoriess

      • View All
      • Board Moves
    • News round-up: this week in governance

      PwC fined for BT audit; greenwashing sanctions; cost of living crisis; $300m pay deal; US...

    • Twitter Elon Musk Twitter drops due diligence bombshell

      The high-profile lawsuit brought by Twitter against Elon Musk raises an issue close to all...

    • short selling investors How to beat short selling activism

      What would you do if your company was targeted by short-selling activist investors? Communication is...

  • Insight
    • Categories

      • View all
      • Governance
      • Strategy
      • Risk
      • Ethics
      • Board Expertise
      • finance
      • Technology
    • short selling investors

      How to beat short selling activism

      What would you do if your company was targeted by short-selling activist investors? Communication is...

    • ESG debate

      The ESG debate needs to be more nuanced

      The issues boards face are rarely straightforward, and ESG is no exception. It is time...

    • AI

      How to ensure governance of artificial intelligence (AI)

      An ISO standard issued this year gives guidance to boards on the governance implications of...

  • Comment
      • View all
    • global warming

      ESG is not a ‘distraction’

      We must not let ESG become a scapegoat for the systemic failure of our society...

    • Man with magnifying glass The 30-year itch: time to ditch the UK Corporate Governance Code

      Now that governance has come of age, businesses should be able to innovate within the...

    • notebook on boardroom table The UK needs a code of conduct for company directors

      A formal code of conduct for company directors would signal their willingness to apply high...

  • Interviews
      • View All Interviews
      • Podcasts
      • Webinars
    • Board members discussing ESG Stakeholder pressure increases urgency on ESG

      Experts say pressure to act on ESG is coming from regulators, investors and a new...

    • Empty boardroom Many executives ‘fail to understand the role and value of boards’

      A recent webinar on board effectiveness discussed the mix of competence and courage required from...

    • Businessman looking at stormy sky Disaster or disruption? Crisis management requires clear definitions

      Identifying and categorising crises, and developing a methodology to deal with them, can help boards...

  • Careers
      • View all
      • Selection
      • Board Moves
    • News round-up: this week in governance

      PwC fined for BT audit; greenwashing sanctions; cost of living crisis; $300m pay deal; US...

    • US boards diversity US boards slow diversity with poor retirement policies

      Only 6% of organisations have term limits for directors, and there is reluctance around mandatory...

    • News round-up: this week in governance

      Tory leadership contest; Grant Thornton fined; Norwegian insider dealing; virtual AGMs; US environmental disclosures; diversity...

  • Resource Centre
      • White Paper Downloads
      • Book Reviews
      • Corporate & Advisory Services
    • Stakeholder Engagement: A Roadmap for UK Plc Boards

      This guide aims to provide directors and their colleagues with advice on how to ensure...

    • Board Duties in Ensuring Company Engagement with Affected Stakeholders

      This guidance note gives a brief overview of the role of corporate boards of directors...

    • C-Suite Barometer 2021

      At the end of 2021, Mazars surveyed over 1,000 executives around the world for its...

  • Events
  • Search by topic
    • Governance
    • Strategy
    • Risk
    • Ethics
    • Regulation
    • ESG
    • Investor Relations
    • Selection
    • Board Expertise
    • finance
    • Technology
  • Magazine
      • View All
      • Sustainability Works
      • Tomorrow's Leaders
      • Renumeration Tightrope
      • Governance Ascendance
      • Sense In Sustainability
      • Invisible Enemies

Five myths and five realities about the role of shareholders

by B. Espen Eckbo on January 9, 2020

There are many myths propagated by the populist debate over the purpose of the corporation in general, and the role of its shareholders in particular.

Wall Street, New York Stock Exchange, US corporate governance

Image: Vichie81/Shutterstock

In August, the Business Roundtable, led by JP Morgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon, issued a well-meaning but ultimately confusing statement about the group’s view on the purpose of a corporation. It proclaimed that the goal of corporations should not only be to create long-term value for shareholders but also to serve the interests of all other corporate stakeholders— employees, customers, suppliers, and the community. It is often thought that these goals are contradictory, but that’s not the case.

The statement, and the big splash it has created, are symptomatic of the many myths propagated by the populist debate over the purpose of the corporation in general, and the role of shareholders in particular. Below, I list five such myths and provide brief reality checks. They are all related to the role of shareholders in the US corporate governance system and the efficiency of shareholder value maximisation as the key decision criterion for boards.

Myth 1: Maximising long-term shareholder value is not in the interest of other stakeholders

This myth, which the Business Roundtable’s statement plays into, fails to recognise the fundamental economic and legal architecture needed for corporations to fulfil their social function. Long ago, Nobel laureate Milton Friedman famously announced that “the social responsibility of the corporation is to maximise profits,” the economic equivalent of “raising water lifts all boats”.

Economists have long known that “to lift all boats”, boards must have clear and efficient rules for creating an optimal investment strategy for the firm, guided by maximising long-run shareholder value.

A board that begins to ignore shareholder interests effectively undermines the viability of the modern corporation

Why? Because shareholders are last in line for the firm’s cash flow, and therefore need board protection. This is why shareholders are given the right to elect the board. Other claimholders, such as employees, suppliers or creditors, are not only first in line to be paid off, they also receive strong legal protection under corporate and labour laws.

Shareholders have no such legal rights—not even the right to receive a dividend (it’s up to the board). A board that begins to ignore shareholder interests not only violates its fiduciary duty, it effectively undermines the viability of the modern corporation—the very locomotive of two centuries of economic prosperity.

So, what is the Business Roundtable really talking about? One interpretation is that, in the modern era of #MeToo and political correctness, boards need to pay extra attention to the culture within their own organisations. Or perhaps it’s a warning to avoid investing in products that may be doomed politically. But these are both just common sense, and consistent with boards working to maximise shareholder value.

Myth 2: An important role of small shareholders is to second-guess board decisions

The role of small shareholders in the US corporate governance system is simply to sell their shares to the highest bidder in a control contest. The active players in the market for corporate control are competing management teams and large shareholders who own enough shares to make it worthwhile to invest (often large sums) in the information needed to challenge board decisions.

The role of small shareholders in the US corporate governance system is simply to sell their shares to the highest bidder in a control contest

Therefore, the notion that small shareholders ought to become sufficiently informed to vote at general meetings, not to say second-guess the board’s compensation decisions (“say on pay’’) is not realistic.

While small shareholders benefit from any improvement of the firm caused by large shareholder activism, small shareholders themselves have no incentive to invest in information gathering activities. As they remain rationally uninformed, asking for their opinion makes little sense.

Myth 3: The capital market, and active investors in particular, promote corporate short-termism

With the emergence of the “junk” bond market in the late 1970s that helped fuel unsolicited takeovers, executives began planning how to prevent hostile bids from succeeding. Eventually, they deployed “poison pills” in this battle, which prevent small shareholders from selling their shares to the highest bidder. Today, poison pills have created a virtual lock-down on the ability of a hostile buyer to acquire control.

From the beginning, executives defended themselves against unwanted acquirers by claiming that “the market and active investors greatly undervalue our long-term R&D investment”. Therefore, their argument went, we need to defend ourselves against such misguided attacks by curbing R&D and instead focus on short-term investments.

This argument has since morphed into a general claim that financial markets tend to undervalue long-term investments. Forty years of financial research has proved this argument wrong. Not only do corporate takeovers promote (rather than deter) R&D investment, the stock market more generally rewards research-intensive firms.

Myth 4: Stock repurchases are detrimental to the US economy

This myth has its roots in the misguided notion that cash distributions from the firm to its shareholders are the “wage of shareholders”. In fact, when the Nixon administration imposed price and wage controls on the US economy in the 1970s, it also included a cap on corporate dividends.

Large stock repurchases are an important mechanism for recirculating cash into more valuable investment opportunities

The reality is, shareholders can generate as much—or as little—dividends as they prefer, by selling shares in the market or reinvesting excessive dividends back into the firm.

But just as smaller and younger firms are often undercapitalised, older and larger firms are sometimes overcapitalised—they have too much cash on hand, and need a way to put it to better use. Large stock repurchases are an important mechanism for recirculating cash into more valuable investment opportunities outside of the firm. In support of this argument, there is strong empirical evidence that firm value on average increases in the wake of such repurchases.

Myth 5: Dual-class shares violate good governance principles

In a dual-class share structure, one class (A) has the normal one-vote-per-share while the other (class B) has multiple votes per share. Since the New York Stock Exchange abandoned its one-share-one-vote requirement for public listing in the 1980s, a number of high-profile technology companies have gone public with dual classes of shares, allowing founders to retain full voting control with less than 50% shareholdings.

The EU attempted to outlaw dual-class shares in the early 2000s, but failed to do so after opposition from countries with extensive dual-class share companies (in particular Sweden and the Netherlands). The EU’s primary argument was that dual-class shares might reduce social welfare if the controlling shareholder insists on narrowly recruiting future replacement CEOs from within the founder’s own family.

Today, the solution is probably to attach a sunset provision to the super-voting rights of the corporate founder. Requiring both share classes to be acquired by a bidder attempting to gain control is another way to increase the value of both share classes.

B. Espen Eckbo is the Tuck Centennial Chair Professor of Finance and founder of the Lindenauer Forum for Governance Research.

This article first appeared in the Winter 2020 issue of Tuck Today, a publication of the Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth (US). Read the original article here.

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • LinkedIn
  • Mail

Related Posts

  • Performance and accountability: the changing role of the chair
    March 27, 2019
    SIngle red chair in a white boardroom

    The role of the board chair has changed dramatically in the past decade, with chairs increasingly held responsible for corporate governance failures. How can board leaders ensure they are prepared for the challenges ahead?

  • Crisis leadership and the role of the board
    June 18, 2020
    crisis management

    How boards deal with unexpected crises has been strongly tested in recent months. What does it take for leaders to be effective in the heat of a crisis?

  • The Khashoggi crisis and the role of business
    October 24, 2018
    Jamal Khashoggi

    The boycott of this week's "Davos in the Desert" conference in Saudi Arabia demonstrates the willingness of many CEOs to use their position to protest for human rights. Will it make a difference?

  • Facebook’s fail: the 'story', the risks and the role of the board
    June 12, 2018
    Facebook, Cambridge Analytica, data harvesting, data ethics

    Cambridge Analytica harvested the data of 50 million Facebook users to help swing the US presidential election, but amid the trend for corporate governance 'narratives', did Facebook's directors forget the chapter on ethics?

For thoughtful journalism, expert insights on corporate governance and an extensive library of reports, guides and tools to help boards and directors navigate the complexities of their roles, subscribe to Board Agenda

B. Espen Eckbo, corporate governance, corporate purpose, dual-class shares, shareholders, short-termism, stakeholders, US

Search


Sign up to our Newsletter

Receive independent news, thoughtful journalism & expert insights about leadership, corporate governance & key boardroom issues straight to your inbox every week.

SIGN UP

Follow Us


 

 

 

 

 

Most Popular

  • Twitter drops due diligence bombshell
  • Ben & Jerry’s governance tested in court
  • ESG is not a ‘distraction’
  • Virtual AGMs fall out of favour
  • The ESG debate needs to be more nuanced

 


 

Featured Partner Profile

Diligent

Diligent

Diligent Corporation, which was founded in 2001, is headquartered in New York, NY with a European HQ in London. Diligent’s modern governance platform empowers leaders and teams at every level of the organisation to digitally transform and create ...

Featured Partner Resources

Board Transformation 2021: Leadership in Transition

There can be little doubt that the global Covid-19...

Digital Boards: How Technology Adoption is Driving Culture Change and Resiliency

Digital tools proved their worth to boards during ...
EQ 2021 AGM Season report

2021 AGM Season: Successful AGMs in the Pandemic and Beyond

With the impacts of Covid-19 hitting just as the s...
Leadership in AI report

Leadership in AI 2021

This report from Board Agenda and Mazars, in assoc...
Creativity in a Crisis: a Boardroom Map for Innovation

Creativity in a Crisis: a Boardroom Map for Innovation

In the uncertain times at the height of any crisis...
Board Directors Guide to D&O Liability Insurance - November 2020 - AIG & Board Agenda

Board Directors' Guide to D&O Liability Insurance

Directors face liability over a range of new threa...
Leadership-in-Risk-Management-Board-Report

Leadership in Risk Management: Board Report

Board Agenda, in association with Mazars and INSEA...
Director's Guide to Internal Investigations

A Director's Guide to Conducting Internal Investigations

An internal investigation must be handled meticulo...

Global Business Complexity Index 2021

The Global Business Complexity Index 2021 provides...

 


 

ADVERTISE – FREE CORPORATE LISTING

FREE - Add your company profile to our Corporate & Advisory Directory.
ADD

ADVERTISE – PROMOTE YOUR REPORTS & WHITEPAPERS

FREE - Add your company profile to our Corporate & Advisory Directory.
Add Resource

Register Free

Register to receive free article views, selected resource downloads, and all the latest news alerts straight to your inbox. Register


  • Editors & Contributors
  • Corporate & Advisory Services
  • Media Marketing Solutions
  • Contact Us
  • Careers
  • Board Director Network
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookies
  • Sitemap
|