Comment Letter to the SEC: Responding to the Imprecision in a Proxy Advisor's Voting Recommendations

Bernard S. Sharfman
{"title":"Comment Letter to the SEC: Responding to the Imprecision in a Proxy Advisor's Voting Recommendations","authors":"Bernard S. Sharfman","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.3265740","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This submission is in response to Chairman Clayton’s July 30 press release announcing a staff roundtable on the proxy process and calling for submissions from interested parties. It refers in particular to proxy advisory firms and is distinguished from my October 8, 2018 comment letter that focused on additional disclosures by investment advisers to mutual funds. Given the potential for a proxy advisor’s voting recommendations to have a significant impact on voting outcomes, it is critical that these recommendations be targeted toward enhancing long-term shareholder value. However, many critics of proxy advisors argue that a significant number of their voting recommendations incorporate various types of data, analytic, and methodological errors. If implemented, such voting recommendations will lead to sub-optimal corporate decision-making and a reduction in shareholder value. Such imprecision cannot be tolerated in a proxy advisor’s recommendations. Specifically, this submission requests the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”) to modify its rules, policies and guidelines to the extent that: When making a voting recommendation, the proxy advisor should be held to the standard of an information trader. If a proxy advisor cannot attest to the use of that standard when generating a voting recommendation, then the proxy advisor must abstain from making that recommendation to its clients. Making a recommendation that does not meet this standard would be a breach of a proxy advisor’s fiduciary duty under the Advisers Act; The SEC, as well as the Department of Labor (“DOL”), should clarify that an institutional investor, as an alternative to using the voting recommendations of a proxy advisor, can meet its fiduciary voting duties by utilizing the voting recommendations provided by the board of directors; and Consistent with the prior recommendation and assuming that technical issues can be overcome, retail investors who invest in voting stock indirectly through the use of investment advisers and beneficiaries of public pension funds should have the option of transmitting voting instructions to their institutional investor informing it that their pro rata investment in voting stock must be voted in conformity with the voting recommendations of the board of directors of each company held in portfolio.","PeriodicalId":376950,"journal":{"name":"Fiduciary Law eJournal","volume":"42 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-10-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Fiduciary Law eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3265740","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

This submission is in response to Chairman Clayton’s July 30 press release announcing a staff roundtable on the proxy process and calling for submissions from interested parties. It refers in particular to proxy advisory firms and is distinguished from my October 8, 2018 comment letter that focused on additional disclosures by investment advisers to mutual funds. Given the potential for a proxy advisor’s voting recommendations to have a significant impact on voting outcomes, it is critical that these recommendations be targeted toward enhancing long-term shareholder value. However, many critics of proxy advisors argue that a significant number of their voting recommendations incorporate various types of data, analytic, and methodological errors. If implemented, such voting recommendations will lead to sub-optimal corporate decision-making and a reduction in shareholder value. Such imprecision cannot be tolerated in a proxy advisor’s recommendations. Specifically, this submission requests the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”) to modify its rules, policies and guidelines to the extent that: When making a voting recommendation, the proxy advisor should be held to the standard of an information trader. If a proxy advisor cannot attest to the use of that standard when generating a voting recommendation, then the proxy advisor must abstain from making that recommendation to its clients. Making a recommendation that does not meet this standard would be a breach of a proxy advisor’s fiduciary duty under the Advisers Act; The SEC, as well as the Department of Labor (“DOL”), should clarify that an institutional investor, as an alternative to using the voting recommendations of a proxy advisor, can meet its fiduciary voting duties by utilizing the voting recommendations provided by the board of directors; and Consistent with the prior recommendation and assuming that technical issues can be overcome, retail investors who invest in voting stock indirectly through the use of investment advisers and beneficiaries of public pension funds should have the option of transmitting voting instructions to their institutional investor informing it that their pro rata investment in voting stock must be voted in conformity with the voting recommendations of the board of directors of each company held in portfolio.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
致美国证券交易委员会的意见信:回应代理顾问投票建议的不精确性
本意见书是对克莱顿主席7月30日发布的新闻稿的回应,该新闻稿宣布将召开一次关于代理程序的工作人员圆桌会议,并呼吁有关各方提交意见书。它特别指的是代理咨询公司,与我2018年10月8日的评论信不同,那封评论信的重点是投资顾问对共同基金的额外披露。鉴于代理顾问的投票建议可能对投票结果产生重大影响,这些建议的目标是提高股东的长期价值,这一点至关重要。然而,许多代理顾问的批评者认为,他们的大量投票建议包含各种类型的数据、分析和方法错误。如果付诸实施,这种投票建议将导致次优的企业决策和股东价值的减少。在代理顾问的建议中不能容忍这种不精确。具体而言,本意见书要求美国证券交易委员会(“SEC”或“委员会”)修改其规则、政策和指导方针,以便:在提出投票建议时,代理顾问应符合信息交易者的标准。如果代理顾问在生成投票建议时不能证明使用了该标准,则代理顾问必须放弃向其客户提出该建议。提出不符合这一标准的建议将违反《顾问法》规定的代理顾问的信义义务;美国证券交易委员会和劳工部(“DOL”)应该澄清,作为使用代理顾问的投票建议的替代方案,机构投资者可以通过利用董事会提供的投票建议来履行其信托投票义务;与先前的建议一致,并假设技术问题可以克服,通过使用投资顾问和公共养老基金受益人间接投资有表决权股票的散户投资者应有权向其机构投资者传递投票指示,告知其对有表决权股票的按比例投资必须按照投资组合中持有的每个公司董事会的投票建议进行投票。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Directors' Duties: Section 172 of the UK Companies Act Value Preservation Increasingly Acknowledged as Primary Purpose and Fiduciary Duty What Would Settlor Do? Immortal Trust Settlors, Federal Transfer Taxes, and the Protean Irrevocable Trust The Pluralist Foundations of Corporate Law and Governance A General Defense of Information Fiduciaries
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1