股东民主的颠覆与对冲基金激进主义的兴起

Jang-Sup Shin
{"title":"股东民主的颠覆与对冲基金激进主义的兴起","authors":"Jang-Sup Shin","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3226103","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper explains how hedge-fund activists are exerting power over corporate resource allocation far in excess of the actual voting power of their shareholdings. The power of these `minority-shareholding corporate raiders` derives from misguided regulatory `reforms` carried out in the 1980s and 1990s in the name of `shareholder democracy`. Sanctioned and overseen by the Department of Labor (DOL) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), these reforms include the introduction of compulsory voting by institutional investors and proxy-voting rule changes that greatly facilitated hedge-fund activists` aggregation of the proxy votes of institutional investors. In addition, the introduction of the 1996 National Securities Markets Improvement Act (NSMIA) that allowed hedge funds to draw funds from institutional investors effectively with no limit also played an important role in the rise of hedge-fund activism. The paper concludes with policy proposals to rebalance value creation and value extraction by rebuilding the engagement and proxy voting system including (1) making it mandatory for shareholders to submit justifications in shareholder proposals on value creation or capital formation of corporations concerned; (2) removing voting as a fiduciary duty of institutional investors; (3) introducing differentiated voting rights that favor long-term shareholders; and (4) making it mandatory for both shareholders and management to reveal to the public what they discussed in engagement sessions.","PeriodicalId":416291,"journal":{"name":"IO: Firm Structure","volume":"10 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-08-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"7","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Subversion of Shareholder Democracy and the Rise of Hedge-Fund Activism\",\"authors\":\"Jang-Sup Shin\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.3226103\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This paper explains how hedge-fund activists are exerting power over corporate resource allocation far in excess of the actual voting power of their shareholdings. The power of these `minority-shareholding corporate raiders` derives from misguided regulatory `reforms` carried out in the 1980s and 1990s in the name of `shareholder democracy`. Sanctioned and overseen by the Department of Labor (DOL) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), these reforms include the introduction of compulsory voting by institutional investors and proxy-voting rule changes that greatly facilitated hedge-fund activists` aggregation of the proxy votes of institutional investors. In addition, the introduction of the 1996 National Securities Markets Improvement Act (NSMIA) that allowed hedge funds to draw funds from institutional investors effectively with no limit also played an important role in the rise of hedge-fund activism. The paper concludes with policy proposals to rebalance value creation and value extraction by rebuilding the engagement and proxy voting system including (1) making it mandatory for shareholders to submit justifications in shareholder proposals on value creation or capital formation of corporations concerned; (2) removing voting as a fiduciary duty of institutional investors; (3) introducing differentiated voting rights that favor long-term shareholders; and (4) making it mandatory for both shareholders and management to reveal to the public what they discussed in engagement sessions.\",\"PeriodicalId\":416291,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"IO: Firm Structure\",\"volume\":\"10 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-08-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"7\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"IO: Firm Structure\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3226103\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"IO: Firm Structure","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3226103","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

摘要

本文解释了对冲基金积极分子如何对公司资源配置施加远远超过其所持股份实际投票权的权力。这些“少数股权公司掠夺者”的权力来自于上世纪八九十年代以“股东民主”之名进行的监管“改革”。在美国劳工部(DOL)和美国证券交易委员会(SEC)的批准和监督下,这些改革包括引入机构投资者的强制投票和代理投票规则的变化,这极大地促进了对冲基金积极分子聚集机构投资者的代理投票。此外,1996年《国家证券市场改进法案》(NSMIA)的出台也对对冲基金激进主义的兴起起了重要作用,该法案允许对冲基金从机构投资者那里有效地无限制地汲取资金。本文最后提出了通过重建参与和代理投票制度来重新平衡价值创造和价值提取的政策建议,包括:(1)强制要求股东在股东提案中提交有关公司价值创造或资本形成的理由;(二)取消机构投资者的信义投票义务;(3)引入有利于长期股东的差异化投票权;(4)强制要求股东和管理层向公众披露他们在审计业务会议上讨论的内容。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
The Subversion of Shareholder Democracy and the Rise of Hedge-Fund Activism
This paper explains how hedge-fund activists are exerting power over corporate resource allocation far in excess of the actual voting power of their shareholdings. The power of these `minority-shareholding corporate raiders` derives from misguided regulatory `reforms` carried out in the 1980s and 1990s in the name of `shareholder democracy`. Sanctioned and overseen by the Department of Labor (DOL) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), these reforms include the introduction of compulsory voting by institutional investors and proxy-voting rule changes that greatly facilitated hedge-fund activists` aggregation of the proxy votes of institutional investors. In addition, the introduction of the 1996 National Securities Markets Improvement Act (NSMIA) that allowed hedge funds to draw funds from institutional investors effectively with no limit also played an important role in the rise of hedge-fund activism. The paper concludes with policy proposals to rebalance value creation and value extraction by rebuilding the engagement and proxy voting system including (1) making it mandatory for shareholders to submit justifications in shareholder proposals on value creation or capital formation of corporations concerned; (2) removing voting as a fiduciary duty of institutional investors; (3) introducing differentiated voting rights that favor long-term shareholders; and (4) making it mandatory for both shareholders and management to reveal to the public what they discussed in engagement sessions.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Double Marginalization and Misplacement in Online Advertising Compensating with Style? The Role of Compensation-Committee Experience on CEO Pay Assessing the Value of Cooperative Membership: A Case of Dairy Marketing in the United States Vertical Integration and Bargaining: Linear vs Two-part tariffs Public Company Auditing Around the Securities Exchange Act
×
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