Shareholders exert influence over the corporation through the board of directors and the proxy voting process. While indirect, this influence can be powerful in shaping corporate policy. This Quick Guide examines the relation between institutional investors and the corporation. It answers the questions: • What types of shareholders exist? • What influence do shareholders have over companies? • Does activism improve performance? • What are proxy advisors? • What role do proxy advisors play? For an expanded discussion, see Corporate Governance Matters: A Closer Look at Organizational Choices and Their Consequences (Second Edition) by David Larcker and Brian Tayan (2015): http://www.gsb.stanford.edu/faculty-research/books/corporate-governance-matters-closer-look-organizational-choices Buy This Book: http://www.ftpress.com/store/corporate-governance-matters-a-closer-look-at-organizational-9780134031569 For permissions to use this material, please contact: E: corpgovernance@gsb.stanford.edu Copyright 2015 by David F. Larcker and Brian Tayan. All rights reserved.

1. David F. Larcker and Brian Tayan
Corporate Governance Research Initiative
Stanford Graduate School of Business
INVESTORS & ACTIVISM

2. THE ROLE OF SHAREHOLDERS
• The shareholder-centric view holds that the primary purpose of the
corporation is to maximize wealth for owners.
• From this perspective, effective governance aligns the interests of
managers and shareholders, reducing agency costs and increasing value.
• However, deciding what elements or features result in an “effective” system
is not always easy.
• Disagreements arise because investors have different viewpoints and
objectives.

3. NOT ALL SHAREHOLDERS ARE THE SAME
• Investment horizon
Short-term investors prefer that management focus on quarterly results. Long-term
investors might tolerate volatility if they believe value is being created.
• Objectives
Some investors care primarily about economic returns. Others might emphasize
how results are achieved and the impact on stakeholders.
• Activity
Active investors care greatly about individual firms. Passive investors might focus on
index returns and pay less attention to individual outcomes.
• Size
Large funds can dedicate significant resources to governance matters. Small funds
lack these resources.

4. OTHER LIMITATIONS
• Free-rider problem
Shareholder actions are expensive. Although all shareholders enjoy the benefits, a few
bear the costs. This provides a disincentive to act.
• Indirect influence
Shareholders do not have direct control over the corporation. They influence firms by:
– Communicating concerns
– Withholding votes
– Waging proxy contests
– Sponsoring proxy items
– Selling shares

5. BLOCKHOLDERS
• A blockholder is an investor (individual, institutional, or corporate) with a
large ownership position in a company.
INSTITUTIONAL BLOCKHOLDERS AMONG U.S. CORPORATIONS
FIRM SIZE MARKET VALUE
# OF INSTITUTIONAL # OF BLOCKHOLDERS
INVESTORS 1% 3% 5%
TOP 1000 $9,296,000,000 350 14 4 2
1,001 to 2,000 $1,984,900,000 151 16 5 2
2,001 to 3,000 $690,800,000 93 12 4 2
3,001 to 4,000 $261,100,000 49 8 3 1
4,001 to 5,000 $75,700,000 19 4 2 1
1 to 5,000 $582,400,000 79 10 3 2
Median values. Based on data from Thomson Reuters. Sample includes 5,347 firms, with fiscal years ending June 2012 to May 2013.

6. BLOCKHOLDERS
• Because of their size, blockholders can influence the governance of a firm.
– Determine outcome of director election or proxy contest.
– Determine outcome of takeover battle.
– Encourage company to change management, strategy, or sell itself.
– Gain direct board representation.
• The actions they take depend on the nature of their investment and
relationship to the firm.
• Firms that have a blockholder at one point in time tend to have one 5 years later.
• No clear evidence that blockholders boost firm value; they might be subject to
their own agency problems if their interests are not the same as other investors’.
• External blockholders have greater influence when they hold a board seat.
Barclay and Holderness (1989); Holderness (2003); Core, Holthausen, and Larcker (1999); Mikkelson and Partch (1989)

7. PROXY VOTING
• The proxy voting process is an important mechanisms for shareholders to
influence the corporation.
• Publicly traded companies are required by state law to hold an annual
meeting to elect the board and transact other business that requires
shareholder approval.
• Shareholders are provided advanced notice through a written proxy
statement and vote their shares on ballot items in person or by proxy.
Institutional investors voting record
• “For” a proposal 95% of the time when management is also “for.”
• “Against” a proposal 56% of the time when management is also “against.”
Barclay and Holderness (1989); Holderness (2003); Core, Holthausen, and Larcker (1999); Mikkelson and Partch
(1989); ISS Voting Analytics (2013)

8. PROXY VOTING
• Management proposals are those sponsored by the company, including:
– Election of directors
– Ratification of the auditor
– Approval of equity-compensation plans
– Say-on-pay
– Bylaw changes
• Shareholder proposals are those sponsored by investors, generally relating
to bylaw changes, social policy, and compensation.
• Companies may exclude shareholder proposals if they violate the law, deal
with management functions, capital distributions, or other substantive
matters.

9. 40%
27%
32%
1%
INDIVIDUAL
RELIGIOUS / SOCIAL
LABOR AFFILIATED
OTHER INSTITUTIONAL
PROXY VOTING
• Shareholder proposals are primarily sponsored by individual, religious,
social responsibility, or union-affiliated investors, with mixed results.
2%
26%
31%
32%
42%
58%
72%
80%
0% 50%
REPORT ON PAY DISPARITY
REPORT ON POLITICAL LOBBYING
INDEPENDENT CHAIR
PROXY ACCESS
RIGHT TO CALL SPECIAL MEETING
MAJORITY VOTING
REDUCE SUPERMAJORITY
REQUIREMENTS
DESTAGGER BOARD
SHAREHOLDER PROPOSAL SPONSORS AVERAGE SUPPORT
Proxy Monitor (2014); ISS Proxy Season Review (2013)

10. ACTIVIST INVESTORS
• An activist investor is a shareholder who uses an ownership position to
actively pursue governance changes. Examples might include:
– Labor-affiliated pension fund
– Social responsibility investment fund
– Hedge fund
– Individual investor
• Activist investors play a prominent role in the governance process,
sometimes for the better and sometimes not.

11. PENSION FUNDS
• Public pension funds manage retirement assets on behalf of state, county,
and municipal government employees.
• Private pension funds manage assets on behalf of trade union members.
• Pensions are active in the proxy voting process. However, their activism
has not been shown to have a positive impact on shareholder value or
governance outcomes.
• Companies experience marginal excess stock price returns following
announcement of activism.
• No long-term improvement in operating or stock price performance.
Barber (2007)

12. SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY FUNDS
• Socially responsibility funds cater to investors who want to invest only in
companies whose practices are consistent with specific objectives.
– Fair labor practices
– Environmental sustainability
– Promotion of religious or moral values, etc.
• These funds are visible in the proxy process, although it is only one tool
they use to influence corporate behavior.
• Out of 136 resolutions in 2014, 135 were defeated.
• Average support between 5% and 20%.
• Research is mixed whether socially responsible funds can meet
their objectives without compromising returns.
Proxy Monitor (2014); Geczy, Stambaugh, and Levin (2005); and Renneboog, Ter Horst, and Zhang (2008)

13. ACTIVIST HEDGE FUNDS
• Hedge funds are private pools of capital that engage in a variety of trading
strategies to generate excess returns.
• Hedge funds are known for their high fee structure (2% management fee,
20% carry).
• They face pressure from clients to generate superior performance to justify
these fees. This pressure might encourage activism.
• Target companies with high cash flow and below market values.
• Create positive short-term stock price performance.
• Tend to achieve the objective of activism: resignation of CEO, sale
of company, increased buybacks, etc.
• Long-term financial impact is uncertain.
Brav, Jiang, Thomas, and Partnoy (2008); Klein and Zur (2009); Bebchuk, Brav, and Jiang (2015);
deHaan, Larcker, and McClure (2015)

14. SHAREHOLDER DEMOCRACY
• In recent years, there has been a push by Congress, the SEC, and others to
increase the influence that shareholders have over governance systems
(“shareholder democracy”).
• Advocates believe that it will make board members more accountable to
shareholder concerns.
• Elements of shareholder democracy include:
– Majority voting in uncontested elections.
– Investor right to nominate directors (“proxy access”).
– Investor vote on executive compensation (“say on pay”).
– Engagement with the board.
• Shareholders react negatively to these requirements.
Larcker, Ormazabal, and Taylor (2011)

15. PROXY ADVISORY FIRMS
• Many institutions rely on the recommendations of a third-party advisory
firm to assist them in voting the proxy.
(+) Proxy firms examine all issues on the proxy.
(+) Small investors lack the resources to do this in-house.
(+) Large investors might want a second opinion.
(-) No evidence that their recommendations increase value.
(-) Guidelines tend to apply a one-size-fits-all approach.
(-) Proxy firms might not have sufficient staff or expertise.

16. PROXY ADVISORY FIRMS
• The largest proxy advisory firms are Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS)
and Glass Lewis, whose clients manage $25 trillion and $15 trillion.
• An unfavorable recommendation by ISS can reduce support by 14% to
20%, depending on the nature of the proposal.
• Companies adapt policies to gain proxy advisory support.
• No evidence that proxy advisor recommendations improve performance;
some evidence that they hurt performance.
SEC Commissioner
“It is important to ensure that advisers to institutional investors … are not over-relying on analyses by proxy
advisory firms. No one should be able to outsource their fiduciary duties.”
Bethel and Gillan (2002); The Conference Board, NASDAQ, and Stanford University (2012); Larcker, McCall, and Ormazabal (2013); Larcker, McCall, and
Ormazabal (2015); Gallagher (2015)

17. CONCLUSION
• In theory, shareholders should be in a strong position to influence the
structure of governance systems.
• In practice, shareholders have limited influence, and in some cases they
have conflicting agendas.
• Regulators have attempted to increase the influence of shareholders by
mandating elements of “shareholder democracy.”
• However, shareholders tend to react negatively to these regulations. A
positive impact on governance quality has not yet been demonstrated.

18. BIBLIOGRAPHY
Thomson Reuters Institutional Holdings (13F) Database. 2013.
Michael J. Barclay and Clifford G. Holderness. Private Benefits from Control of Public Corporations. 1989. Journal of Financial
Economics.
Clifford G. Holderness. A Survey of Blockholders and Corporate Control. 2003. Economic Policy Review—Federal Reserve Bank of
New York.
John E. Core, Robert W. Holthausen, and David F. Larcker. Corporate Governance, Chief Executive Officer Compensation, and Firm
Performance. 1999. Journal of Financial Economics.
Wayne H. Mikkelson and Megan Partch. Managers’ Voting Rights and Corporate Control. 1989. Journal of Financial Economics.
ISS Voting Analytics. 2013.
Proxy Monitor. A Report on Corporate Governance and Shareholder Activism. 2014.
ISS. Proxy Season Review: United States. 2013.
Brad Barber. Monitoring the Monitor: Evaluating CalPERS’ Activism. 2007. Journal of Investing.
Christopher Charles Geczy, Robert F. Stambaugh, and David Levin. Investing in Socially Responsible Mutual Funds. 2005. Social
Science Research Network.
Luc Renneboog, Jenke Ter Horst, and Chendi Zhang. The Price of Ethics and Stakeholder Governance: The Performance of Socially
Responsible Mutual Funds. 2008. Journal of Corporate Finance.

19. BIBLIOGRAPHY
Alon Brav, Wei Jiang, Frank Partnoy, and Randall Thomas. Hedge Fund Activism, Corporate Governance, and Firm Performance.
2008. Journal of Finance.
April Klein, and Emanuel Zur. Entrepreneurial Shareholder Activism: Hedge Funds and Other Private Investors. 2009. Journal of
Finance.
Lucian A. Bebchuk, Alon Brav, and Wei Jiang. The Long-Term Effects of Hedge Fund Activism. 2015. Columbia Law Review.
Ed deHaan, David F. Larcker, and Charles McClure. Activists and Value Investors. 2015. Working paper.
David F. Larcker, Gaizka Ormazabal, and Daniel J. Taylor. The Market Reaction to Corporate Governance Regulation. 2011. Journal of
Financial Economics.
Jennifer E. Bethel and Stuart L. Gillan. The Impact of Institutional and Regulatory Environment on Shareholder Voting. 2002.
Financial Management.
The Conference Board, NASDAQ, and the Rock Center for Corporate Governance at Stanford University. The Influence of Proxy
Advisory Firm Voting Recommendations on Say-on-Pay Votes and Executive Compensation Decisions. 2012.
David F. Larcker, Allan L. McCall, and Gaizka Ormazabal. Proxy Advisory Firms and Stock Option Repricing. 2013. Journal of
Accounting and Economics.

20. BIBLIOGRAPHY
David F. Larcker, Allan L. McCall, and Gaizka Ormazabal. Outsourcing Shareholder Voting to Proxy Advisory Firms. 2015. Journal of
Law and Economics.
Daniel M. Gallagher. Gallagher on the Roles of State and Federal Law in Corporate Governance. June 18, 2013 Columbia Law
School’s Blog on Corporations and the Capital Markets.