My friend and UCLA law colleague Iman Anabtawi has posted a very interesting new paper - Some Skepticism about Increasing Shareholder Power - in which she explains that:
This Article examines shareholder primacists' claims that making boards more accountable to shareholders would go a long way toward solving the agency problem between shareholders and managers and enhancing shareholder welfare. I argue that in the shareholder power debate over whether to vest corporate decisionmaking authority primarily in a firm's shareholders or in its board of directors, shareholder primacists underplay deep rifts among the interests of large-block shareholders - those shareholders most likely to make use of increased shareholder power. The argument for reapportioning decisionmaking authority within the firm away from boards toward shareholders assumes that shareholders are a monolith with the single, overriding objective of maximizing share value. Some of the most significant modern shareholders, however, have private interests that conflict with (1) the goal of maximizing shareholder value generally or (2) the interests of other shareholders who would choose to maximize shareholder value differently, given their peculiar characteristics. Such private interests may induce influential shareholders to engage in rent-seeking behavior at the expense of overall shareholder welfare. In light of this possibility, which I argue is substantial, we would do well to pause before implementing corporate governance measures designed to further empower shareholders.
I found her analysis very helpful in working up my own recent article Shareholder Activism and Institutional Investors, which argues:
Recent years have seen a number of efforts to extend the shareholder franchise, principally so as to empower institutional investors. The logic of these proposals is that institutional investors will behave quite differently than dispersed individual investors. Because they own large blocks, and have an incentive to develop specialized expertise in making and monitoring investments, institutional investors could play a far more active role in corporate governance than dispersed individual investors traditionally have done. Institutional investors holding large blocks thus have more power to hold management accountable for actions that do not promote shareholder welfare. Their greater access to firm information, coupled with their concentrated voting power, might enable them to more actively monitor the firm's performance and to make changes in the board's composition when performance lagged.
In fact, however, institutional investor activism is rare and limited primarily to union and state or local public employee pensions. As a result, institutional investor activism has not - and cannot - prove a panacea for the pathologies of corporate governance. Activist investors pursue agendas not shared by and often in conflict with those of passive investors. Activism by investors undermines the role of the board of directors as a central decision-making body, thereby making corporate governance less effective. Finally, relying on activist institutional investors will not solve the principal-agent problem inherent in corporate governance but rather will merely shift the locus of that problem.
