I've said this for years, of course, but Keith Paul Bishop points to evidence that confirms it:
Simpson Thacher and Rivel Corporate Governance Intelligence Council took a look at all companies in the S&P 500 over three specific time frames. They found no statistical difference in the financial performance of companies during any of the three time periods between companies that combined the Chairman/CEO roles and those that separated those two roles. Accordingly, they conclude that “there does not appear to be any compelling economic reason for public companies to adopt any particular CEO/chairman structure”. ...
Notwithstanding decades of studies finding no benefit, ISS’ 2017 proxy voting guidelines state that it will generally recommend a vote for separation. My question is why?
Great question.
