Forum Home Page [see Broadridge note below]

 The Shareholder ForumTM`

Fair Investor Access

This public program was initiated in collaboration with The Conference Board Task Force on Corporate/Investor Engagement and with Thomson Reuters support of communication technologies. The Forum is providing continuing reports of the issues that concern this program's participants, as summarized  in the January 5, 2015 Forum Report of Conclusions.

"Fair Access" Home Page

"Fair Access" Program Reference

 

Related Projects 2012-2019

For graphed analyses of company and related industry returns, see

Returns on Corporate Capital

See also analyses of

Shareholder Support Rankings

 
 
 

Forum distribution:

World's largest investment fiduciary supports long term value objectives

 

For the article referenced below by the chief justice of Delaware's Supreme Court advocating fiduciary duties of fund managers to make shareholder decisions based on the long term interests of their ultimate investors, see

  • March 2014, Leo E. Strine, Jr., of the Delaware Court of Chancery (subsequently of the Delaware Supreme Court) in the Columbia Law Review: "Can We Do Better by Ordinary Investors? A Pragmatic Reaction to the Dueling Ideological Mythologysts of Corporate Law"  (54 pages, 457 KB, in PDF format)

Similar views of the need to focus on long term investor interests are presented in the following video interview of a leading global fund manager:

Activism better done behind closed doors: Pro

Tue 25 Mar 14 | 04:30 AM ET

Leon Kamhi, executive director at Hermes Equity Ownership Services, discusses investor activism and says companies should align their actions to the needs of long-term investors.

 

Source: Wall Street Journal, March 25, 2014 article

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL.  |  MARKETS


Markets

BlackRock's Fink Sounds the Alert

 

By David Benoit and Liz Hoffman

Updated March 25, 2014 6:45 p.m. ET

In a shot across the bow of activist investors, BlackRock Inc. Chief Executive Laurence Fink has privately warned big companies that dividends and buybacks that activists favor may create quick returns at the expense of long-term investment.

In so doing, the head of the world's largest money manager by assets lent his voice to a popular criticism of activist investors, even as his firm sometimes aligns with and may benefit from their efforts.

"Many commentators lament the short-term demands of the capital markets," Mr. Fink wrote in the letter reviewed by The Wall Street Journal, sent to the CEO of every S&P 500 company in recent days, according to BlackRock. "We share those concerns, and believe it is part of our collective role as actors in the global capital markets to challenge that trend."


MORE READING


● Read the Letter Sent by Larry Fink

 

 

Mr. Fink doesn't specifically mention in his letter activist hedge funds, which typically take stakes and push for corporate or financial changes, from management ousters to buybacks, dividends and spinoffs. Instead, he addresses a broader concern that markets and companies generally have become too vulnerable to short-term thinking.

But the increasing clout of activists contributed to Mr. Fink's decision to write the letter, people familiar with the matter said. New York-based BlackRock itself votes about a third of the time with dissident shareholders seeking corporate board representation, according to data from D.F. King & Co., a proxy-solicitation firm.

Activists are attracting more assets and enjoying greater acceptance, even as the debate continues over whether they are good for all shareholders and, more broadly, economic growth.

Critics of activists contend that when companies use cash or new debt to buy back shares or pay cash dividends to shareholders they are forgoing the opportunities to invest in labor, production or other potential avenues of future growth.

This month, Leo E. Strine Jr., chief justice of the Delaware Supreme Court, argued that constant pressure from shareholders may distract company executives and hurt returns. "Giving managers some breathing space to do their primary job of developing and implementing profitable business plans would seem to be of great value to most ordinary investors," he wrote in the Columbia Law Review.

Activists, who move in and out of stocks more quickly than long-term managers like BlackRock, have said their actions do more than cause short-term pops.

By better focusing management, shedding low-performing businesses and returning unused cash to investors, companies are on stronger footing for the future, they said.

"The critique that activists are short-termed focus is a red herring that typically comes from underperforming companies that have no choice but to promise bluer skies in days to come," Jared L. Landaw, chief operating officer of Barington Capital Group LP, said in an email. His activist investing firm holds stakes three years, on average, he said.

Unlike activists, BlackRock can't just sell out of most stocks, as about 85% of its $2.3 trillion in equity assets are held in index funds, which mirror collections of stocks. That long-term view drives the firm's thinking, even when it supports activists, said Michelle Edkins, BlackRock's head of corporate governance.

Activists themselves say a big driver of their success in recent years has been the willingness of institutional investors to side with them. Management has to pay more attention when its biggest shareholders echo complaints that others raise.

Dissident shareholders who challenge management scored outright or partial victories in about 60% of board fights in 2013, the highest on record, according to FactSet, whose data go back to 2001.

Of the 30 fights that went all the way to a vote last year, activists won 17.

"Institutional investors are looking at these situations much more on a case-by-case basis" than in the past, said Richard Grossman, a Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP lawyer who represents companies in activist fights. "That pendulum has swung, but it's swung more to the middle."

In 50 board fights from July 2009 through June 2013 that activist-nominated directors were up for election, BlackRock voted for dissident nominees 34% of the time, according to D.F. King.

That compares with 11% for Vanguard Group, one of its largest peers. But it is less than some other big investors, including T. Rowe Price Group Inc. and Fidelity Investments, which backed activists 52% and 44% of the time, respectively.

These types of situations can arise over different views on a number of issues, from buybacks to dividends to corporate breakups.

BlackRock voted for some dissident nominees of Jana Partners LLC in that hedge-fund firm's fight to replace the board of Agrium Inc. last year, according to regulatory filings, a fight that Jana lost. It also supported some of TPG-Axon Capital Management LP's nominees against SandRidge Energy Inc., in which TPG-Axon gained board seats.

BlackRock voted against Carl Icahn in campaigns against Forest Laboratories Inc. in 2011 and Oshkosh Corp. in 2012, filings show. Mr. Icahn lost both those votes, though in later years he gained board seats at Forest.

Ms. Edkins, BlackRock's head of corporate governance, said votes are based on the quality of the nominees proposed by activists, which she said have generally improved. She said activist campaigns still represent a small minority of all situations in which BlackRock votes.

Write to David Benoit at david.benoit@wsj.com and Liz Hoffman at liz.hoffman@wsj.com

Copyright ©2014 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

 

 

This Forum program was open, free of charge, to anyone concerned with investor interests in the development of marketplace standards for expanded access to information for securities valuation and shareholder voting decisions. As stated in the posted Conditions of Participation, the purpose of this public Forum's program was to provide decision-makers with access to information and a free exchange of views on the issues presented in the program's Forum Summary. Each participant was expected to make independent use of information obtained through the Forum, subject to the privacy rights of other participants.  It is a Forum rule that participants will not be identified or quoted without their explicit permission.

This Forum program was initiated in 2012 in collaboration with The Conference Board and with Thomson Reuters support of communication technologies to address issues and objectives defined by participants in the 2010 "E-Meetings" program relevant to broad public interests in marketplace practices. The website is being maintained to provide continuing reports of the issues addressed in the program, as summarized in the January 5, 2015 Forum Report of Conclusions.

Inquiries about this Forum program and requests to be included in its distribution list may be addressed to access@shareholderforum.com.

The information provided to Forum participants is intended for their private reference, and permission has not been granted for the republishing of any copyrighted material. The material presented on this web site is the responsibility of Gary Lutin, as chairman of the Shareholder Forum.

Shareholder Forum™ is a trademark owned by The Shareholder Forum, Inc., for the programs conducted since 1999 to support investor access to decision-making information. It should be noted that we have no responsibility for the services that Broadridge Financial Solutions, Inc., introduced for review in the Forum's 2010 "E-Meetings" program and has since been offering with the “Shareholder Forum” name, and we have asked Broadridge to use a different name that does not suggest our support or endorsement.