Shareholder proposals in the new millennium: Shareholder support, board response, and market reaction

被引:131
作者
Thomas, Randall S.
Cotter, James F. [1 ]
机构
[1] Wake Forest Univ, Calloway Sch Business & Accountancy, Winston Salem, NC 27109 USA
[2] Vanderbilt Univ, Sch Law, Owen Grad Sch Management, Nashville, TN 37240 USA
关键词
corporate governance; shareholder proposals;
D O I
10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2007.02.002
中图分类号
F8 [财政、金融];
学科分类号
0202 ;
摘要
Although the owners of publicly traded companies have had the right to offer shareholder proposals using Rule 14a-8 for several decades, the effectiveness of the rule has been frequently questioned because few of these proposals received substantial support from other shareholders and even fewer have been implemented by boards. Using new data from the 2002-2004 proxy seasons, we analyze shareholder voting patterns on these proposals, board reactions to them, and market responses. We find some big changes from earlier periods: many more proposals are receiving majority shareholder support during our sample period relative to earlier studies, and this support has translated into directors implementing more of the actions called for by shareholders. In particular, boards are increasingly willing to remove important anti-takeover defenses, such as the classified board and poison pill, in response to shareholders' requests, something rarely seen in the past. Despite the increase in support for shareholder proposals and board action in response, we find small and insignificant stock market reaction. We conclude that shareholder proposals under Rule 14a-8 have an emerging role in reducing agency costs by increasing director responsiveness to shareholder concerns to open the market more fully to corporate control. (c) 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:368 / 391
页数:24
相关论文
共 21 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 2006, SOCIAL SCI ELECT PUB
[2]   DIVIDEND CLIENTELES AND THE INFORMATION-CONTENT OF DIVIDEND CHANGES [J].
BAJAJ, M ;
VIJH, AM .
JOURNAL OF FINANCIAL ECONOMICS, 1990, 26 (02) :193-219
[3]   VOTING POWER IN THE PROXY PROCESS - THE CASE OF ANTITAKEOVER CHARTER AMENDMENTS [J].
BHAGAT, S ;
JEFFERIS, RH .
JOURNAL OF FINANCIAL ECONOMICS, 1991, 30 (01) :193-225
[4]   Are shareholder proposals all bark and no bite? Evidence from shareholder resolutions to rescind poison pills [J].
Bizjak, JM ;
Marquette, CJ .
JOURNAL OF FINANCIAL AND QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS, 1998, 33 (04) :499-521
[5]  
Black B., 1998, NEW PALGRAVE DICT EC
[6]   Current perspectives on shareholder proposals: Lessons from the 1997 proxy season [J].
Campbell, CJ ;
Gillan, SL ;
Niden, CM .
FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT, 1999, 28 (01) :89-+
[7]   The influence of institutions on corporate governance through private negotiations: Evidence from TIAA-CREF [J].
Carleton, WT ;
Nelson, JM ;
Weisbach, MS .
JOURNAL OF FINANCE, 1998, 53 (04) :1335-1362
[8]   THE STRUCTURE OF CORPORATE-OWNERSHIP - CAUSES AND CONSEQUENCES [J].
DEMSETZ, H ;
LEHN, K .
JOURNAL OF POLITICAL ECONOMY, 1985, 93 (06) :1155-1177
[9]  
ERTIMUR Y, 2006, BOARD DIRECTORS RESP
[10]  
*GEORG SHAR, 2005, ANN CORP GOV REV, P1