Voici un article intéressant publié pas Carrie Hall, de la firme E&Y sur les options qui s’offrent aux personnes qui siègent sur des conseils d’administration. L’article présente très clairement les attentes que vous devriez avoir dépendant du type de conseil sur lequel vous œuvrer :
Une entreprise dans laquelle un investisseur en capital de risque (Venture Capital – VC) est actif;
Une entreprise à capital privé (Private Equity – PE);
Une entreprise à propriété familiale.
Les perspectives qui attendent les administrateurs varient en fonction de la structure de gouvernance de ces entreprises. Bonne lecture !
Serving on a private company board has distinct advantages.
For one, you can avoid the rigidity that can constrain public boards, where mounting regulation and shareholder scrutiny have made it harder and more time-consuming to serve, according to The New York Times.
Additionally, private company boards don’t have the same legal liabilities and risks that public company boards face. For example, directors can be more involved in growing the business, rather than acting as a watchdog for shareholders, and work more closely with the CEO and management team.
Le Collège des administrateurs de sociétés est fier de présenter sa 8e Grande conférence en gouvernance de sociétés, qui aura lieu le mardi 4 février 2014, au Parquet du Centre CDP Capital, à Montréal, dès 17 h. Un cocktail dînatoire suivra la conférence.
Lors de l’événement, M. Louis Morisset, président-directeur général de l’Autorité des marchés financiers, agira à titre de conférencier.
Le thème de cette conférence portera sur « La force du régulateur intégré et les grands enjeux de gouvernance ».
La grande majorité des actionnaires de compagnies publiques ne sont pas impliqués dans la gouvernance et dans le management des entreprises dans lesquelles ils ont investi. On peut dire qu’ils font confiance aux mesures prises par les actionnaires plus activistes et par les fonds d’investissement pour garantir un comportement de bon citoyen corporatif et pour prendre des décisions qui auront pour effet d’augmenter la valeur de leur investissement.
Alors quelles seront les priorités des activistes en 2014 pour assurer que les entreprises travaillent dans le meilleur intérêt des actionnaires, petits, moyens et gros …
L’article rédigé par Eleanor Bloxham, PCD de The Value Alliance, dans Fortune présente un sommaire des entrevues que l’auteure a faites avec les principaux actionnaires activistes aux É.U.
Que retrouve-t-on sur l’agenda de ces investisseurs ? Plusieurs priorités en fonction des intérêts que ces groupes d’investisseurs défendent. Cependant, il ressort un certain consensus sur les thèmes suivants :
« Board diversity, executive pay, transparency on political contributions, and human rights improvements »
Je vous invite à lire l’article ci-dessous, dont je produis un court extrait :
Activist shareholders are stockpiling record amounts of cash this year, determined to take on below-par boards. But industry expert Lucy Marcus asks if directors are going too far on the defensive.
Many of us free ride on actions taken by active, long-term shareholders. These unsung heroes goad managers and boards to reach better decisions, make available desirable employment opportunities and, overall, push them to act like good corporate citizens. These active investors accomplish these things by talking to companies, preparing proxy proposals for all shareholders to consider, and offering recommendations on director elections and company-sponsored proxy measures.
What shape can we expect their efforts to take this year? Overall, we can expect more sophisticated requests of companies than we’ve ever seen before, and more direct board member interaction with shareholders.
To get the behind-the-scenes skinny, I asked shareholders and others who know what’s in store this upcoming proxy season. Here are their informed, excerpted, and edited comments:
Photo: Jetta Productions/Getty Images
Également, je vous invite à visionner cette vidéo de 7 minutes produite par Lucy Marcus qui porte sur ce que le Board peut faire pour se préparer à la nouvelle offensive qui s’annonce en 2014 ?
Activist shareholders are stockpiling record amounts of cash this year, determined to take on below-par boards. But industry expert Lucy Marcus asks if directors are going too far on the defensive.
Vous trouverez, ci-dessous, un compte rendu, rédigé par Elizabeth Mullen dans le magazine du NACD (National Association of Corporate Directors), et résultant d’une table ronde portant sur le phénomène des investisseurs activistes.
On notera que plusieurs experts, dans certaines circonstances, considèrent les activistes comme des agents de changement. Voici quelques extraits très intéressants :
Directors must take care to balance their business acumen against shareholders’ opinions, new governance developments, proxy advisory firms’ recommendations, and management’s strategy.
While it is widely accepted that directors’ primary duty is to protect shareholder interests, directors must take care to balance their business acumen against shareholders’ opinions, new governance developments, proxy advisory firms’ recommendations, and management’s strategy, participants said in a recent National Association of Corporate Directors (NACD) roundtable, presented in partnership with AIG and WilmerHale.
Ellen B. Richstone (left), Jeffrey Rudman, and Steve Maggiacomo
“Shareholder activist” and “shareholder activism” are umbrella terms that encompass a range of groups, interests, and modes of action, so boards’ responses naturally will vary depending on their particular situations. Some companies may face the Icahns and Ackmans of the world, who purchase ownership stakes in companies with the hope of gaining board seats and strategic control; or institutional investors like CalPERS, which are vocal in their opinions of the companies in which they invest; and retail investors with less influence but important opinions of their own.
“Fidelity is more likely to be at your feet while Icahn is more likely to be at your throat,” said WilmerHale’s Jeffrey Rudman. Even the types of shareholder activism can vary, said Martin M. Coyne II, ranging from Harvard Business School’s Shareholder Rights Project, to derivative suits following an M&A event, to family-owned companies facing strategic differences, to private companies with initial investors who are highly involved in strategic planning, to highly influential proxy firms.
While all these voices deserve to be heard, Coyne advised boards to remain focused on an end goal, rather than trying to satisfy all parties involved. “When that topic becomes omnipresent and goes from a discussion topic that should be discussed by the board and decided upon—and you start making bad business decisions to satisfy—what it does is take away from succession planning discussions, strategy discussions, operational discussions. It distracts the board and becomes an operational weakness,” he said.
The opinions of Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS), Glass, Lewis & Co., and other proxy advisors should be considered guidelines, not scripture; ensuring a solid reasoning process behind decisions is more important, participants said. Their influence can be a “good wake-up call,” said Shaun B. Higgins, to reevaluate governance practices, such as joint CEO-chair roles or certain types of compensation plans that proxy firms often campaign against. Bringing up these opinions is a jumping-off point for boards to ensure their policies are sound and defensible, and communicate those justifications to shareholders.
“What they bring is awareness to boards that there are certain issues of concern to the public that they have to address thoroughly,” said James J. Morris. “If the board can have a good rationale of why they want it that way, they’re going to be okay.”…
… Boards today must also consider investors’ and stakeholders’ interests beyond the bottom line, particularly when it comes to environmental concerns. Higgins noted that today’s reports and disclosures are more extensive than ever: “If you told me back in 2000 we were going to put corporate social responsibility in the annual report I would have said, ‘Are you kidding me?’ It wasn’t even on our radar screen.”
Participants à la table ronde :
Martin M. Coyne II, Director, Akamai Technologies, RockTech
Peter T. Francis, Director, Dover Corp., Stanford Graduate School of Business
Shaun B. Higgins, Director, Aryzta AG, Carmine Labriola
Scott Hunter, FCA, Director, Allied World Assurance Company Holdings
James G. Jones, CFA, Founder/Portfolio Manager Sterling Investment Advisors; Director, CFA Institute
Jerry L. Levens, Director, Hancock Holding Co.
Steve Maggiacomo, SVP Financial Lines, AIG
James J. Morris, Principal, 2 Ventures; Director, Esterline Technologies, JURA Corp., LORD Corp.
Craig W. Nunez, Chairman and CEO, Bocage Group; Director, Goodwill Industries of Houston, Medical Bridges
Steve Pannucci, Professional Liability Underwriting Manager, AIG
Donald K. Peterson, Director, Sanford C. Bernstein Fund, TIAA-CREF
Ellen B. Richstone, Director, ERI, OpEx Engine, NACD New England
Andrea Robinson, Partner, WilmerHale
Jeffrey Rudman, Partner, WilmerHale
Carole J. Shapazian, Director, Baxter International
Richard Szafranski, Director, Corporate Office Properties Trust, Cleared Solutions
Ce matin, je vous convie à une lecture révélatrice des facteurs qui contribuent aux changements de fond observés dans la gouvernance des grandes sociétés cotées, lesquels sont provoqués par les interventions croissantes des grands investisseurs activistes.
Cet article de quatre pages, publié par John J. Madden de la firme Shearman & Sterling, et paru sur le blogue du Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation, présente les raisons de l’intensification de l’influence des investisseurs dans la stratégie et la direction des entreprises, donc de la gouvernance, un domaine du ressort du conseil d’administration, représentants des actionnaires … et des parties prenantes.
English: Study on alternative investments by institutional investors. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Après avoir expliqué l’évolution récente dans le monde de la gouvernance, l’auteur brosse un tableau plutôt convainquant des facteurs d’accélération de l’influence des activistes eu égard aux orientations stratégiques.
Les raisons qui expliquent ces changements peuvent être résumées de la manière suivante :
Un changement d’attitude des grands investisseurs, représentant maintenant 66 % du capital des grandes corporations, qui conduit à des intérêts de plus en plus centrés sur l’accroissement de la valeur ajoutée pour les actionnaires;
Un nombre accru de campagnes (+ de 50 %) initiées par des activistes lesquelles se traduisent par des victoires de plus en plus éclatantes;
Un retour sur l’investissement élevé (13 % entre 2009 et 2012) accompagné par des méthodes analytiques plus sophistiquées et plus crédibles (livres blancs);
Un accroissement du capital disponible notamment par l’apport de plus en plus grand des investisseurs institutionnels (fonds de pension, compagnies d’assurance, fonds commun de placement, caisses de retraite, etc.);
Un affaiblissement dans les moyens de défense des C.A. et une meilleure communication entre les actionnaires;
Un intérêt de plus en plus marqué des C.A. et de la direction par un engagement avec les investisseurs activistes.
À l’avenir, les activistes vont intensifier leurs efforts pour exiger des changements organisationnels significatifs (accroissement des dividendes, réorganisation des unités d’affaires, modification des règles de gouvernance, présence sur les conseils, séparation des rôles de PCD et PCA, alignement de la rémunération des dirigeants avec la performance, etc.).
Ci-dessous, un extrait des passages les plus significatifs. Bonne lecture !
One of the signal developments in 2012 was the emerging growth of the form of shareholder activism that is focused on the actual business and operations of public companies. We noted that “one of the most important trendline features of
2012 has been the increasing amount of strategic or operational activism. That is, shareholders pressuring boards not on classic governance subjects but on the actual strategic direction or management of the business of the corporation.”… Several of these reform initiatives of the past decade continue to be actively pursued. More recently, however, the most significant development in the activism sphere has been in strategically-focused or operationally-focused activism led largely by hedge funds.
The 2013 Acceleration of “Operational” Activism
Some of this operational activism in the past few years was largely short-term return focused (for example, pressing to lever up balance sheets to pay extraordinary dividends or repurchase shares), arguably at the potential risk of longer-term corporate prosperity, or simply sought to force corporate dispositions; and certainly there continues to be activism with that focus. But there has also emerged another category of activism, principally led by hedge funds, that brings a sophisticated analytical approach to critically examining corporate strategy and capital management and that has been able to attract the support of mainstream institutional investors, industry analysts and other market participants. And this growing support has now positioned these activists to make substantial investments in even the largest public companies. Notable recent examples include ValueAct’s $2.2 billion investment in Microsoft (0.8%), Third Point’s $1.4 billion investment in Sony (7%), Pershing Square’s $2 billion investment in Procter & Gamble (1%) and its $2.2 billion investment in Air Products & Chemicals (9.8%), Relational Investor’s $600 million investment in PepsiCo (under 1%), and Trian Fund Management’s investments of $1.2 billion in DuPont (2.2%) and of more than $1 billion in each of PepsiCo and Mondelez. Interestingly, these investors often embark on these initiatives to influence corporate direction and decision-making with relatively small stakes when measured against the company’s total outstanding equity—as in Microsoft, P&G, DuPont and PepsiCo, for example; as well as in Greenlight Capital’s 1.3 million share investment in Apple, Carl Icahn’s 5.4% stake in Transocean, and Elliot Management’s 4.5% stake in Hess Corp.
In many cases, these activists target companies with strong underlying businesses that they believe can be restructured or better managed to improve shareholder value. Their focus is generally on companies with underperforming share prices (often over extended periods of time) and on those where business strategies have failed to create value or where boards are seen as poor stewards of capital.
Reasons for the Current Expansion of Operational Activism
Evolving Attitudes of Institutional Investors.
… Taken together, these developments have tended to test the level of confidence institutional investors have in the ability of some boards to act in a timely and decisive fashion to adjust corporate direction, or address challenging issues, when necessary in the highly competitive, complex and global markets in which businesses operate. And they suggest a greater willingness of investors to listen to credible external sources with new ideas that are intelligently and professionally presented.
Tangible evidence of this evolution includes the setting up by several leading institutional investors such as BlackRock, CalSTRS and T. Rowe Price of their own internal teams to assess governance practices and corporate strategies to find ways to improve corporate performance. As the head of BlackRock’s Corporate Governance and Responsible Investor team recently commented, “We can have very productive and credible conversations with managements and boards about a range of issues—governance, performance and strategy.”
Increasing Activist Campaigns Generally; More Challenger Success. The increasing number of activist campaigns challenging incumbent boards—and the increasing success by challengers—creates an encouraging market environment for operational activism. According to ISS, the resurgence of contested board elections, which began in 2012, continued into the 2013 proxy season. Proxy contests to replace some or all incumbent directors went from 9 in the first half of 2009 to 19 in the first half of 2012 and 24 in the first half of 2013. And the dissident win rate has increased significantly, from 43% in 2012 to 70% in 2013. Additionally, in July 2013, Citigroup reported that the number of $1 billion + activist campaigns was expected to reach over 90 for 2013, about 50% more than in 2012.
Attractive Investment Returns; Increasing Sophistication and Credibility. While this form of activism has certainly shown mixed results in recent periods (Pershing Square’s substantial losses in both J.C. Penney and Target have been among the most well-publicized examples of failed initiatives), the overall recent returns have been strong. Accordingly to Hedge Fund Research in Chicago, activist hedge funds were up 9.6% for the first half of 2013, and they returned an average of nearly 13% between 2009 and 2012.
In many instances, these activists develop sophisticated and detailed business and strategic analyses—which are presented in “white papers” that are provided to boards and managements and often broadly disseminated—that enhance their credibility and help secure the support, it not of management, of other institutional shareholders.
Increasing Investment Capital Available; Greater Mainstream Institutional Support. The increasing ability of activist hedge funds to raise new money not only bolsters their firepower, but also operates to further solidify the support they garner from the mainstream institutional investor community (a principal source of their investment base). According to Hedge Fund Research, total assets under management by activist hedge funds has doubled in the past four years to $84 billion today. And through August this year their 2013 inflows reached $4.7 billion, the highest inflows since 2006. Particularly noteworthy in this regard, Pershing Square’s recent $2.2 billion investment in Air Products & Chemicals was funded in part with capital raised for a standalone fund dedicated specifically to Air Products, without disclosing the target’s name to investors.
In addition to making capital available, mainstream institutions are demonstrating greater support for these activists more generally. In a particularly interesting vote earlier this year, at the May annual meeting of Timken Co., 53% of the shareholders voting supported the non-binding shareholder proposal to split the company in two, which had been submitted jointly by Relational Investors (holding a 6.9% stake) and pension fund CalSTRS (holding 0.4%). To build shareholder support for their proposal, Relational and CalSTRS reached out to investors both in person and through the internet. Relational ran a website (unlocktimken . com) including detailed presentations and supportive analyst reports. They also secured the support of ISS and Glass Lewis. Four months after the vote, in September, Timken announced that it had decided to spin off its steel-making business.
The Timken case is but one example of the leading and influential proxy advisory firms to institutional investors increasingly supporting activists. Their activist support has been particularly noticeable in the context of activists seeking board representation in nominating a minority of directors to boards.
These changes suggest a developing blurring of the lines between activists and mainstream institutions. And it may be somewhat reminiscent of the evolution of unsolicited takeovers, which were largely shunned by the established business and financial communities in the early 1980s, although once utilized by a few blue-chip companies they soon became a widely accepted acquisition technique.
Weakened Board-Controlled Defenses; Increasing Communication Among Shareholders. The largely successful efforts over the past decade by certain pension funds and other shareholder-oriented organizations to press for declassifying boards, redeeming poison pills and adopting majority voting in director elections have diminished the defenses available to boards in resisting change of control initiatives and other activist challenges. Annual board elections and the availability of “withhold” voting in the majority voting context increases director vulnerability to investor pressure.
And shareholders, particularly institutional shareholders and their representative organizations, are better organized today for taking action in particular situations. The increasing and more sophisticated forms of communication among shareholders—including through the use of social media—is part of the broader trend towards greater dialogue between mainstream institutions and their activist counterparts. In his recent op-ed article in The Wall Street Journal, Carl Icahn said he would use social media to make more shareholders aware of their rights and how to protect them, writing that he had set up a Twitter account for that purpose (with over 80,000 followers so far) and that he was establishing a forum called the Shareholders Square Table to further these aims.
Corporate Boards and Managements More Inclined to Engage with Activists. The several developments referenced above have together contributed to the greater willingness today of boards and managements to engage in dialogue with activists who take investments in their companies, and to try to avoid actual proxy contests.
One need only look at the recent DuPont and Microsoft situations to have a sense of this evolution toward engagement and dialogue. After Trian surfaced with its investment in DuPont, the company’s spokesperson said in August 2013: “We are aware of Trian’s investment and, as always, we routinely engage with our shareholders and welcome constructive input. We will evaluate any ideas Trian may have in the context of our ongoing initiatives to build a higher value, higher growth company for our shareholders.” Also in August, Microsoft announced its agreement with ValueAct to allow the activist to meet regularly with the company’s management and selected directors and give the activist a board seat next year; thereby avoiding a potential proxy contest for board representation by ValueAct. Soon thereafter, on September 17, Microsoft announced that it would raise its quarterly dividend by 22% and renew its $40 billion share buyback program; with the company’s CFO commenting that this reflected Microsoft’s continued commitment to returning cash to its shareholders.
What to Expect Ahead
The confluence of the factors identified above has accelerated the recent expansion of operational activism, and there is no reason in the current market environment to expect that this form of activism will abate in the near term. In fact, the likelihood is that it will continue to expand… Looking ahead, we fully expect to see continuing efforts to press for the structural governance reforms that have been pursued over the past several years. Campaigns to separate the Chair and CEO roles at selected companies will likely continue to draw attention as they did most prominently this year at JPMorgan Chase. And executive compensation will remain an important subject of investor attention, and of shareholder proposals, at many companies where there is perceived to be a lack of alignment between pay and performance. We can also expect that the further development of operational activism, and seeing how boards respond to it, will be a central feature of the governance landscape in the year ahead.
Articles reliés au sujet des actionnaires activistes :
Voici un document australien de KPMG, très bien conçu, qui répond clairement aux questions que tous les administrateurs de sociétés se posent dans le cours de leurs mandats.
Même si la publication est dédiée à l’auditoire australien de KPMG, je crois que la réalité règlementaire nord-américaine est trop semblable pour se priver d’un bon « kit » d’outils qui peut aider à constituer un Board efficace. C’est un formidable document électronique de 130 pages, donc long à télécharger. Voyez la table des matières ci-dessous.
J’ai demandé à KPMG de me procurer une version française du même document mais il ne semble pas en exister. Bonne lecture en cette fin d’année 2013 et Joyeuses Fêtes à tous et à toutes.
Our business environment provides an ever-changing spectrum of risks and opportunities. The role of the director continues to be shaped by a multitude of forces including economic uncertainty, larger and more complex organisations, the increasing pace of technological innovation and digitisation along with a more rigorous regulatory environment.
At the same time there is more onus on directors to operate transparently and be more accountable for their actions and decisions.
To support directors in their challenging role KPMG has created The Directors’ Toolkit. This guide, in a user-friendly electronic format, empowers directors to more effectively discharge their duties and responsibilities while improving board performance and decision-making.
Key topics :
Duties and responsibilities of a director
Oversight of strategy and governance
Managing shareholder and stakeholder expectations
Structuring an effective board and sub-committees
Enabling key executive appointments
Managing productive meetings
Better practice terms of reference, charters and agendas
Depuis le début de la parution du blogue, le 19 juillet, j’ai publié 820 billets en gouvernance et suscité l’intérêt d’environ 75 000 personnes. Le blogue a eu trois fois plus de visiteurs dans la dernière année. Beaucoup d’abonnés au blogue se servent de l’outil de recherche (situé au bas de la page) afin d’obtenir des informations pertinentes et d’actualité sur leurs questionnements en gouvernance. À ce stade-ci, mon objectif est d’avoir plus de 50 000 visiteurs pour l’année 2014.
Le référencement se fait principalement par LinkedIn (43 %) et par des engins de recherche tels que Google (43 %); le reste (14 %) se réparti entre plusieurs autres réseaux sociaux.
Le partage des billets se fait par l’intermédiaire de LinkedIn (40 %), Twitter (29 %), Facebook (22 %) et Tumblr (9 %).
Le site est fréquenté par des visiteurs provenant :
du Canada (59 %)
de la France (20 %) (incluant Suisse et Belgique)
du Magreb (4 %) (Maroc, Tunisie, Algérie)
d’autres pays de diverses provenance (17 %).
J’en profite pour remercier à nouveau tous les lecteurs qui, par leurs votes, ont exprimé leur appréciation du blogue lors du concours organisé par Made In Blog (MiB) à l’échelle canadienne. Notre blogue a obtenu la deuxième position parmi les soixante-cinq (65)blogues de la catégorie Business/marketing/médias sociaux, le seul candidat finaliste dans le domaine de la gouvernance. Nous sommes honorés de cette marque de reconnaissance.
Rappelons que ce blogue fait l’inventaire des documents les plus pertinents et récents en gouvernance des entreprises. La sélection des billets, « posts », est le résultat d’une veille assidue des articles de revues, des blogues et sites web dans le domaine de la gouvernance, des publications scientifiques et professionnelles, des études et autres rapports portant sur la gouvernance des sociétés, au Canada et dans d’autres pays, notamment aux États-Unis, au Royaume-Uni, en France, en Europe, et en Australie.
Chaque jour, je fais un choix parmi l’ensemble des publications récentes et pertinentes et je commente brièvement la publication. L’objectif de ce blogue est d’être la référence en matière de documentation en gouvernancedans le monde francophone, en fournissant aux lecteurs une mine de renseignements récents (les billets quotidiens) ainsi qu’un outil de recherche simple et facile à utiliser pour répertorier les publications en fonction des catégories les plus pertinentes
Notre groupe de discussion sur LinkedIn, Administrateurs de sociétés – Gouvernance, sous l’égide du Collège des administrateurs de sociétés (CAS), a connu une croissance remarquable au cours des dernières années, passant de 372 membres, au 1er septembre 2012, à 858 membres au 26 décembre 2013.
Notre objectif est de demeurer le groupe francophone de référence en gouvernance le plus actif et le plus influent en 2014 sur LinkedIn.
Au cours de cette période, nous avons réussi à maintenir un haut niveau de respect dans nos échanges, et à provoquer de saines discussions sur des thèmes relatifs à la gouvernance de tous les types d’entreprises évoluant dans des environnements règlementaires différents (USA, CANADA, UK, UE).
En tant qu’administrateur et contributeur principal de ce groupe, je vous remercie vivement de vos contributions à l’avancement des connaissances dans le domaine de la gouvernance.
Au nom du CAS, et en mon nom personnel, je vous souhaite un excellent temps des Fêtes et une année 2014 à la hauteur de vos aspirations.
Merci encore de votre présence soutenue au blogue Gouvernance | Jacques Grisé ainsi qu’au groupe de discussion Administrateurs de sociétés – Gouvernance du CAS.
Aujourd’hui, veille de Noel, je vous présente les sommaires des Think-tank produit par Board Intelligence, une firme spécialisée dans les informations sur les conseils d’administration. Celle-ci a tenu une série de débats sur la réinvention des règles de gouvernance en demandant aux panels de se prononcer sur la question suivante :
“If you could rip up the rule book, what would good governance look like ?”
Voici les résumés des résultats les plus remarquables présentés dans FT.com. Bonne lecture et Joyeux Noel !
Stressing the importance of company boards can weaken the sense of accountability among management and staff, according to participants in a recent debate.
They agreed there is a strong case for saying an organisation lives or dies by the actions and inactions of its management team, rather than the board, and that employees were a better indicator of how a company is run than scrutiny of the board.
An alternative boardroom model was suggested, drawing on the way some executive committees operate, where the chief executive seeks consultation rather than consensus. Perhaps the chairman could have a similar function.
Chairmen of the Bored (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
This might also reflect the reality of the near-impossible task faced by non-executive directors. One participant said: “A non-executive is on a hiding to nothing – and to do the job properly, they need smaller portfolios and better pay. When things go wrong, they can expect to be tried in the court of public opinion.”
It was argued that this is becoming such a trend that many talented candidates are no longer willing to take on the role. “I wouldn’t take a non-executive role in a big and complex global bank. The mismatch between what you are accountable for and your ability to affect it is enormous,” one commented.
“To do the job of the non-exec properly you have to get out of the boardroom and into the organisation. You have to experience the business for yourself and not just take management’s word for it.”
There were also complaints about the amount of time required to do the job of the non-executive: “It’s not 12 days a year at £1,500 per day – it’s at least 30 days. Given the opportunity cost of what an accomplished person could be doing with their time, and given the risk you carry as a non-executive, why do it?”
If we don’t go so far as to rip up the governance rule book, at least we should make it shorter, they agreed. Rules will always have unintended consequences and breed perverse outcomes – and fear of falling foul of the rules can
lead boards to document as little as possible to maintain “plausible deniability”.
At a subsequent debate it was proposed there should be a register to name and shame – and praise – the performance of non-executives. At present, shareholders’ opinion of a non-executive and their decision on re-electing them is based on gut feeling. A public register would be helpful in forming a judgment, listing statistics about the number of boards the non-executive is on, the time they allocate to each and notable events that took place on their watch
There are chairmen with such large portfolios they could not possibly allocate sufficient time to each board, they argued. A public register would make this much more transparent.
Débats entre cinq présidents de conseils et un PCD
The five chairmen and chief executives attending a recent think-tank discussion accepted that even improved boards cannot prevent all corporate crises and expressed concern at this overly “defensive” role. They argued that “stopping bad things happening” must be tempered by helping “good things happen”.
The participants agreed that non-executives must have the confidence to challenge the chairman and chief executive. One said: “Having sat on the board of my employer as an executive, I have come to the conclusion that it is a hopeless role. When the chief executive is sitting opposite, it is fairly obvious how you’re supposed to respond to the question ‘what do you think?’
“Board meetings are not a good use of time. We don’t question why we’re doing what we’re doing.”
The group concluded that “small is beautiful: small boards, small briefing packs, small agenda, and small rule book”.
At a subsequent dinner, also attended by chairmen and chief executives, a call was made for boards to be more realistic about their limitations and to be more discerning about where they focus their efforts
For example, boards attempt to scrutinise specific investment decisions when the information they can absorb and the time available for discussion mean substantive challenge or insights are unlikely.
On the other hand, it was pointed out that boards are also held liable for the detail as well as the big picture. Even so, attempting to meet these conflicting responsibilities by “clogging up the board agenda with too many matters to explore properly” cannot be the answer, they agreed.
The participants argued that the governance rule book is ineffective and that boards should instead be subject to an annual review of their effectiveness.
A need for “better memories, rather than better rules or regulations”, was stressed and the recommendation that non-executives should stand down after nine years was criticised for institutionalising the short-term memory of the boardroom.
One said: “When our bank repeated its mistakes from the early 1990s, it wasn’t the bank that suffered from amnesia – it was just the board.”
The chairmen and chief executives concluded that UK business suffers from a short-term “sell-out” culture. It was argued that in the US, business leaders who are successful will strive to be yet more successful and in Germany, successful businesses are nurtured for the next generation. But in the UK, business people aspire to have just enough to “retire to the Old Rectory”. One said: “We lack the ambition – or greed – of the Americans and we don’t feel the duty of the Germans. We need to raise the level of ambition – and sense of duty.”
Débats entre présidents de conseils
Boards are failing at strategy and becoming increasingly focused on costs, according to a think-tank debate attended by chairmen. One said: “We need the conversation in the boardroom to be two levels ‘higher’. Many of our largest companies are sitting on cash and they need to get back to strategy and invest in the future – or there won’t be one.”
It was suggested that advisory boards, unfettered by concerns of liability and governance, might be better at tackling strategy – and might attract creative people who would otherwise be put off joining boards by the burden of governance.
The chairmen also asked whether more of a board’s work could be handled by committees, as they can be more focused and effective.
They also questioned whether age and experience should continue to take precedence over training and education when appointing board members. One view was that boardroom skills are becoming more specialised and need to be learned.
Regulators came under fire from the chairmen. They were accused of not understanding the businesses they are regulating and of treating non-executives as executives.
The meeting also referred to the spread of regulation from the financial services sector. One said: “We have a two-tier corporate world: financial services and the rest. But what starts as regulation of financial services bleeds through to the rest.”
The participants warned that because boards are out of touch with society, there is a danger of a backlash and the emergence of an “anti-business” movement.
The relationship between society and business was also raised at a subsequent debate. One view was that the future of the corporation depends on it being redesigned and finance returned to its proper, subservient role of supporting the wider economy.
All businesses should demonstrate public benefit – just as charities have to show a public benefit in return for charitable status, businesses should do the same, perhaps in return for limited liability status.
Another view was that voluntary sector leaders should be encouraged to join corporate boards, because of their specific skills, including in reputation and risk management.
Participants went on to call for younger, more vibrant boards. “You should see the faces of the future – not just the past,” said one. The concern that young executives are too busy to join boards was rejected and some chairmen were blamed for claiming to support diversity of age but then not allowing their executives to join someone else’s board.
It was also argued that businesses and boards need permission to fail. “What business or person can achieve great things without the possibility of failure?” one asked.
Vous pouvez lire les résultats des dix autres débats en vous référant à l’article en référence.
À chaque année, la firme Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS) revoit son processus d’établissement des recommandations qui guide les actionnaires dans leurs votes aux assemblées annuelles.
On entend souvent parler des politiques de ISS concernant la gouvernance des sociétés mais on ne saisit pas toujours la méthodologie derrière les recommandations aux actionnaires.
Le document ci-dessous présente les mises à jour des recommandations qui s’adressent aux entreprises canadiennes cotées en bourse. Je crois que c’est un document de référence majeur pour les actionnaires qui doivent se doter d’un conseil d’administration exemplaire et de règles de gouvernance en relation avec les intérêts des actionnaires. Bonne lecture !
Ci-dessous, vous trouverez le sommaire du processus de formulation des politiques de ISS, suivi des éléments constituant la table des matières.
Each year, ISS’ Global Policy Board conducts a robust, inclusive, and transparent global policy formulation process that produces the benchmark proxy voting guidelines that will be used during the upcoming year.
The policy review and update process begins with an internal review of emerging issues and notable trends across global markets. Based on data gathered throughout the year (particularly from client and issuer feedback), ISS forms policy committees by governance topics and markets. As part of this process, the policy team examines academic literature, other empirical research, and relevant commentary. ISS also conducts surveys, convenes roundtable discussions, and posts draft policies for review and comment. Based on this broad input, ISS’ Global Policy Board reviews and approves final drafts and policy updates for the following proxy year. Annual updated policies are announced in November and apply to meetings held on and after February 1 of the following year.
Also, as part of the process, ISS collaborates with clients with customized approaches to proxy voting. ISS helps these clients develop and implement policies based on their organizations’ specific mandates and requirements. In addition to the ISS regional benchmark (standard research) policies, ISS’ research analysts apply more than 400 specific policies, including specialty policies for Socially Responsible Investors, Taft-Hartley funds and managers, and Public Employee Pension Funds, as well as hundreds of fully customized policies that reflect clients’ unique corporate governance philosophies. The vote recommendations issued under these policies often differ from those issued under the ISS benchmark policies. ISS estimates that the majority of shares that are voted by ISS’ clients fall under ISS’ custom or specialty recommendations.
This document presents the changes being made to ISS’ Benchmark Canadian Corporate Governance Policies. The full text of the updates, detailed results from the Policy Survey, and comments received during the open comment period, are all available on ISS’ Web site under the Policy Gateway.
Table des matières du document de mise à jour
BOARD
Voting on Director Nominees in Uncontested Elections
Definition of Independence – TSX and TSXV
2014 ISS Canadian Definition of Independence
Persistent Problematic Audit Related Practices – TSX
Voting on Directors for Egregious Actions – TSX and TSXV
Board Responsiveness – TSX and TSXV
Director Attendance & Overboarding – TSX
SHAREHOLDER RIGHTS & DEFENSES
Advance Notice Requirement for Director Nominations – TSX and TSXV
Enhanced Shareholder Meeting Quorum for Contested Director Election – TSX and TSXV
Le rapport annuel de Davies est toujours très attendu car il brosse un tableau très complet de l’évolution de la gouvernance au Canada. De plus, c’est un document publié en français.
Je vous invite donc à en prendre connaissance en lisant le court résumé ci-dessous et, si vous voulez en savoir plus sur les thèmes abordés, vous pouvez télécharger le document sur le site de l’entreprise.
Depuis la diversité au sein des conseils jusqu’aux risques liés aux marchés émergents, en passant par l’activisme actionnarial, cette troisième édition du Rapport de Davies sur la gouvernance, notre compte rendu annuel, analyse l’actualité sur de nombreuses questions d’intérêt pour les conseils d’administration et les observateurs du paysage de la gouvernance au Canada.
Dans le premier chapitre, Administrateurs et conseils d’administration, nous faisons le point sur l’évolution de la composition des conseils d’administration au Canada, les appels à la diversité au sein de ces conseils et des équipes de direction ainsi que les idées proposées par les autorités de réglementation et les investisseurs à cet égard. Dans le chapitre intitulé Rémunération des membres de la haute direction et des administrateurs, nous faisons état de la popularité grandissante du vote consultatif sur la rémunération de la haute direction et proposons des mesures que peuvent prendre les conseils d’administration pour éviter d’être pris de court par le résultat d’un tel vote. Dans le chapitre intitulé Questions relatives au vote des actionnaires, nous nous intéressons aux nouveautés concernant la question de l’intégrité du vote des actionnaires au Canada, les initiatives de réglementation des agences de conseil en vote et la pratique du vote à la majorité parmi les émetteurs. Dans le chapitre intitulé Initiatives des actionnaires, nous mettons en lumière les tendances et les questions d’actualité comme l’« achat de votes », la rémunération offerte aux administrateurs par les dissidents et le « vote vide » ainsi que les règlements de préavis. Dans le chapitre intitulé Surveillance des risques : les activités sur les marchés émergents, nous examinons comment les émetteurs gèrent les risques associés à leurs activités sur les marchés émergents ainsi que les nouveautés importantes touchant la législation et la mise en application de la loi en matière de lutte contre la corruption. Enfin, dans le chapitre intitulé Régimes de droits : gouvernance et changement de contrôle, nous analysons les deux cadres de réglementation des régimes de droits en situation de prise de contrôle proposés cette année par les autorités canadiennes en valeurs mobilières.
Vous trouverez ci-dessous un condensé de l’entente intervenue par les institutions européennes concernant la réforme de l’audit. Ce résumé nous est transmis par ecoDa- The European Confederation of Directors’ Associations, dont le Collège des administrateurs de sociétés (CAS) est l’un des membres affiliés.
Voici donc un bref résumé suivi d’une présentation sommaire des principaux changements convenus. À la suite de cet article d’ecoDa, vous trouverez le point de vue de Julia Irvine présenté dans Economia. Bonne lecture !
Yesterday, the European institutions managed to get a provisional agreement in trilogue on the reform of the audit sector. With the agreement, audit firms will be required to rotate every 10 years. Public interest entities will only be able to extend the audit tenure once, upon tender. Under this measure, joint audit will also be encouraged. To avoid the risk of self-review, several non-audit services are prohibited under a strict ‘black list’, including stringent limits on tax advice and on services linked to the financial and investment strategy of the audit client. In addition, a cap on the provision of non-audit services is introduced.
Audit reform
1. A clarified societal role for auditors
Increased audit quality : In order to reduce the ‘expectation gap’ between what is expected from auditors and what they are bound to deliver, the new rules will require auditors to produce more detailed and informative audit reports, with a required focus on relevant information to investors.
The legislative triangle of the European Union (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Enhanced transparency : Strict transparency requirements will be introduced for auditors with stronger reporting obligations vis-à-vis supervisors. Increased communication between auditors and the audit committee of an audited entity is requested.
Better accountability : The work of auditors will be closely supervised by audit committees, whose competences are strengthened. In addition, the package introduces the possibility for 5% of the shareholders of the company to initiate actions to dismiss the auditors. A set of administrative sanctions that can be applied by the competent authorities is also foreseen for breaches of the new rules.
2. A strong independence regime
Mandatory rotation of audit firms : Audit firms will be required to rotate after an engagement period of 10 years. After maximum 10 years, the period can be extended by up to 10 additional years if tenders are carried out, and by up to 14 additional years in case of joint audit, i.e. if the company being audited appoints more than one audit firm to carry out its audit. A calibrated transitional period taking into account the duration of the audit engagement is foreseen to avoid a cliff effect following the entry into force of the new rules.
Prohibition of certain non-audit services : Audit firms will be strictly prohibited from providing non-audit services to their audit clients, including stringent limits on tax advice and services linked to the financial and investment strategy of the audit client. This aims to limit risk of conflicts of interest, when auditors are involved in decisions impacting the management of a company. This will also substantially limit the ‘self-review’ risks for auditors.
Cap on the provision of non-audit services: To reduce the risks of conflicts of interest, the new rules will introduce a cap of 70% on the fees generated for non-audit services others than those prohibited based on a three-year average at the group level.
3. A more dynamic and competitive EU audit market
A Single Market for statutory audit : The new rules will provide a level playing field for auditors at EU level through enhanced cross-border mobility and the harmonisation of International Standards on Auditing (ISAs).
More choice : In order to promote competition, the new rules prohibit restrictive ‘Big Four only’ third party clauses imposed on companies. Incentives for joint audit and tendering will be introduced, and a proportionate application of the rules will be applied to avoid extra burden for small and mid-tier audit firms. Tools to monitor the concentration of the audit market will be reinforced.
Enhanced supervision of the audit sector : Cooperation between national supervisors will be enhanced at EU level, with a specific role devoted to the European Markets and Securities Authority (ESMA) with regard to international cooperation on audit oversight.
Voici également le point de vue de Julia Irvine présenté dans Economia.
Listed companies will have to tender their audit every 10 years and rotate auditors every 20 years after trilogue agreement was reached this morning on a package of audit reform measures
Certain non-audit services – such as some tax and corporate finance advice – which impact on an audit client’s financial and investment strategy, will be banned, and shareholders will find it easier to initiate action to get the auditors dismissed.
The measures, which were agreed between the European Parliament and the Lithuanian EU presidency, still have to be approved later this week by COREPER, the committee of permanent representatives of the member states. The European Parliament will then have to formally adopt the text next year.
Negotiations over audit reform reached stalemate earlier this month and led to the decision by British MEP and lead rapporteur Sajjad Karim to cancel scheduled trilogue discussions “because of a lack of will by some parties to compromise”. The major sticking points were mandatory rotation of auditors and non-audit services.
However, the breakthrough came today, thanks to “constructive efforts from all sides to find a way forward”, Karim said, adding that the compromise on a 20-year timespan for rotation was workable and a “considerable improvement on the commission’s original proposal”.
The agreed measures ensure that auditors will be key contributors to economic and financial stability through increased audit quality, stronger independence requirements and more open and dynamic EU audit market.
Other measures under the agreement include extending companies that have joint auditors can extend the 20 years to 24 and a four-year transitional period to avoid every company going out to tender at the same time.
Auditors will be prohibited from providing certain non-audit services to audit clients, including “stringent limits” on tax advice and services. The measures also include a 70% cap on fees from all other non-audit services, based on a three-year average at group level.
Big Four only clauses are banned and incentives for joint audit and tendering (as yet unspecified) are to be introduced. It is also intended that the rules will be applied proportionately to avoid extra burdens on small and mid-tier audit firms.
Auditors will have to provide more detailed and informative audit reports, focusing on relevant information for investors, they will be bound by strict transparency requirements in their communications with supervisors and will generally be required to talk more often to a client’s audit committee.
Shareholders will be able to start action to dismiss the auditors, provided 5% of them collaborate.
Finally, the package of measures will ensure a level playing field for auditors throughout the European Union through enhanced cross-border mobility and harmonisation of international auditing standards.
EU commissioner Michel Barnier hailed the outline agreement as “the first step towards increasing audit quality and re-establishing investor confidence in financial information, an essential ingredient for investment and economic growth in Europe”.
Auditors, he said, played an important societal role by providing stakeholders with an accurate reflection of the veracity of companies’ financial statements. “However, a number of banks were given clean bills of health despite huge losses from 2007 onwards. In relation to the real economy, inspection reports from the member states revealed lack of professional scepticism by auditors, misstatements and a lack of fresh thinking in the audits of major companies because of the average long-lasting relationship between the auditor and their clients.
“Taken all together, the agreed measures ensure that auditors will be key contributors to economic and financial stability through increased audit quality, stronger independence requirements and more open and dynamic EU audit markets.”
Karim added, “The European Parliament is optimistic that the proposal can be approved by a majority of member states and MEPs, considering it is a balanced compromise that will go a long way towards restoring confidence in the audit market.”
Initial reaction from the profession to the news was cautious. ICAEW chief executive Michael Izza said that after three years of debate and hard work, there was now hope that the follow-up work might be achieved before the EU elections on 22 May next year.
“Focus now needs to move to the transition and practical implications,” he said. “It is important not to underestimate the considerable practical impact the reform package will have, not only on the auditing profession but also on companies across the EU.
“It will take time for everybody involved – the profession, business, regulators – to work through the details and get to grips with all the changes.”
Voici un article très intéressant sur un sujet peu abordé dans ce blogue et peu discuté dans les « actualités » en gouvernance; il s’agit des nouvelles réglementations susceptibles d’affecter la gestion des grandes firmes d’audit.
Rappelons que les BIG-FOUR étaient auto réglementées avant 2002. La loi Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) a limité les mandats de consultation que les firmes d’audit effectuaient pour le compte de leurs clients de services d’audit, en plus de mettre sur pied une nouvelle autorité de réglementation, le « Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) ».
Les autorités réglementaires américaines et européennes étudient diverses propositions de changement dont les suivantes :
l’ajout d’une section dans le rapport d’audit qui soulignerait clairement les éléments critiques à considérer, du genre : « Qu’est ce qui empêche les auditeurs de dormir la nuit »;
la réduction de la portion que les firmes d’audit peuvent sous-contracter à d’autres firmes sans faire de divulgation, réduction de 25 % à 5 %;
la divulgation de l’identité de l’associé responsable de chaque audit;
l’obligation de la rotation des firmes d’audit : (1) obligation pour une société d’aller en appel d’offre tous les dix ans et (2) obligation de changer de firme d’audit tous les 20 ans (15 ans pour les entreprises du secteur financier).
Je vous invite à lire l’article ci-dessous publié dans The Economist le 5 décembre 2013. Voici également un extrait de cet article.
Bonne lecture ! Vos commentaires sont les bienvenus.
American Accounting Association (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
EVERY financial meltdown prompts a hunt for scapegoats. In the wake of the most recent one, calls to reform accounting have grown particularly loud, and action is on the way. In the coming months both America and the European Union are expected to introduce new rules aimed at enhancing auditors’ independence. But for all the heated debate over the changes, any improvement is likely to be modest.
America’s bean-counters were effectively self-regulating until 2002. That year, following a wave of accounting scandals, Congress passed the Sarbanes-Oxley act to reform corporate governance. It limited the consulting work firms could do for their audit clients and set up a new regulator, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board. At a meeting on December 4th it outlined three policies it expects to implement by the end of 2014.
Yet even the most vocal advocates of mandatory rotation concede that it is no cure-all. Auditors have a conflict of interest at the heart of their business—they are paid by the companies they are supposed to assess objectively. Unless that changes, there will be no substitute for investors doing their own due diligence.
Aujourd’hui, on fait le point sur le Say on Pay en France. Le numéro de décembre 2013 du Bulletin de l’IFA présente, à la une, un bon compte rendu du rapport de la Commission Internationale de l’IFA. Bonne lecture !
La Commission Internationale de l’IFA publie aujourd’hui le rapport de son groupe de travail sur « Say on Pay : Comparaisons internationales et bonnes pratiques » en versions française et anglaise, disponibles dès à présent sur le site de l’IFA.
La Commission Européenne a inscrit le SOP dans son « Action plan : European company law and corporate governance ». En France, le SOP, sous forme d’un vote annuel consultatif de l’Assemblée Générale sur les rémunérations versées aux dirigeants mandataires sociaux, a constitué l’une des principales innovations du nouveau code Afep-Medef publié en Juin 2013.
European Commission (Photo credit: tiseb)
Au moment où les grandes entreprises françaises vont se doter d’un tel système, le rapport apporte une valeur ajoutée pratique avec :
• une vision synthétique et comparée des modalités opérationnelles de mise en application du Say On Pay dans une vingtaine de pays de cultures diverses et de maturités différentes sur ce sujet : cette comparaison internationale a été réalisée avec l’appui des réseaux d’Ecoda (The European Confederation of Directors Associations) et de la CCI Paris Ile-de-France (Chambre de commerce et d’industrie de région Paris Ile-de-France),
• une dizaine de bonnes pratiques identifiées comme permettant un fonctionnement efficient du SOP, à partir d’interviews, essentiellement auprès des membres du Club IFA des présidents de comités des rémunérations, complétées par des échanges avec quelques institutions de place, notamment l’Autorité des Marchés Financiers (AMF).
Le document ci-dessous du The Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation (HLS) publié par Martin Lipton, associé fondateur de Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, expose plusieurs considérations à prendre en compte par les administrateurs en 2014.
In many respects, the relentless drive to adopt corporate governance mandates seems to have reached a plateau: essentially all of the prescribed “best practices”—including say-on-pay, the dismantling of takeover defenses, majority voting in the election of directors and the declassification of board structures—have been codified in rules and regulations or voluntarily adopted by a majority of S&P 500 companies. Only 11 percent of S&P 500 companies have a classified board, 8 percent have a poison pill and 6 percent have not adopted a majority vote or plurality-vote-plus-resignation standard to elect directors. The activists’ “best practices” of yesterday have become the standard practices of today. While proxy advisors and other stakeholders in the corporate governance industry will undoubtedly continue to propose new mandates, we are currently in a period of relative stasis as compared to the sea change that began with the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and unfolded over the last decade.
English: Langdell Library Harvard Law School (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
In other respects, however, the corporate governance landscape continues to evolve in meaningful ways. We may be entering an era of more nuanced corporate governance debates, where the focus has shifted from check-the-box policies to more complex questions such as how to strike the right balance in recruiting directors with complementary skill sets and diverse perspectives, and how to tailor the board’s role in overseeing risk management to the specific needs of the company. Shareholder engagement has been an area of particular focus, as both companies and institutional investors have sought to engage in more regular dialogue on corporate governance matters. The evolving trend here is not only the frequency and depth of engagement, but also a more fundamental re-thinking of the nature of relationships with shareholders and the role that these relationships play in facilitating long-term value creation. Importantly, this trend is about more than just expanding shareholder influence in corporate governance matters; instead, there is an emphasis on the roles and responsibilities of both companies and shareholders in facilitating thoughtful conversations instead of reflexive, off-the-shelf mandates on corporate governance issues, and cultivating long-term relationships that have the potential to curb short-termist pressures in the market.
Conclusions:
In 2005, Martin Lipton wrote for a symposium commemorating the 25th anniversary of his article attacking financial market short-termism and supporting the legality of corporate management to take actions to defeat hostile takeovers. The conclusion to that piece is as relevant today as it was in 2005:
In the words of [famous educator and management consultant] Peter Drucker, “the Enterprise can be said to be the one innovation that created the Modern Economy—far more so than any other invention, whether material or conceptual.” The American enterprise is the systematic risk-taker and risk-sharer of our economy—the primary means through which wealth and prosperity are generated on a macroeconomic level. Central to this structure is a delicate interrelationship among the enterprise, the CEO (who manages it), the board of directors (which oversees its management) and shareholders and society at large (who benefit from it).
If special-interest shareholders and other “activists” [and the academics who support them] prevail in their latest battle—that is, if additional, more demanding governance and “shareholder empowerment” measures and personal liability for directors become integrated into the regulatory and common law landscape—we will have altered the structure of the enterprise and moved toward excising the board from its principal role. Not only will the board as an institution suffer from the curtailment of its ability to manage the corporation, but we will not be able to attract competent, responsible people to serve as directors of public companies. Moreover, faced with a punitive regime that could extend to any perceived failure of a director (whether or not intentional and whether or not egregious), the people who do serve on boards will focus on their self-protection, and will be hesitant to take risks that may benefit the corporation. As [then] Treasury Secretary John Snow . . . remarked, “some investments that should have been undertaken, that would have been good for society, good for investors, good for shareholders, and good for the economy’s growth, won’t be undertaken.” In short, director passivity will have triumphed over the entrepreneurialism that has always been at the heart of the business judgment rule. We must all brace ourselves for this next battle. And we must do all we can to ensure that the train does not fly off the tracks.
Voici une liste des billets en gouvernance les plus populaires publiés sur mon blogue au cours du mois de novembre 2013. Cette liste constitue, en quelque sorte, un sondage de l’intérêt manifesté par des dizaines de milliers de personnes sur différents thèmes de la gouvernance des sociétés.
On y retrouve des points de vue très bien étayés sur des sujets d’actualité tels que : des conseils pour une bonne préparation aux réunions du conseil, des guides de gouvernance à l’intention des OBNL, une documentation sur les fondements de la gouvernance, une présentation des principes de gouvernance universels, le pouls de l’audit interne, la gouvernance des institutions d’enseignement collégiaux, le conseil d’administration sans papier sécurisé.
En terme géographique, près du quart (25 %) des visiteurs sont d’origine française ou proviennent de dizaines de pays francophones, et 58 % sont d’origine canadienne. Ceux-ci trouvent leur voie sur le site principalement via LinkedIn (43 %), via les engins de recherche (43 %) ou via d’autres réseaux sociaux (14 %), tels que Facebook, Twitter ou Tumblr.
Vos commentaires sont toujours les bienvenus et ils sont grandement appréciés; je réponds toujours à ceux-ci. Bonne lecture !
On assiste à de plus en plus de « contestations » de la part d’actionnaires activistes pour l’obtention du contrôle des entreprises cotées.
Qu’est-ce qu’une campagne de contestation (proxy contest) ? Quelles formes ces contestations prennent-elles ? Quels raisons incitent certains actionnaires activistes à aller de l’avant avec leurs propositions de changement ? Que peuvent faire les conseils d’administration pour se préparer à une attaque éventuelle et pour se protéger efficacement ?
Le document, préparé conjointement par Corporate Board Member du NYSE et Kroll, un leader mondial dans le conseil en gouvernance, répond très bien à ces questions. Voici un court extrait d’un article où Bob Brenner, associé de Kroll, répond aux questions. Bonne lecture.
In general, the term corporate contest refers to several different situations in which a shareholder(s) or other corporate entity tries to force a change of control in a company. The two most common situations where we get involved are proxy fights and takeover attempts.
Proxy fights generally arise in two types of situations. In the first, an existing shareholder(s) seeks board representation to change corporate behavior or governance because the shareholder is unhappy with the company’s performance and the unwillingness of the board of directors to alter course or change the status quo. Typically, such a contest begins after quiet, protracted negotiation between the board/management and a prominent shareholder, during which the shareholder expresses ideas for change or displeasure with policy or direction and is rebuffed.
The second type of proxy fight, which we describe as “opportunistic,” does not start with an existing investment or position. Instead, it is marked by a rapid accumulation of stock by a new shareholder. The shareholder, or group of shareholders, acquires the stock on the premise that the board and/or management is failing to maximize the company’s assets. If the new shareholder can pressure the company to change policy, management, or board composition, fine. If not, they are prepared to force the issue.
“Activist” investors have had great success in these types of corporate contests. Typically, they target companies that have seen a decrease in share price over time. The well-funded activist investor claims to be ready, able, and more than willing to roll up its sleeves and implement change.
Historically, outright unsolicited or hostile takeover bids have formed a large part of the corporate contest world. In the case of a takeover bid, one corporate entity offers to buy another, frequently a competitor or an entity with a good synergistic fit. In far fewer instances, an activist shareholder may desire to purchase the outstanding shares of an entity from existing shareholders in order to obtain control of that entity so that it may effectuate immediate change. These types of contests are rarely launched by activist funds as these efforts require large amounts of capital to be sunk into one investment, a tactic that hedge funds generally try to avoid. True hostile takeover bids have declined in recent years.
En tant qu’administrateurs de sociétés, nous sommes de plus en plus confrontés aux demandes de réunions spéciales avec les actionnaires. Que devons-nous faire ? Comment accueillir ces demandes ? Quelle position devons-nous adopter à cet égard ? Qui doit initier les démarches ? Quelles sont les expériences vécues par les organisations à ce sujet ?
L’article qui suit vous mettra à jour sur la nature du processus d’engagement du C.A. avec les actionnaires, sur les bénéfices potentiels à s’engager dans cette activité, sur les pratiques à l’échelle mondiale et sur les manières de faire.
Cet article a été publié par James Kim et Jason D. Schloetzer dans la série Director Notes du Conference Board; vous trouverez, ci-dessous, un extrait d’un billet paru récemment sur le blogue du Harvard Law School Forum.
Je vous invite à lire cet article au complet car vous y découvrirez d’excellents arguments à aller de l’avant (tout en étant très vigilant) ainsi que plusieurs exemples d’entreprises qui se sont sérieusement engagées dans cette voie.
There has been a rapid increase in shareholder requests for special meetings with the board. This report discusses the potential benefits and complexities of the board-shareholder engagement process, reviews global trends in engagement practices, provides insights into engagement activities at U.S. companies, and highlights developments in the use of technology to facilitate engagement. It also provides perspectives from institutional investors on the design of an effective engagement process.
The annual general meeting is the main channel of communication between a company’s board and its shareholders. Among other important meeting activities, shareholders have the opportunity to hear executives and directors discuss recent performance and outline the company’s long-term strategy.
Intel Board of Directors (Photo credit: IntelFreePress)
Since 2007, there has been an increase in shareholder requests for special meetings with the board. A recent study of board-shareholder engagement activities shows that 87 percent of security issuers, 70 percent of asset managers, and 62 percent of asset owners reported at least one engagement in the previous year. Moreover, the level of engagement is increasing rapidly, with 50 percent of issuers, 64 percent of asset managers, and 53 percent of asset owners reporting that they were engaging more. Only 6 percent of issuers and almost no investors reported a decrease in engagement. Shareholders, particularly institutional investors, believe that annual meetings are too infrequent and do not provide sufficient content to address their concerns.
The increase in engagement parallels a wave of shareholder activism that emerged in the mid-2000s. Proxy advisory firms, such as Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS), have helped to foster a new environment for board-shareholder engagement. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Rule 14a-21(a), adopted in 2011 to implement provisions of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act), requires public companies to include a “say-on-pay” vote in their proxy statements at least once every three years. The advisory vote has provided shareholders more voice in executive compensation. Annual meetings are now preceded by an increased level of engagement activity as more shareholders express their desire to influence corporate policies.
More generally, there is a common view in the current governance environment that directors should respond to shareholder questions regarding executive compensation, corporate strategy, financial performance, campaign financing, environmental and social issues, and corporate governance matters. Not surprisingly, say on pay and the appointment of an independent board chairman remain the primary focus of board-shareholder engagement activity in 2013.
En terminant retenez cet autre extrait de l’article qui présente un résumé du processus d’engagement entre actionnaires et conseil d’administration :
« Several representatives of prominent institutional investors at the June conference shared their perspectives regarding an effective board-shareholder engagement process.
Proactively reach out to your largest 15 to 20 institutional investors. Large institutional investors, particularly value investors with a longer-term investment horizon, are more likely to confront companies on specific issues than index/fund investors.
Offer to schedule a 30-minute phone call with each institutional investor to discuss the company’s executive compensation plan as well as any corporate governance concerns.
Be certain that at least the lead independent director and a knowledgeable person from the investor relations, human resources, and legal departments are on the call and have authority to answer shareholder questions. If your company has experienced poor say-on-pay votes in recent years, the compensation committee chairman should also participate. It is generally preferable that the CEO and the company’s compensation consultant do not participate, particularly when the main topic of discussion will be executive compensation.
An effective agenda for a 30-minute call is as follows: devote the first five minutes to summarizing the overall business activities of the company (investor relations), five minutes to explaining how the performance measures included in executive compensation plans are linked to corporate strategy (human resources, compensation committee chairman, lead independent director), and five minutes summarizing outstanding shareholder proposals (general counsel). The remaining 15 minutes should be devoted to two-way discussion between the company and the shareholder.
If the company has faced specific concerns about its compensation design in prior years, the compensation committee should make an effort to improve its Compensation Discussion and Analysis (CD&A) disclosure. A clearly written CD&A—particularly the Executive Summary—can reduce the need for separate meetings and one-on-one conversations about compensation. Directors should write the CD&A with its major shareholders in mind. The CFA Institute’s CD&A Template offers ideas for boards on how to organize the CD&A disclosure. The template is currently used by a number of companies, including Pfizer, American Express Company, General Electric, and Morningstar ».
Aujourd’hui, je vous propose la lecture d’un article exceptionnel écrit par DAVID GELLESdu New York Times, sur les moyens de préparation et de défense des directions et des conseils d’administration face aux éventuelles attaques des investisseurs activistes.
Certaines entreprises, susceptibles d’être la cible de contestataires activistes très bien organisés, se sont adaptées en se préparant systématiquement aux attaques. Bien que les moyens de défenses traditionnels tels les « poison pills » et les « staggered boards » sont toujours utilisés pour contrer les attaques des activistes et les tentatives de « takeover », celles-ci sont de moins en moins efficaces devant les interventions accrues, et plus sophistiqués, des « Hedge Funds » et des autres groupes d’investisseurs activistes … opportunistes (souvent non sans fondement).
À chaque action, sa réaction ! Nous assistons à des batailles rangées entre protagonistes très bien préparés et très bien équipés. Les activistes ne réussissent pas toujours mais ils sont menaçants. Les firmes spécialisées dans les conseils légaux et stratégiques aux entreprises vulnérables sont de plus en plus sollicitées …
L’article explique les nouvelles problématiques de gouvernance qui font rage dans le milieu des grandes entreprises cotées et expose les nouvelles approches utilisées par ces dernières pour conserver leur autonomie et s’acquitter de leurs responsabilités fiduciaires envers tousles actionnaires.
La plupart des grandes entreprises ont changé leur approche face aux activistes. On ne se referme plus sur soi, on étudie les risques, on identifie les vulnérabilités, on engage une discussion avec les grands actionnaires-investisseurs (actifs et passifs) ainsi qu’avec la masse des petits actionnaires.
Voici un court extrait de l’article. Je vous invite à le lire attentivement. Également, je vous invite à prendre connaissance de l’article partagé par Louise Champoux-Paillé : When Facing Activist Investors, Fight Has Gone 24/7!
Vous serez ainsi à jour, et avisés, sur les grands défis qui attendent les administrateurs de demain !
Executives and board members used to fear hostile bids above all else. In response, they devised defense mechanisms like poison pills and staggered boards to thwart attacks.
Today, hostile deals are on the wane, but a new threat has emerged that has put boardrooms on edge: activist investors.
“Companies now view the threat of shareholder activism similarly to how they viewed the threat of hostile takeovers in the 1980s,” said Gregg Feinstein, head of mergers and acquisitions at Houlihan Lokey.
Until recently, many companies responded to activists by simply refusing to meet with them and hoping they would go away.
When Daniel S. Loeb of Third Point Management took a stake in Yahoo in 2011, the company was initially dismissive. In an early phone call between Mr. Loeb and Yahoo, the company’s chairman, Roy Bostock, reportedly hung up on him. But a year and a half later, Mr. Loeb had forced out Yahoo’s chief executive and was on the board.
After a string of such debacles, and with activism today more established and prolific than ever before, that approach has fallen out of favor.
“The bunker mentality that had been advised in some quarters is fading as an approach,” said James C. Woolery, deputy chairman at Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft. “Today you need real substantive preparation and real engagement.”
Il y a beaucoup de turbulence dans le monde de la gouvernance depuis cinq ans, et c’est dans le nombre de campagnes menées par des actionnaires-investisseurs activistes que l’on peut le mieux observer ce phénomène.
L’article de Sam Jones, publié hier dans le Financial Times, montre que les campagnes de contestation des stratégies des directions d’entreprises et des décisions des conseils d’administration ont plus que doublées au cours des trois dernières années. Les interventions des activistes ont eues, en général, beaucoup de succès (rendements de 53 % VS 24 % pour le S&P 500 cette année) et elles ciblent des organisations de plus en plus grandes, dans des secteurs de plus en plus diversifiés, à l’échelle mondiale (Apple, Sony).
Très souvent, les fonds activistes visent des entreprises qui ont accumulé d’importantes réserves financières, dans le but de les contraindre à retourner une partie des surplus aux actionnaires (notamment, sous la forme de dividendes).
Solidus au nom dégénéré de Justinien Ier (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Bill Ackman prévoit que le mouvement s’étendra rapidement à l’Europe. On comprend que les C.A. soient de plus en plus préoccupés, eux qui sont, à juste titre, les représentants et fiduciaires de l’ensemble des actionnaires.
Les « hedge funds » sont intéressés par des rendements rapides au profit des actionnaires (les grands investisseurs, évidemment) tandis que les administrateurs envisagent le long terme, la pérennité de l’organisation et l’intérêt de tous les actionnaires (du moins ce sont les rôles qui leurs sont dévolus !).
Que pensez-vous de ces derniers développements et de leurs incidences sur les meilleures pratiques de gouvernances ? Vos commentaires sont les bienvenus ! Voici un extrait de l’article.
Where activists had previously focused on banks and financial services groups – criticising compensation and pushing for changes in corporate culture – now their targets are larger and far more diversified.
The research, conducted by Activist Insight and commissioned by law firm Linklaters, points to the growing engagement of institutional investors with companies in the wake of the financial crisis and the resurgence of more aggressive hedge-fund style corporate agitation.
Alexander Filatov* explique comment la formation en gouvernance offerte en GB a aidé le monde des entreprises russes.
Director training improves governance procedures, boosting Russia’s global trading status
« A couple of days ago at a Kazakh friend’s celebration of his newborn son, I found out that he and his two friends – top managers at Russian companies – had enrolled in an IoD Chartered director training course in Moscow.
A few years ago, when I was CEO of the Russian Independent Directors Association, we imported this programme from the UK – a move supported by the late Neville Bain, the former IoD Chairman, who was a real enthusiast and great supporter of expanding the training and expertise into Russian and Kazakhstan markets. Since then, hundreds of senior delegates from Russian and Kazakh companies have undertaken such courses.
The training has a very important component that other professional courses do not have, and that is governance, which includes resolving any directorial conflicts of interest and identifying fiduciary duties.
After launching the course into the Russian market, my colleagues and I created the Russian director professional qualification standard. We also started the process of director certification based on OECD corporate governance and IoD Chartered Director principles.
The UK Chartered Director course supports improved professional standards and will help raise the quality of the boardroom work in Russia and Kazakhstan – vital if our economy is to take advantage of the rapidily globalizing market for capital, products and labour. What’s more, opportunities are now opening up within our economy that could provide a greater foothold for professional, trained, independent directors ».
Gouvernance | Jacques Grisé 