Interventionnisme des investisseurs activistes VS défenseurs de l’autorité des C.A. | Un débat de fond
Il y a deux grands courants de pensée qui divisent le monde de la gouvernance et qui s’opposent « royalement ».
(1) celui des investisseurs activistes qui tentent de tirer profit des failles perçues dans les orientations et la gestion des grandes entreprises cotées, en investissant massivement dans celles-ci et en proposant des changements radicaux de stratégies (fusion, restructuration, recapitalisation, contestation des PCD et des membres de conseils, etc…).
Selon ce groupe, les actionnaires sont rois et on se doit d’intervenir lorsque les entreprises ne sont pas gérées efficacement.
(2) celui des défenseurs de l’autorité des C.A. dans leurs rôles de fiduciaires, représentant les intérêts des actionnaires et des autres parties prenantes.
Selon ce groupe, ce sont les conseils d’administration qui prennent les décisions de nature stratégique en fonction de l’intérêt à long terme des entreprises. Les autorités règlementaires doivent donc intervenir pour restreindre les activités des investissements « court-termistes ».
L’article de Nathan Vardi, publié dans Forbes le 6 août 2013, fait le point sur la situation qui règne dans le monde des investissements à caractère « actif » (hedge funds). Il présente, selon moi, singulièrement bien les arguments invoqués par chaque partie.
Quel est votre position en regard de ces deux conceptions : celui des actionnaires activistes, représenté par Carl Icahn, ou celui des gardiens de la bonne gouvernance, représenté par Martin Lipton ?
Voici quelques extraits de l’article. Veuillez lire l’article de M. Vardi pour plus de détails. Bonne lecture.
Once disparaged as greenmailers and corporate raiders who pillage for quick profit, activist investors have become rock stars and rebranded themselves as advocates of all shareholders, taking on the kind of shareholder watchdog role that institutional investors like big pension funds and mutual funds have long resisted. They are not done rebranding themselves. Peltz, whose Trian Management oversees $6.5 billion, describes his investment style not as activism but as “constructivism.” Larry Robbins, who runs $6 billion hedge fund firm Glenview Capital Management, one of the best-performing hedge funds over the last 18 months, wants to be seen as a “suggestivist.” The idea is to appear less threatening while trying to do things like replace the management and board of directors of a company, like Robbins is trying to do at hospital company Health Management Associates. “In Hollywood terms, we are more Mr. Spock than William Wallace,” Robbins recently said. “I get a lot more out of these CEOs by not embarrassing them publicly, by not being viewed as trying to nail their scalp to the wall,” Barry Rosenstein, the prominent activist investor who runs $5 billion Jana Partners, told The Wall Street Journal.
Icahn Lab Conference Room (Photo credit: Joe Shlabotnik)
Others, however, have a different way of describing what these guys are up to. “In what can only be considered a form of extortion, activist hedge funds are preying on American corporations to create short-term increases in the market price of their stock at the expense of long-term value,” famed lawyer Martin Lipton wrote earlier this year. “The consequences of radical stockholder-centric governance and short-termism prompt a series of questions that cry out for re-examination.” Lipton, the most prominent defender of corporate boards in their battles with activist investors and the inventor of the so-called poison pill defense tactic, even suggests that the new wave of activist investors might be responsible for “a very significant part of American unemployment and a failure to achieve a GDP growth rate sufficient to pay for reasonable entitlements.”
Lipton has been blasting activist investors for decades. But last week activist investing went Hollywood as George Clooney attacked Dan Loeb, who has been criticizing the management of Sony Pictures Entertainment as part of his effort to get Sony to spin off its U.S. entertainment assets. “[Loeb] calls himself an activist investor, and I would call him a carpet bagger,” Clooney told Deadline.com. “What he’s doing is scaring studios and pushing them to make decisions from a place of fear. Why is he buying stock like crazy if he’s so down on things? He’s trying to manipulate the market.” Clooney said activist hedge fund managers like Loeb don’t create jobs, unlike the movie industry that is a significant U.S. exporter…
Nevertheless, activist-investor efforts to drive shareholder value at companies seem to be all over the financial markets. The renaissance is best typified by billionaire investor Carl Icahn, who is going stronger than ever. With more money at his disposal than ever before, Icahn, now 77, has been a huge player in financial markets in recent months. He has vigorously taken on Michael Dell’s effort to take Dell private, played a role in kicking Aubrey McClendon out of Chesapeake Energy, and is at the center of the billionaire brawl over Herbalife. He has enjoyed rich recent successes from companies ranging from CVR Energy to Netflix. His Icahn Enterprises has seen its stock rise by 57% this year. Icahn hasn’t changed his tune in years and recently argued that “what I do is good for America.”…
Activist players are continuing to push the envelope and bringing their brand of investing to new industry and geographic frontiers. Dan Loeb, whose Third Point hedge fund has been one of the best-performing hedge funds over the last 18 months or so, stormed Silicon Valley, sparking sweeping changes to the flailing Internet giant Yahoo’s management and making about $1 billion in realized and paper profits. Now, he’s off to Japan, trying to shake things up at Sony in a country that has long resisted reform at many levels. Loeb is not the only brash American to attack a foreign company and sometimes these guys even manage to win broad support for their efforts in foreign countries. Not long ago, William Ackman struck at Canadian Pacific Railway and his intervention has helped spark a huge run-up in the stock. The business magazine of Canada’s authoritative Globe and Mail newspaper didn’t call him a carpet bagger, rather they branded Ackman, who is not a corporate executive, “CEO of The Year.”
Il y a deux grands courants de pensée qui divisent le monde de la gouvernance et qui s’opposent « royalement ».
(1) celui des investisseurs activistes qui tentent de tirer profit des failles perçues dans les orientations et la gestion des grandes entreprises cotées, en investissant massivement dans celles-ci et en proposant des changements radicaux de stratégies (fusion, restructuration, recapitalisation, contestation des PCD et des membres de conseils, etc…).
Selon ce groupe, les actionnaires sont rois et on se doit d’intervenir lorsque les entreprises ne sont pas gérées efficacement.
(2) celui des défenseurs de l’autorité des C.A. dans leurs rôles de fiduciaires, représentant les intérêts des actionnaires et des autres parties prenantes.
Selon ce groupe, ce sont les conseils d’administration qui prennent les décisions de nature stratégique en fonction de l’intérêt à long terme des entreprises. Les autorités règlementaires doivent donc intervenir pour restreindre les activités des investissements « court-termistes ».
L’article de Nathan Vardi, publié dans Forbes le 6 août 2013, fait le point sur la situation qui règne dans le monde des investissements à caractère « actif » (hedge funds). Il présente, selon moi, singulièrement bien les arguments invoqués par chaque partie.
Quel est votre position en regard de ces deux conceptions : celui des actionnaires activistes, représenté par Carl Icahn, ou celui des gardiens de la bonne gouvernance, représenté par Martin Lipton ?
Voici quelques extraits de l’article. Veuillez lire l’article de M. Vardi pour plus de détails. Bonne lecture.
Once disparaged as greenmailers and corporate raiders who pillage for quick profit, activist investors have become rock stars and rebranded themselves as advocates of all shareholders, taking on the kind of shareholder watchdog role that institutional investors like big pension funds and mutual funds have long resisted. They are not done rebranding themselves. Peltz, whose Trian Management oversees $6.5 billion, describes his investment style not as activism but as “constructivism.” Larry Robbins, who runs $6 billion hedge fund firm Glenview Capital Management, one of the best-performing hedge funds over the last 18 months, wants to be seen as a “suggestivist.” The idea is to appear less threatening while trying to do things like replace the management and board of directors of a company, like Robbins is trying to do at hospital company Health Management Associates. “In Hollywood terms, we are more Mr. Spock than William Wallace,” Robbins recently said. “I get a lot more out of these CEOs by not embarrassing them publicly, by not being viewed as trying to nail their scalp to the wall,” Barry Rosenstein, the prominent activist investor who runs $5 billion Jana Partners, told The Wall Street Journal.
Icahn Lab Conference Room (Photo credit: Joe Shlabotnik)
Others, however, have a different way of describing what these guys are up to. “In what can only be considered a form of extortion, activist hedge funds are preying on American corporations to create short-term increases in the market price of their stock at the expense of long-term value,” famed lawyer Martin Lipton wrote earlier this year. “The consequences of radical stockholder-centric governance and short-termism prompt a series of questions that cry out for re-examination.” Lipton, the most prominent defender of corporate boards in their battles with activist investors and the inventor of the so-called poison pill defense tactic, even suggests that the new wave of activist investors might be responsible for “a very significant part of American unemployment and a failure to achieve a GDP growth rate sufficient to pay for reasonable entitlements.”
Lipton has been blasting activist investors for decades. But last week activist investing went Hollywood as George Clooney attacked Dan Loeb, who has been criticizing the management of Sony Pictures Entertainment as part of his effort to get Sony to spin off its U.S. entertainment assets. “[Loeb] calls himself an activist investor, and I would call him a carpet bagger,” Clooney told Deadline.com. “What he’s doing is scaring studios and pushing them to make decisions from a place of fear. Why is he buying stock like crazy if he’s so down on things? He’s trying to manipulate the market.” Clooney said activist hedge fund managers like Loeb don’t create jobs, unlike the movie industry that is a significant U.S. exporter…
Nevertheless, activist-investor efforts to drive shareholder value at companies seem to be all over the financial markets. The renaissance is best typified by billionaire investor Carl Icahn, who is going stronger than ever. With more money at his disposal than ever before, Icahn, now 77, has been a huge player in financial markets in recent months. He has vigorously taken on Michael Dell’s effort to take Dell private, played a role in kicking Aubrey McClendon out of Chesapeake Energy, and is at the center of the billionaire brawl over Herbalife. He has enjoyed rich recent successes from companies ranging from CVR Energy to Netflix. His Icahn Enterprises has seen its stock rise by 57% this year. Icahn hasn’t changed his tune in years and recently argued that “what I do is good for America.”…
Activist players are continuing to push the envelope and bringing their brand of investing to new industry and geographic frontiers. Dan Loeb, whose Third Point hedge fund has been one of the best-performing hedge funds over the last 18 months or so, stormed Silicon Valley, sparking sweeping changes to the flailing Internet giant Yahoo’s management and making about $1 billion in realized and paper profits. Now, he’s off to Japan, trying to shake things up at Sony in a country that has long resisted reform at many levels. Loeb is not the only brash American to attack a foreign company and sometimes these guys even manage to win broad support for their efforts in foreign countries. Not long ago, William Ackman struck at Canadian Pacific Railway and his intervention has helped spark a huge run-up in the stock. The business magazine of Canada’s authoritative Globe and Mail newspaper didn’t call him a carpet bagger, rather they branded Ackman, who is not a corporate executive, “CEO of The Year.”
Richard Leblanc, professeur associé de Law, Governance & Ethics à l’Université York de Toronto nous propose une liste impressionnante (quasi exhaustive) de lectures susceptibles d’intéresser les membres de conseils qui se posent des questions sur les TI et sur le rôle des médias sociaux.
English: Logo for the Addicted to Social Media Blog (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Cette liste a été préparée en vue de sa participation à la conférence annuelle de National Association of Corporate Directors (NACD) du 11 au 13 octobre 2013 qui portera sur le leadership du « Board », notamment lorsqu’il s’agit de mieux appréhender les nouvelles technologies de l’information.
Bien sûr, la liste est longue mais en la parcourant rapidement vous trouverez certainement un lien vers un document qui vous intéressera. Bonne lecture.
Le Collège des administrateurs de sociétés (CAS) est né de la volonté de quatre partenaires fondateurs d’offrir aux administrateurs de sociétés une formation unique et de haut niveau, axée sur les meilleures pratiques de gouvernance. Depuis sa création en mars 2005, le Collège a admis plus de 1000 administrateurs dans ses différentes formations.
Le Collège contribue au développement et à la promotion de la bonne gouvernance en offrant aux administrateurs de sociétés une formation de la plus haute qualité dans un environnement dynamique de partage du savoir et une source d’information privilégiée à la fine pointe des meilleures pratiques.
Le Collège des administrateurs de sociétés, c’est :
Un centre de formation à l’avant-garde des plus hauts standards de gouvernance répondant aux multiples besoins des administrateurs, tant à Québec, qu’à Montréal ;
Une équipe d’intervenants-formateurs, reconnus pour leur expertise, leur ouverture et leur passion ;
Des administrateurs provenant de tous milieux: des sociétés publiques, privées, d’État, municipales ou parapubliques, des coopératives, des associations, des OBNL, etc. ;
Un programme de certification universitaire en gouvernance unique au Québec menant à la désignation Administrateur de sociétés certifié (ASC) et jouissant d’une reconnaissance pancanadienne grâce à une entente avec le Directors College de l’Université McMaster ;
Une base de données en ligne présentant 600 profils d’administrateurs de sociétés certifiés ;
Une expérience enrichissante permettant aux administrateurs de développer un réseau de contacts privilégié.
Perfectionnez vos compétences en gouvernance
Ce qui fait la renommée du Collège des administrateurs de sociétés est sans aucun doute l’ouverture et l’innovation dont il s’est inspiré pour établir une offre de formations unique, recherchée et adaptée aux besoins des administrateurs de sociétés.
Des formations diversifiées
La certification universitaire en gouvernance de sociétés comprend cinq (5) modules d’une durée de trois (3) jours chacun et son cheminement peut varier entre douze et dix-huit mois
Gouvernance des régimes de retraite (Durée : 2 jours)
Gouvernance des services financiers (Durée : 2 jours)
Gouvernance des PME (Durée : 2 jours)
Les formations d’une durée de trois jours de même que les modules du programme de certification universitaire en gouvernance de sociétés ont lieu les jeudi, vendredi et samedi.
Une approche stimulante pour un perfectionnement optimisé
Quelle que soit votre provenance, votre cheminement professionnel ou votre secteur d’activité, les formations du Collège vous permettent de bénéficier :
D’une expérience Québec-Montréal vous permettant de côtoyer, d’échanger et de développer un réseau de contact avec des gestionnaires et des administrateurs de différents secteurs et milieux d’affaires ;
D’un environnement valorisant les échanges entre les participants et les intervenants ;
D’un programme de certification universitaire sous la responsabilité d’un directeur de programme et d’une équipe de professeurs de l’Université Laval et d’intervenants de renom de la pratique privée.
Reconnaissance professionnelle
Des ententes de partenariat avec plusieurs ordres et organismes professionnels reconnaissent la valeur des formations du Collège.
Plusieurs personnes très qualifiées en gouvernance de sociétés souhaitent trouver une place sur un ou plusieurs conseils d’administration de sociétés cotées. Mais comment s’y prendre ? L’article ci-dessous rédigé par *Boris Groysberg et Deborah Bell et paru dans HBR Blog Network saura sûrement piquer votre curiosité !
Les auteurs proposent une méthode plus acceptable de choisir les membres de conseils que celle de s’en remettre aux administrateurs potentiels reconnus par les membres de C.A. Bien sûr, l’appartenance à des réseaux d’administrateurs et l’approche progressive de l’acceptation des mandats, en commençant par les OBNL, sont des méthodes très pratiquées … mais souvent elles tardent à produire les résultats escomptés.
Les auteurs présentent une autre option laquelle dépend de la mise en place d’un processus de sélection systématique consistant à repérer les personnes possédant les expertises répondant aux besoins de l’entreprise. De plus en plus, la stratégie de recherche de mandats sera de faire connaître son expertise et son expérience auprès des membres des comités de gouvernance et de nomination.
L’article montre que les capacités les plus prisées par les comités de nomination sont (1) la connaissance de l’industrie, (2) les compétences stratégiques et (3) les expertises en finance-audit.
Je vous invite à lire l’article au complet afin de mieux vous préparer à trouver votre place sur des conseils. Vos commentaires sont toujours très appréciés. Bonne lecture !
For many, a corporate directorship is a career capstone. But attaining one is far from easy. No one can say for sure how to get on a corporate board, but many people point to two routes: the first is to break into the « right » network and the second is to seek a progression of board seats that begins with, for example, a seat on a not-for-profit or community board and eventually results in appointment to a corporate board.
Both paths are problematic — neither is particularly transparent or relies on objective measures and given that many boards are stubborn bastions of white masculinity, pursuing the « right » network can be fraught, especially for women and other diverse candidates. Indeed, our research reinforces that concern: many boards still rely on their own (mostly white, mostly male) networks to fill seats.
There’s a different way — one that is more measurable, controllable and offers greater transparency. It starts with a focus on skills. Although many boards continue to select new members from their own networks, our research suggests that more are beginning to implement objective processes to select members based on the skills and attributes that boards need to be effective. Our 2012 survey, in partnership with WomenCorporateDirectors and Heidrick & Struggles, of more than 1,000 corporate directors across the globe, found that only 48% of the boards had a formal process of determining the combination of skills and attributes required for their board and, therefore, for new directors
We know this approach can work because we’ve seen it: We studied a large corporation that was being split into two public companies for which two new boards had to be created. The chairman wanted to create two balanced boards, with the mix of skills, knowledge, and experience each company needed. He appointed a special team to create an objective, transparent method for selecting the directors. After reviewing the roles and responsibilities of each board and the natures of the new businesses, the team derived lists of the skills each board needed. Then it created a model containing the dimensions critical to a high-performing board, from functional and industry expertise to behavioral attributes. This approach led both companies to recruit board members that were diverse in needed strategic skills. Both boards are on to a good start — demonstrating that when a firm builds a board using a rigorous assessment of the qualities it needs to carry out its governance task, rather than personal networks, the board is better equipped to execute its functions.
In our survey, we also asked about specific skills. We wanted to know which were the strongest skills represented on boards and which were missing. Directors named industry knowledge, strategy, and financial-audit expertise as their strongest skill sets.
And 43% cited technology expertise, HR-talent management, international-global expertise, and succession planning as the skills missing most on their boards.
______________________________________________
* Boris Groysberg is a professor of business administration at Harvard Business School. His work examines how a firm can be systematic in achieving a sustainable competitive advantage by leveraging its talent at all levels of the organization.
* Deborah Bell is a researcher of organizational behavior whose work focuses on leadership, drivers of success, and organizational effectiveness and dynamics, especially at the board level.
Articles reliés à l’obtention d’un poste sur un conseil d’administration :
Voici un article publié par JOANN S. LUBLIN paru dans The Wall Street Journal qui montre l’évolution remarquable de la gouvernance des sociétés au cours des quarante dernières années. Vous verrez qu’il y a une tendance lourde à limiter le nombre de mandats des administrateurs de sociétés, mais que ce changement ne se fait pas sans heurt.
Plusieurs pensent que, malgré certains avantages évidents à avoir des administrateurs séniors sur les C.A., cette situation est un frein à la diversité et au renouvellement des générations au sein des conseils d’administration. C’est un article qui discute de ces problématiques avec nuance et avec des statistiques à l’appui.
Je souligne certains extraits pertinents de cet article. Bonne lecture. Faites-moi part de nos commentaires sur ce sujet assez controversé.
Board colleagues say long-serving members often provide useful context about a company, its industry and its past. But activist investors contend the growing ranks of long-serving board members occupy spots that otherwise might go to younger and fresher talent. « Over-tenured directors also frustrate the goal of race and gender diversity, » adds Brandon Rees, acting head of the AFL-CIO’s Office of Investment.
Staying Power
Twenty-eight outside directors have at least 40 years’ tenure on a U.S. public company board.
Voir l’article pour identifier les noms
While 40-year directors are rare, companies appear increasingly reluctant to shake up their boardrooms. Among Russell 3000 companies, 6,457 independent directors—nearly 34% of the total—have served a decade or longer, GMI found. That’s up from 3,216 or about 18% in 2008.
Companies in Standard & Poor’s 500 stock index elected the smallest number of new directors last year in 10 years, according to a study by recruiters Spencer Stuart.
Some activist investors believe long-tenured board members can become too cozy with management.
The Council of Institutional Investors, a governance advocate, may soon urge shareholders and boards to look more skeptically at the independence of long-serving directors, says Ann Yerger, its executive director.
« Board members may not be able to fully exercise independent judgment after several years of service, » she adds. The council represents 125 pension funds with more than $3 trillion of assets.
Certain less-tenured directors favor term limits to hasten turnover. But just 17 major corporations impose such limits, Spencer Stuart’s study showed. A 12-year term makes sense because « board members become very stale after a while, » says Fred Hassan, a Time Warner Inc. TWX +0.55%director since 2009 and former Schering-Plough Corp. MRK -0.21%chief executive. He hopes to propose that limit for new board members of the media giant.
Not surprisingly, long-serving board members frequently oppose such rules. Instead, they support replacing poor performers through periodic evaluations of individual members. Richard T. Fisher, a Leggett director since 1972, says he and David S. Haffner, the firm’s CEO, sold the idea to its board last year.
Voici un article de Peter Whitehead paru dans le Financial Times du 5 juin 2013. L’auteur présente une synthèse des principales sources de risques confrontant chaque conseil d’administration. En bref, l’étude montre que les conseils d’administration sont responsables de la plupart des échecs des entreprises, notamment de ceux qui résultent en désastres majeurs.
Le rapport de la firme Reputability conclue que l’un des principaux problèmes est le manque d’information des membres des C.A. Les autres facteurs identifiés sont reliés :
– au manque de qualification (et de caractère) des membres pour comprendre les grands enjeux et les principaux risques de l’entreprise;
– au manque de sensibilité aux aspects des relations humaines, et
– à la priorité accordée aux jugements de nature quantitative.
Je vous invite donc à lire cet article en vous inscrivant gratuitement au contenu du F.T. Que pensez-vous de ces résultats ?
The root causes of most company failures lie in the boardroom, with a serious skills gap and risk blindness being the most common factors. A study of 41 corporate crises highlights repeated patterns of failure that are little understood by boards and that are rarely spotted using standard risk management techniques.
English: Enron Complex in Houston Texas (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Executive Appointments, which is running a series of features on the topic of “Better Boards” during 2013, was given an advance briefing on the analysis by Reputability, a firm specialising in organisational and behavioural risk. Its study found a lack of skills on the board and its inability to influence executives were root causes in 88 per cent of company failures. A board’s blindness to risk was a root cause in 85 per cent of the crises. Defective information flows to and from the board, and inadequate leadership on company ethos and culture, were each root causes in 59 per cent of cases.
The Reputability research builds on a 2011 “Roads to Ruin” report by Cass Business School that carried out a detailed examination of 18 corporate crises, including the collapses of Enron and Northern Rock, and events such as the BP Texas City oil refinery explosion in 2005, and the Hatfield rail crash in 2000. It looked at the underlying causes that led to disaster and the resilience of the organisation in handling the aftermath….
… Anthony Fitzsimmons, chairman of Reputability, says: “A fundamental manifestation of the problem with boards is information. A board has information, but doesn’t know if it’s accurate or has important gaps. If you don’t have the right information how can you be in control ?
Articles d’intérêt dans le domaine de l’impact des Boards :
Le document ci-dessous, publié par Deloitte, brosse un portrait des initiatives que les conseils d’administration doivent prendre dans le but d’instaurer une culture de formation continue en gouvernance de sociétés.
Quels sont les préalables à un programme de perfectionnement et de développement des connaissances en gouvernance; quel sont les types de livraisons proposés et quelle peut être la fréquence des activités de formation; quels sont les thèmes les plus courants et les sujets les plus chauds ?
Référez-vous à l’article pour en savoir plus. Bonne lecture.
Not long ago, many boards lacked a formal board education program. As risks have multiplied, and as the roles and responsibilities of board members have come under increased pressure, the importance of having such a program has been highlighted, and formalized educational efforts have become more prevalent.
Education vs Experience (Photo credit: gtalan)
An effective board education program features activities such as recurring director training and developmental programming on a wide range of topics, from onboarding to continuing education to updates on emerging issues. Such activities allow organizations to continuously invest in and significantly enhance the knowledge and readiness of the board and the overall organization. Educational programs can be offered through a variety of approaches and at varying frequencies, and can be tailored to address important industry-and company-specific issues.
![[D]](https://i0.wp.com/s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/MK-CE793A_TROPH_D_20130716202002.jpg)
Gouvernance | Jacques Grisé 