Opinion

Felix Salmon

Counterparties: Listening board

By Ben Walsh
April 18, 2013

Welcome to the Counterparties email. The sign-up page is here, it’s just a matter of checking a box if you’re already registered on the Reuters website. Send suggestions, story tips and complaints to Counterparties.Reuters@gmail.com.

Isolate corporate boards from shareholders at your own risk. That’s the message of a new study by Lucian Bebchuk, a professor of law and economics at Harvard. There’s a popular school of thought which argues that corporate boards should be given extra ability to ignore demands from shareholders — like Bill Ackman’s adventures at JC Penney or David Einhorn’s agitation with Apple, for example — because they will lead to short-term, unsustainable gains.

Bebchuk writes that “empirical evidence provides no support for the claim that board insulation is overall beneficial in the long term; to the contrary, the body of evidence favors the view that shareholder engagement, and arrangements that facilitate it, serve the long-term interests of companies and their shareholders”. Bebchuk also finds that keeping a board isolated will cause more long-term problems than it solves.

Bebchuck’s findings run counter to the recent arguments against the increasing antagonism of activist investors. Andrew Ross Sorkin thinks shareholder democracy can become just a way for billionaires to very publicly sue each other “in hopes of creating a fleeting rise or fall in a company’s stock price”. He quotes a memo from corporate lawyer Martin Lipton, assailing Einhorn’s attack on Apple:

The activist-hedge-fund attack on Apple — in which one of the most successful, long-term-visionary companies of all time is being told by a money manager that Apple is doing things all wrong and should focus on short-term return of cash — is a clarion call for effective action to deal with the misuse of shareholder power.

Lipton, who has made a career insulating corporate boards from the power of shareholders, is far from a disinterested party. He isn’t alone in his criticism, however. Jill Priluck thinks that “while shareholders can be disciplinarians who right the wrongs of abusive directors, many boardroom activists advance some of the most destructive short-term thinking in business today”. Priluck identifies a key structural problem – ostensibly longer-term institutional investors like pension and mutual funds have become increasingly allied with shorter-term, activist investors. – Ben Walsh

On to today’s links:

Inequities
Where the world’s poorest people live, according to the World Bank – WSJ

Must Read
Gabby Giffords’ devastating op-ed on the Senate’s failure to pass background checks for gun buyers – NYT

Wonks
How a student took on two of the world’ s most prominent economists — and won – Reuters
Reinhart & Rogoff have it backwards: low growth causes higher debt to GDP ratios – Arindrajit Dube
“Dube investigates the causal element, which is the one that’s relevant for policy purposes” – Matt Yglesias

EU Mess
Was the gold sell-off triggered by a European collateral squeeze? – Izabella Kaminska

Good Luck With That
The next generation of house flippers are convinced that this time it’s different – Reuters

Legitimately Good News 
From 2005 to 2011, US infant mortality fell 12% – NYT

Earnings
Morgan Stanley still trying to figure out this whole bond-trading business – John Carney

Data Points
Evidence that “Americans simply don’t know one another very well” – Esquire

Defenestrations 
Rich Ricci, Barclays’ head of investment banking, is stepping down – DealBook

How Quaint! 
A dairy company is narrowing its pension gap with “20 million kilograms of maturing cheese” – FT

Your Daily Outrage
Suze Orman is teaching a personal finance class at a for-profit college that loads students with debt – Huffington Post

And, of course, there are many more links at Counterparties.

Comments
7 comments so far | RSS Comments RSS

Investors are right to demand cash from AAPL. There is no conceivable business strategy which could consume 100,000,000,000 worth of cash above and beyond the 10,000,000 in cash they generate every quarter.

Apple should keep twice what they need and return the rest. If they did that the stock would go up at least $100/share not because that’s rational but because investors are dividends right now.

You hear me Mr. Cook??? SHOW ME THE MONEY!!!

Posted by y2kurtus | Report as abusive
 

dWj is offensive and I’ve flagged it for abuse. Calling anyone a jackass is offensive… especially someone who gained her op-ed by having the dubious honor of being shot in the head. Disagree with her opinions dWj, but leave the name calling to yourself.

Posted by daveunc2000 | Report as abusive
 

-dWj

She was also, you know shot. Which means she can anticipate wide latitude on the issue and is perhaps not being “reasonable” as you put it.

Posted by QCIC | Report as abusive
 

I doubt it effects her image much at all.

Posted by QCIC | Report as abusive
 

“Gifford’s op-ed was devastating to her image as a sympathetic and reasonable person.”

There are no words.

Posted by crocodilechuck | Report as abusive
 

Getting shot and crippled by a madman with a gun surely colors one’s perspective on the issue? But she is right. If you desire change, and your senator refuses to vote for change, then change your senator. If people care about gun control, they need to demonstrate this in the voting booth or nothing will change.

Posted by TFF | Report as abusive
 

With all due respect, she was shot in the head. Perhaps that has affected her reasoning.

Posted by Publius | Report as abusive
 

Post Your Comment

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
  •