IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/zbw/jumsac/295031.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Förderung der Transparenz oder Kosten für die Aktionäre? Beurteilung der Regulierung von Proxy Advisors anhand der U.S.-Marktreaktion
[Promoting Transparency or Harming Shareholders? U.S. Market Reaction to the Regulation of Proxy Advisors]

Author

Listed:
  • Schneider, Julian

Abstract

Der Beschluss der SEC zur Regulierung von Proxy Advisors löst gegensätzliche Reaktionen aus. Der beabsichtigten gesteigerten Transparenz für Aktionäre stehen höhere Kosten zur Informationsbeschaffung gegenüber. Die vorliegende Arbeit befasst sich mit der Frage, ob Aktionäre die Regulierung von Proxy Advisors positiv als Mehrwert oder negativ als Kosten auffassen. Mit Hilfe einer Ereignisstudie werden die Marktreaktionen auf elf Ereignisse untersucht, die die Wahrscheinlichkeit der Einführung der Regulierung beeinflusst haben. Die Ereignisstudie zeigt eine negative Gesamtmarktreaktion, die darauf schließen lässt, dass Aktionäre die Regulierung weniger als Mehrwert durch erhöhte Transparenz, sondern vielmehr als Nachteil durch zusätzliche Kosten bewerten. Die Reaktionen auf Ereignisse, die die Wahrscheinlichkeit der Einführung erhöhen (verringern), fallen tendenziell negativ (positiv) aus. Zudem sind die Marktreaktionen stärker, je geringer der Anteil institutioneller Investoren an einem Unternehmen ist. Diese Arbeit trägt zur Debatte über die Regulierung von Proxy Advisors bei, indem sie als Erste empirische Erkenntnisse darüber liefert, wie Aktionäre auf eine Regulierung reagieren.

Suggested Citation

  • Schneider, Julian, 2023. "Förderung der Transparenz oder Kosten für die Aktionäre? Beurteilung der Regulierung von Proxy Advisors anhand der U.S.-Marktreaktion [Promoting Transparency or Harming Shareholders? U.S. Market Re," Junior Management Science (JUMS), Junior Management Science e. V., vol. 8(1), pages 148-162.
  • Handle: RePEc:zbw:jumsac:295031
    DOI: 10.5282/jums/v8i1pp148-162
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/295031/1/5193-3496.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.5282/jums/v8i1pp148-162?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. David F. Larcker & Allan L. McCall & Gaizka Ormazabal, 2015. "Outsourcing Shareholder Voting to Proxy Advisory Firms," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 58(1), pages 173-204.
    2. Nadya Malenko & Yao Shen, 2016. "The Role of Proxy Advisory Firms: Evidence from a Regression-Discontinuity Design," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 29(12), pages 3394-3427.
    3. Cindy R. Alexander & Mark A. Chen & Duane J. Seppi & Chester S. Spatt, 2010. "Interim News and the Role of Proxy Voting Advice," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 23(12), pages 4419-4454, December.
    4. Copland, James & Larcker, David F. & Tayan, Brian, 2018. "The Big Thumb on the Scale: An Overview of the Proxy Advisory Industry," Research Papers 3679, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    5. Joerg-Markus Hitz & Nico Lehmann, 2018. "Empirical Evidence on the Role of Proxy Advisors in European Capital Markets," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 27(4), pages 713-745, August.
    6. repec:oup:revfin:v:29:y:2016:i:12:p:3394-3427. is not listed on IDEAS
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Miyachi, Hiroaki & Takeda, Fumiko, 2024. "Empirical study on voting results and proxy advisor recommendations in Japan," Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    2. Shu, Chong, 2024. "The proxy advisory industry: Influencing and being influenced," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    3. Dasgupta, Amil & Fos, Vyacheslav & Sautner, Zacharias, 2021. "Institutional investors and corporate governance," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 112114, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    4. Isil Erel & Léa H Stern & Chenhao Tan & Michael S Weisbach, 2021. "Selecting Directors Using Machine Learning [The role of boards of directors in corporate governance: A conceptual framework and survey]," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 34(7), pages 3226-3264.
    5. Calluzzo, Paul & Kedia, Simi, 2019. "Mutual fund board connections and proxy voting," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 134(3), pages 669-688.
    6. Duan, Ying & Jiao, Yawen & Tam, Kinsun, 2021. "Conflict of interest and proxy voting by institutional investors," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    7. Wang, Xianjue, 2021. "Disclosure by firms under voting pressure," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    8. Ormazabal, Gaizka, 2018. "The Role of Stakeholders in Corporate Governance: A View from Accounting Research," CEPR Discussion Papers 12775, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    9. Paul M. Guest & Marco Nerino, 2019. "Do Corporate Governance Ratings Change Investor Expectations? Evidence from Announcements by Institutional Shareholder Services," Working Papers wp515, Centre for Business Research, University of Cambridge.
    10. Farizo, Joseph D., 2022. "(Black)Rock the vote: Index funds and opposition to management," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 76(C).
    11. Tao Li, 2018. "Outsourcing Corporate Governance: Conflicts of Interest Within the Proxy Advisory Industry," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(6), pages 2951-2971, June.
    12. He, Yazhou Ellen, 2021. "Communications in proxy contests," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 69(C).
    13. Masumoto, Kazuhide & Takeda, Fumiko, 2022. "Market reactions to proxy advisory companies’ recommendations in Japan," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 50(C).
    14. Loureiro, Gilberto & Mendonça, Cesar, 2024. "Do large registered investment funds undermine shareholder activism? Evidence from hedge fund proposals," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 162(C).
    15. Edmans, Alex & Gosling, Tom & Jenter, Dirk, 2023. "CEO compensation: Evidence from the field," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 150(3).
    16. Yonca Ertimur & Fabrizio Ferri & David Oesch, 2018. "Understanding Uncontested Director Elections," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(7), pages 3400-3420, July.
    17. Christie Hayne & Marshall Vance, 2019. "Information Intermediary or De Facto Standard Setter? Field Evidence on the Indirect and Direct Influence of Proxy Advisors," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 57(4), pages 969-1011, September.
    18. Jiekun Huang, 2023. "Thy Neighbor’s Vote: Peer Effects in Proxy Voting," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 69(7), pages 4169-4189, July.
    19. Berno Buechel & Lydia Mechtenberg & Alexander F. Wagner, 2022. "When do proxy advisors improve corporate decisions?," Swiss Finance Institute Research Paper Series 22-47, Swiss Finance Institute.
    20. Xiaohui Li & Yao Shen & Jing Xie, 2024. "Proxy Voting on CEO Pay: Evidence from Rejection of the Inevitable Disclosure Doctrine," Working Papers 202412, University of Macau, Faculty of Business Administration.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:zbw:jumsac:295031. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://jums.academy/en/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.