IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/tin/wpaper/20120094.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Elimination of Broker Voting in Director Elections

Author

Listed:
  • Ali Akyol

    (University of Melbourne)

  • Konrad Raff

    (VU University Amsterdam)

  • Patrick Verwijmeren

    (VU University Amsterdam, Duisenberg school of finance, and University of Glasgow)

Abstract

After pressure from shareholder activists, proxy advisory firms, and the New York Stock Exchange, the Securities and Exchange Commission has eliminated uninstructed broker voting in director elections. We observe that average director approval rates remain high after the change in regulation, while the probability of a director being voted off the board remains low. In addition, we find no evidence of significant wealth effects of the change in regulation. We do find that firms are increasingly letting shareholders ratify their auditors after the change in regulation, which helps in establishing a quorum.

Suggested Citation

  • Ali Akyol & Konrad Raff & Patrick Verwijmeren, 2012. "The Elimination of Broker Voting in Director Elections," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 12-094/IV/DSF38, Tinbergen Institute.
    • Handle: RePEc:tin:wpaper:20120094
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://papers.tinbergen.nl/12094.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Larcker, David F. & Ormazabal, Gaizka & Taylor, Daniel J., 2011. "The market reaction to corporate governance regulation," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 101(2), pages 431-448, August.
    2. Zhang, Ivy Xiying, 2007. "Economic consequences of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(1-2), pages 74-115, September.
    3. Del Guercio, Diane & Seery, Laura & Woidtke, Tracie, 2008. "Do boards pay attention when institutional investor activists "just vote no"?," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 90(1), pages 84-103, October.
    4. Jennifer E. Bethel & Stuart L. Gillan, 2002. "The Impact of the Institutional and Regulatory Environment on Shareholder Voting," Financial Management, Financial Management Association, vol. 31(4), Winter.
    5. Sefcik, Se & Thompson, R, 1986. "An Approach To Statistical-Inference In Cross-Sectional Models With Security Abnormal Returns As Dependent Variable," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 24(2), pages 316-334.
    6. Schipper, K & Thompson, R, 1983. "The Impact Of Merger-Related Regulations On The Shareholders Of Acquiring Firms," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(1), pages 184-221.
    7. April Klein & Emanuel Zur, 2009. "Entrepreneurial Shareholder Activism: Hedge Funds and Other Private Investors," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 64(1), pages 187-229, February.
    8. Renée B. Adams & Daniel Ferreira, 2007. "A Theory of Friendly Boards," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 62(1), pages 217-250, February.
    9. Akyol, Ali C. & Lim, Wei Fen & Verwijmeren, Patrick, 2012. "Shareholders in the Boardroom: Wealth Effects of the SEC’s Proposal to Facilitate Director Nominations," Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 47(5), pages 1029-1057, October.
    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. Akyol, Ali C. & Raff, Konrad & Verwijmeren, Patrick, 2017. "The elimination of broker voting in director elections," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 21(C), pages 34-39.
    2. Denes, Matthew R. & Karpoff, Jonathan M. & McWilliams, Victoria B., 2017. "Thirty years of shareholder activism: A survey of empirical research," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 405-424.
    3. Yonca Ertimur & Fabrizio Ferri & David Oesch, 2018. "Understanding Uncontested Director Elections," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(7), pages 3400-3420, July.
    4. Albuquerque, Rui & Zhang, Chendi & Rocholl, Jörg, 2015. "Institutional Investors and Corporate Political Activism," CEPR Discussion Papers 10916, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    5. Paul Cousins & Marie Dutordoir & Benn Lawson & João Quariguasi Frota Neto, 2020. "Shareholder Wealth Effects of Modern Slavery Regulation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(11), pages 5265-5289, November.
    6. Albuquerque, Rui & Rocholl, Jörg & Zhang, Chendi, 2016. "Institutional Investors and Corporate Political Activism," CEPR Discussion Papers 11301, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    7. Chao Kevin Li, 2021. "Wealth effects of dividend regulation: Evidence from China," Australian Journal of Management, Australian School of Business, vol. 46(2), pages 197-223, May.
    8. Anne-Marie Anderson & Nandu Nayar, 2022. "Can regulation enhancing the shareholder franchise increase firm value?," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 61(3), pages 191-221, June.
    9. Larcker, David F. & McCall, Allan L. & Ormazabal, Gaizka, 2012. "The Economic Consequences of Proxy Advisor Say-on-Pay Voting Policies," Research Papers 2105, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    10. Albuquerque, Rui & Lei, Zicheng & Rocholl, Jörg & Zhang, Chendi, 2020. "Citizens United vs. FEC and corporate political activism," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    11. Hollis A. Skaife & Timothy Werner, 2020. "Changes in Firms’ Political Investment Opportunities, Managerial Accountability, and Reputational Risk," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 163(2), pages 239-263, May.
    12. Fernandes, Nuno & Lel, Ugur & Miller, Darius P., 2010. "Escape from New York: The market impact of loosening disclosure requirements," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(2), pages 129-147, February.
    13. Espahbodi, Reza & Espahbodi, Hassan, 2019. "The impact on stock prices of deferral and elimination of internal control audit requirement for small firms," Journal of Contemporary Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(2), pages 158-166.
    14. Vincent C. Ma & John S. Liu, 2016. "Exploring the research fronts and main paths of literature: a case study of shareholder activism research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(1), pages 33-52, October.
    15. 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.
    16. Ana M. Albuquerque & Mary Ellen Carter & Luann J. Lynch, 2015. "Court Intervention as a Governance Mechanism over CEO Pay: Evidence from the Citigroup Derivative Lawsuit," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(4), pages 637-658, December.
    17. Yonca Ertimur & Fabrizio Ferri & David Oesch, 2013. "Shareholder Votes and Proxy Advisors: Evidence from Say on Pay," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 51(5), pages 951-996, December.
    18. Renneboog, L.D.R. & Szilagyi, P.G., 2009. "Shareholder Activism through the Proxy Process," Other publications TiSEM cc25d736-2965-4511-b100-1, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    19. Paul Tanyi & David B. Smith & Xiaoyan Cheng, 2021. "Does firm payout policy affect shareholders’ dissatisfaction with directors?," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 57(1), pages 279-320, July.
    20. Tim Baldenius & Xiaojing Meng & Lin Qiu, 2021. "The value of board commitment," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 26(4), pages 1587-1622, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Broker voting; shareholder empowerment; Securities and Exchange Commission; board effectiveness;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • G34 - Financial Economics - - Corporate Finance and Governance - - - Mergers; Acquisitions; Restructuring; Corporate Governance
    • G38 - Financial Economics - - Corporate Finance and Governance - - - Government Policy and Regulation

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:tin:wpaper:20120094. 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: Tinbergen Office +31 (0)10-4088900 (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/tinbenl.html .

    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.