Corporate Political Speech is Bad for Shareholders

The common shareholders in financial firms do not have an incentive to induce executives to take into account the losses that risks can impose on preferred shareholders, bondholders, depositors, and taxpayers. Consequently, governance improvements that make directors more focused on shareholder interests cannot be relied on to tie executive payoffs to the interests of shareholders and non shareholders alike.

In such countries, rules are supposed to limit the controlling shareholders power to advance their interests at the expense of minority shareholders.

Such managers can be expected to use their influence to obtain and maintain rules that weaken the rights of dispersed shareholders and make it difficult for shareholders to replace them.

Thereafter, 90 do what they have always done hold for three years. But the other 10 sell their shares every four months to a new set of shareholders.

Based on those values, contracts with existing equity and debt holders should then be restructured.

Well that means the people who own a stake in the company, or the shareholders, they share this piece.

This limits losses to stockholders and completely protects almost all creditors.

And the market cap of the company is really what's the market's guess of what the shareholders' equity is?

Restricting managers incentive pay without changing shareholders incentives will only force shareholders to be more actively involved in the company and choose other ways to increase the level of risk taking.

Insulating executives from losses to stakeholders other than shareholders can be expected to encourage them to make investments and take on obligations that increase the likelihood and severity of losses that exceed the shareholders capital.

Alternatively, we might line up all of the holders from shortest to longest and check how the holding period for the one in the middle has changed the median.

Long term stockholders alone do not encourage a firm s managers to manage for the long term.

Asking shareholders and management to pay a relatively small amount is entirely fair and appropriate under these circumstances.

In this context, resolution means that a bank s managers are fired, shareholders are wiped out, and unsecured creditors can suffer losses.

When stock prices and profits seemed to defy gravity, shareholders meetings resembled American political conventions a show to promote a company s image, rather than a forum to debate contentious issues.

Initially, to facilitate debt reduction, bondholders would face another haircut.

In fact, the change may be driven by a rapidly trading minority, and not by major stockholders shortening their holding periods.

Indeed, the average holding period for America s core shareholders, like Fidelity and Vanguard, has increased in recent decades.

A fringe of rapid traders may well have greatly reduced the mean duration of stock holding, but, for the bulk of traditional American shareholders, the duration did not change.

In the United Kingdom, for example, public companies have been subject to such a requirement for more than a decade. Shareholders of British companies must approve, by majority vote on a shareholder resolution, any political spending that exceeds 5,000.

They find that holding durations for two of America s primary shareholders, Fidelity and Vanguard, have not budged since 1985.

The core issue is burden sharing across bondholders, citizens of the deficit countries, the EU, and, indeed, the rest of the world (via the International Monetary Fund).

And restructuring is a levy on bondholders wealth, including that of middle class pension savers.

But actions taken in the name of shareholder value often benefit only those whose wealth is closely tied to the company s profits, and may actually be harmful to many shareholders.

That is why we need new legislation to ensure that the use of corporate funds in politics does not stray from the interests of shareholders.

In particular, the influence of corporations on politicians and political outcomes can be expected to weaken the rules that protect shareholders and ensure that companies are well governed.

In fact, in the single minded quest for higher returns, bankers might expose shareholders to excessive risk, without compensating them adequately.

First, rigid rules that wipe out shareholders and penalize long term creditors are a clear deterrent from bankers point of view.

These shareholders are represented by institutional investors (pension funds, etc.) whose interests, agendas, and cozy relationships often align them more closely with firms CEOs and managers.

Getting executives to internalize perfectly the expected losses that their choices might impose on contributors of capital other than shareholders is complex.

These findings have intrigued firms, investors, and corporate governance experts ever since they were made public, and have led shareholder advisers to develop governance based investment products.

If the losses are big enough that existing equity and debt holders are wiped out, government insurers should make up the difference to protect depositors.

For the first time in its history, the Fund might have to take a significant haircut on its loans, and it will have to prepare its non European shareholders for it.

Adjustment, we are told, is morally commendable, whereas the alternatives all amount to repudiating the contracts that governments entered into with bondholders.

Torch bearers, and others.

As a result, insiders benefit from, and prefer to have, rules concerning corporate governance and investor protection that are more lax than those that are in the interest of shareholders and society.

Banks capital simply refers to their equity funding how much of their liabilities are owned by shareholders rather than being owed to creditors as some form of debt.

But what is the best way to interpret the change in the holding duration for policymaking purposes? For 90 of the shareholders, nothing has changed and their holding period has not shortened.

The Talaat Mustafa Group (TMG), a huge real estate conglomerate through which Mustafa made his billions, doesn't want any stockholders to worry just because the company's founder and namesake is under a death sentence.

Arrows

Shares

The possibility of being rejected in a real election would naturally make board members accountable to shareholders, indirectly making the executives accountable as well.

If the problem is the moral hazard implied by being too big to fail, the solution is not to restrict pay, but to eliminate the hazard by forcing shareholders to issue more equity or lose their stock when banks debt starts to become risky.

That is pretty much how most people reacted to the stories about bankers bonuses, when the great crash of 2007 2008 wiped out banks, businesses, shareholders savings, growth, and jobs.