Forum Home Page [see Broadridge note below]

 The Shareholder ForumTM`

Fair Investor Access

This public program was initiated in collaboration with The Conference Board Task Force on Corporate/Investor Engagement and with Thomson Reuters support of communication technologies. The Forum is providing continuing reports of the issues that concern this program's participants, as summarized  in the January 5, 2015 Forum Report of Conclusions.

"Fair Access" Home Page

"Fair Access" Program Reference


Related Projects 2012-2019

For graphed analyses of company and related industry returns, see

Returns on Corporate Capital

See also analyses of

Shareholder Support Rankings




Forum distribution:

Concentrated funds using their favorable access to corporate managers in more effective applications of activism


For the fund manager policy statements referenced in the article below, see


Source:  Activist Insight | Activism this week, June 22, 2017 newsletter

Friday June 22, 2018




[commentary of Josh Black, editor]


Active but not activist, passive investing but not passive governance, highly engaged shareowner. Does anything have its own name any more?

Earlier this week, our neighbor across the Avenue of the Americas AllianceBernstein (AB) published an article by Chief Investment Officer Sharon Fay on the power of large, actively managed funds to engage with their portfolio companies. 

Entitled “The megaphone effect,” its argument is explicitly positioned as a response to the rising influence of passive index funds and activist investors. “In our view, active equity managers are best positioned to stimulate change, to promote corporate improvements—and to increase the power of activist investing in the future,” Fay writes. 

“Passive investing often doesn’t have the teeth that active investors have,” Ali Dibadj, a senior equity research analyst at AB told me in an interview this week. “It is very good for engagement at the broad level – the macro – but implementing changes at the micro level can be even more beneficial to investors.”

AB is putting its money where its mouth is, seeding an incubated fund – AB Concentrated Engagement – for Dibadj to test the benefits of working with management teams to unlock value. “The fund engages very deeply to improve [environmental, social, and governance characteristics], capital allocation, and operational performance for the long-term,” he explains. “We invite our portfolio companies to engage with us openly; we believe we can help them make better decisions with our research. It’s free consulting from experts.”

“The megaphone effect” does not name names, even when giving examples of AB’s purported achievements. But Dibadj says there is already an effort to systematize and spread engagement experience across the firm, allowing managers of other portfolios to draw on the tool, as well as in-house analysts and, on occasion, outside consultants.

Coming a week after T. Rowe Price set out its approach to engagement, AB’s intervention is part of a more vocal stance from the “active but not activist” community. Faced with brutal outflows from active funds and apparently into passive ones, attention-grabbing letters from index fund CEOs, and greater all-round interest in ESG issues, active managers are being pushed into the limelight. A few, such as the smaller Neuberger Berman, have even run proxy fights.

“The passives have dominated the conversation to date and the large actively managed funds are looking for a greater voice,” says CamberView Partners’ Head of Activism Defense Derek Zaba. 

Importantly, however, AB like T. Rowe Price does not believe activists should have to do its dirty work. “We don’t really do requests for activists,” Dibadj adds. “Even if we disagree, we have good relationships with our management teams, and have great research, so I don’t think we need to.”

AB’s efforts will no doubt meet with some skepticism. While active managers can and should play a significant role – AB, T. Rowe, Fidelity and Neuberger Berman collectively own $1.6 trillion in U.S. equities – their impact has been limited by the perceived strength of passive inflows and the dispersion of influence between portfolio managers. Given active managers can sell stocks, issuers might drag out engagements in the hope of avoiding the problem. Hence the need for active managers to point out that they aren’t so unreasonable but won’t be a pushover either.

Inevitably, performance will be the bottom line. But Zaba points to another dynamic worth watching that will help the larger funds. Activists will continue to court both active and passive institutions as a means of effecting change, and companies will have to seek support from the same quarters. “As the market has consolidated,” he says, “the views of the more concentrated active players will matter even more.”



Copyright © 2018 Activist Insight



This Forum program was open, free of charge, to anyone concerned with investor interests in the development of marketplace standards for expanded access to information for securities valuation and shareholder voting decisions. As stated in the posted Conditions of Participation, the purpose of this public Forum's program was to provide decision-makers with access to information and a free exchange of views on the issues presented in the program's Forum Summary. Each participant was expected to make independent use of information obtained through the Forum, subject to the privacy rights of other participants.  It is a Forum rule that participants will not be identified or quoted without their explicit permission.

This Forum program was initiated in 2012 in collaboration with The Conference Board and with Thomson Reuters support of communication technologies to address issues and objectives defined by participants in the 2010 "E-Meetings" program relevant to broad public interests in marketplace practices. The website is being maintained to provide continuing reports of the issues addressed in the program, as summarized in the January 5, 2015 Forum Report of Conclusions.

Inquiries about this Forum program and requests to be included in its distribution list may be addressed to

The information provided to Forum participants is intended for their private reference, and permission has not been granted for the republishing of any copyrighted material. The material presented on this web site is the responsibility of Gary Lutin, as chairman of the Shareholder Forum.

Shareholder Forum™ is a trademark owned by The Shareholder Forum, Inc., for the programs conducted since 1999 to support investor access to decision-making information. It should be noted that we have no responsibility for the services that Broadridge Financial Solutions, Inc., introduced for review in the Forum's 2010 "E-Meetings" program and has since been offering with the “Shareholder Forum” name, and we have asked Broadridge to use a different name that does not suggest our support or endorsement.