Forum Home Page [see Broadridge note below]

 The Shareholder ForumTM`

Fair Investor Access

See related case examples of

Dell Inc.

investor rights to intrinsic value realization

and

Walgreen Co.

stock buyback policies

"Fair Access" Home Page

"Fair Access" Program Reference

For graphs of specific company and related industry returns, see

Returns on Corporate Capital

See also 2011-2019 analyses of

Shareholder Support Rankings

 

 

 

Forum reference:

Proxy professionals' advice for satisfying increasing investor engagement requirements

 

For the authors' research cited below in support of their recommendations, see

 

Source: The Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation, April 28, 2019 posting

Engaging With Your Investors

Posted by David Shammai and Kiran Vasantham, Morrow Sodali, on Sunday, April 28, 2019

Editor’s Note: David Shammai is Corporate Governance Director—Cross Border and Kiran Vasantham is Director of Investor Engagement at Morrow Sodali. This post is based on their Morrow Sodali memorandum.

In addition to traditional Investor Relations roadshows focused on financial performance, companies and boards are now expected to conduct governance and sustainability roadshows that reach out to institutional stewardship teams as well as portfolio managers.

For issuers, these engagements require the commitment of significant resources internally, including valuable board time. For investors, the expansion of stewardship activities means that even for those who increased the internal resources (see our earlier piece on Stewardship Principles), the escalating demand on capacity is forcing them to be more selective and raise expectations on the content and quality of engagements.

Based on Morrow Sodali’s experience assisting companies with planning and organization of governance and ESG roadshows, we note factors that are key to successful engagements.

Clear objective

Starting with coherent strategic thinking internally, the company should define and communicate the objective of the engagement. It could be to showcase a new strategic direction, or developments in the business that are related to material ESG themes, or it could be part of an ongoing dialogue with investors about relevant issues. Historically, most roadshows were scheduled in anticipation of a forthcoming shareholders meeting, but we find that many shareholders are growing reluctant to take meetings—given that their voting policies are published in detail—purely on this basis, especially during the annual meeting season.

Mapping of shareholders

When the primary purpose of a roadshow relates to a shareholder meeting, whether to improve voting quorum or to canvass support, it makes sense to prioritize outreach by holdings. Companies should always consider investors’ voting policies and should follow up on issues raised during previous engagements. However, when the engagement agenda is focused on ESG developments, companies may wish to cast the net wider, and target those investors that are long-term oriented and known to be focused on these issues. The guiding principle here should be to speak with existing shareholders, but also reach out to targeted shareholders the company wishes to have (or wishes to own more stock).

Deciding who to speak with—location, team members

Many institutional investors are making efforts to link internally their investment and stewardship teams. Companies should reach out to both investment and stewardship teams, as appropriate, but it is up to the investor to decide who is best to lead a specific engagement. We recommend that companies do their homework and ensure they are including all the appropriate contacts and positioning the engagement campaign so as to make it easier for the investors to decide who should be involved.

A key question for companies is whether members of the board of directors should be involved and if so, which directors are needed to address relevant issues. In addition, should members of management be included or not? For example, on compensation issues, investors may want to talk primarily to board compensation committee members. In other cases, HR should be included. The demands on investor resources mean that increasingly they view it as important to have direct dialogue with directors (see our Institutional Investor Survey 2019 more on why and how to do this) as well as relevant members of the management team (e.g. HR representatives on issues of human capital management).

On a practical note, Morrow Sodali often come across companies who apply a strong home bias in targeting their investors. Our experience indicates that cross-border ownership is increasingly common even in controlled companies. In those cases, we recommend roadshow itineraries should include markets where investors are located (e.g. London, Paris, Netherlands), regardless of where the company is domiciled.

Extensive preparation

Evolving stewardship responsibilities and regulatory requirements mean that the information investors are publishing about their voting and stewardship policies is more extensive than ever. We recommend that companies conduct meticulous preparation in advance of meetings, and tailor the meeting agenda and materials to meet investors’ preferences. Because investors’ time and resources are limited, engagements should do more than rehash publicly stated positions. The goal is to conduct an informed and informative dialogue.

Anecdotal evidence shows that, at times, preparation is needed just to secure some meetings. At Morrow Sodali, we are aware that some of the large investors have updated their access processes to ensure that requests for engagement pass a threshold of demonstrating preparedness as a condition to them being considered.

Follow up

This is perhaps stating the obvious but thinking about the next meeting and the next engagement means that companies have to maintain credibility and follow up as agreed. For example, when a consultation process culminates in new proposals, it is important to go back to the relevant investors and communicate the rationale for the chosen course of action—i.e. even, and perhaps especially, if the company felt it was not able to fully adopt the preference of the particular investor(s).

Why this is important?

Executing an effective investor engagement draws on precious corporate resources including valuable management and board time. It is important therefore that companies fully consider the benefits. Most immediately, this includes strengthening of the relationships with long-term minded owners—those shareholders most companies would wish to have more of. Regular face-to-face meetings with investors can be a critical part of this. Additionally, with the current level of activism, we find that for some clients, especially in Europe, the ability to draw on support from long-term shareholders has been a key component of activism defense. More fundamentally, there are several pieces of academic research suggesting that engagement enhances value, presumably by enhancing communication and helping to close any possible disconnects between valuations and prices.

 

Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation
All copyright and trademarks in content on this site are owned by their respective owners. Other content © 2019 The President and Fellows of Harvard College.

 

 

This Forum program is 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 Forum's purpose is 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 is 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 to address issues and objectives defined by participants in the 2010 "E-Meetings" program relevant to broad public interests in marketplace practices, rather than investor decisions relating to only a single company. The Forum may therefore invite program support of several companies that can provide both expertise and examples of leadership relating to the issues being addressed.

Inquiries about this Forum program and requests to be included in its distribution list may be addressed to access@shareholderforum.com.

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.