The Shareholder ForumTM

Electronic Participation in Shareholder Meetings

Forum Home Page [see Broadridge note below]

"E-Meetings" Home Page

"E-Meetings" Program Reference


The ISS "25th anniversary book" referenced by the author below, "25 for 25 | Observations on the Past, Present, and Future of Corporate Governance In Celebration of ISS’ 25th Anniversary" (available from the Forum website, or from the ISS website with registration, 60 pages, 1,310 KB, in PDF format), includes  the following articles by members of the Forum's "E-Meetings" Program Panel:

* Ms. Foran also serves as a member of the Forum's Policy Review Board.


CBS Interactive Business Network, March 16, 2011 blog



Commentary / Risky Business

ISS May Be Under Fire, but Look How Far It — and Shareholder Rights — Have Come

By Nell Minow | March 16, 2011

As proxy season heats up — of particular interest will be a whole new category of “say on pay” shareholder proposals — proxy advisory firm Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS) is under unprecedented scrutiny. That includes possible — and, in my view, unnecessary — new regulatory requirements from the SEC.

ISS is often described as “influential,” and public companies frequently complain that too many institutional investors vote their shares according to ISS recommendation without any independent evaluation. They also complain about conflicts of interest because ISS does consulting work for some of the companies it evaluates. The industry-sponsored Center on Executive Compensation sent a letter to institutional investors urging them to grill ISS about its conflicts. Oddly enough, the center was silent about its own conflicts.

I was the fourth person hired at ISS, back in 1986, and was its general counsel and briefly its CEO before leaving to join its founder, Bob Monks, in the second of our three business ventures. I well remember Bob explaining to me his original vision for the role of institutional investors in corporate governance.

Investors got smart… and organized

I had never heard either of those terms before, and it all seemed very idealistic and far-fetched. But we were there at the moment of collision between the takeover-era corporate raiders and entrenched managers on the one hand and increasingly enlightened and activist investors on the other. These investors were smart enough to know when they had been mistreated, obligated as fiduciaries to respond, and big enough to make that response matter.

In those days, shareholder initiatives could seldom garner enough votes to make them eligible for resubmission the following year. Now shareholders are voting down excessive pay plans and vetting director candidates.

ISS has been a part of that, growing from our four-person, one client operation in 1986 to a world-wide enterprise advising institutional investors on proxy and other governance issues, at one time a public company itself as a part of RiskMetrics and now a subsidiary of MSCI. And, with its rival Glass Lewis, proxy advisory services have become so influential that advisors will claim victory about a 70 percent majority for a compensation plan, one that what a few years ago would have resulted in a routine vote high in the 90s.

What ISS critics get wrong

The corporate critics of ISS have largely failed to make a credible or coherent argument. They complain that ISS is too influential, even though their own numbers show that it sways no more than 20 percent of the vote. Other data suggest that the more controversial the issue, the more ISS clients review their analysis and come to their own conclusions.

Of course, companies don’t mind ISS’s influence when — as in the vast majority of cases — the firm recommends a vote in favor of management.

ISS is often accused of being too rigid and formulaic.  There is some justification for this; it relies on formulas to demonstrate that it is not swayed by conflicts from its consulting fees. But ISS is also criticized for departing from its formula. This is absurd; no formula should take precedence over concerns about performance.

What ISS critics get right

In my opinion, though, ISS really shouldn’t do consulting work for companies it covers. I didn’t allow it when I was CEO of ISS, and I didn’t allow it at The Corporate Library. I often disagree with the analysis and recommendations of ISS (they recommended against me a couple of times, for example). But I’m comfortable letting its customers make that call. I remember how long we waited for our second client — the first was an old friend of Bob’s who took pity on us — and I’m proud of how far they’ve come.

ISS has produced a 25th anniversary book (free to download, but registration required) with essays by 25 of the very best, brightest, and most insightful in the world of corporate governance. Highlights include:

The contributors all have points of disagreement with each other, but all agree that we’ve experienced enormous changes in the world of corporate governance over the past quarter-century.  And just about everyone recognizes that executive compensation will be an increasingly important focus for investors.  The book is an indispensable resource for anyone who wants to understand the corporate governance now and where it is going.

© 2011 CBS Interactive.




This Forum program is open, free of charge, to anyone concerned with investor interests in the development of standards for conducting shareholder meetings with electronic participation. 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.

The organization of this Forum program was encouraged by Walden Asset Management, and is proceeding with the invited leadership support of Broadridge Financial Solutions, Inc. and Intel Corporation to address issues 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

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.