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



For the article addressed below, previously distributed to Forum participants, see


Source: Law360, April 24, 2013 article

Shareholder Loyalty Is A 2-Way Street, Pension Funds Say

By Liz Hoffman


Law360, New York (April 24, 2013, 6:07 PM ET) -- Two large institutional investors on Wednesday urged independent board members across corporate America to reach out regularly to shareholders to head off problems before they erupt into ugly and expensive proxy fights.

Executives at Dutch pension fund manager PGGM Investments and Britain's RPMI Railpen Investments, which control about $200 billion in retirement investments, want to see more engagement from independent directors — those not holding executive positions at the companies they oversee — to “create a culture of no surprises.”

It's a tired tale this time of year: A company finds itself in a surprise proxy fight, courtesy of an uppity hedge fund. It runs to its trusted holders — institutional investors like PGGM and Railpen or money managers like Fidelity Investments — urging them to back management, promising better performance and seeking a firm showing of support.

Too little, too late, say these two shareholders, which hope to break the cycle.

“Understandably companies do not want to hear from shareholders only in times of distress,” said Deborah Gilshan, corporate governance counsel at Railpen, and Catherine Jackson, corporate governance adviser at PGGM. “However, equally, shareholders do not wish to be contacted by directors only when the company is in crisis and needs shareholder support.”

Writing in a blog post for Harvard Law School's corporate governance program, the executives said some boards do solicit input before proxy battles erupt, an “encouraging” sign. But that's not the norm, and the two pension funds said many boards scrape by with the bare minimum — federally required disclosure statements.

“We advocate for independent director meetings with shareholders to become a routine part of a board's approach to outreach with its shareholders, rather than only in exceptional circumstances or in times of crisis,” they said.

Proxy advisers and corporate communications experts regularly advise companies to mind the store and not take institutional support for granted. That's especially true in recent years, as the once-friendly mutual fund manager has become a less reliable ally.

T. Rowe Price Group Inc. and Southeastern Asset Management Inc. — neither of them hedge funds and neither known for rocking the boat — are leading the charge against the buyout of Dell Inc. BlackRock Inc. CEO Larry Fink recently sent a letter to 600 clients, reassuring them that the firm isn't in the pocket of company boards.

“Companies that don't have that ongoing interaction tend to be the ones that get caught off-guard,” said Brian Schaffer, who heads the M&A group at Prosek Partners, a New York communications firm. “You've got to be talking all the time to shareholders.”

PGGM and Railpen have placed much of the responsibility at the feet of the board members without a C-suite office. Independent directors have a special duty to look out for shareholders, especially in companies where management has a big stake or where the CEO and chairman roles are combined, they said.

On executive compensation, strategy, risk management and succession planning, independent directors should be shareholders' primary contact, the pension funds said. For issues on operations and growth strategy, management is a better fit — a sentiment Schaffer echoed.

“If I am an investor, I want to talk to the people responsible for running the company day-in and day-out and who have a firm handle on a company's operations and financial positioning, not a board member, who by design, is removed from that role,” he said.

The comments come as proxy season moves into full swing. More than 250 companies will hold annual meetings over the next three weeks, and many of them — Gleacher & Co., Tessera Technologies Inc., Stillwater Mining Co., Transocean Ltd. and Compuware Corp., among others — are facing board nomination fights from activist investors.

A lucky few, most notably Agrium Corp., have survived such challenges in recent weeks, while others, like Hess Corp., have made swift changes to their business plans to avoid them.

While not commenting on any active battles, PGGM and Railpen noted that good communication with institutional investors could go a long way toward stacking a company's corner with allies if and when such a challenge emerges.

“It is no longer acceptable for board directors … to be perceived as hiding behind policies of delegation, while expecting to be re-elected year after year.,” they said. “Engagement is a two-way process.”


© Copyright 2013, Portfolio Media, Inc.



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.