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 reference:

Escalating professional service costs of both sides to win support


For the report on which the article below is based, putting the quoted observations in their intended context, see the following publication:



Source: ValueWalk, September 10, 2014 article



Proxy Fights Cost U.S. Companies $4.8 Million On Average

Posted By: Michael Ide Posted date: September 10, 2014 12:26:18 PM

Proxy fights have cost US companies an average $4.8 million so far this year according to the latest issue of Activist Insight, with management consistently outspending activists for anything above micro-cap stocks in what activist investors say is a classic case of misaligned incentives, but partially just reflects the two sides different obligations

Management spends more on proxy fights than activists

As you would expect, the cost of a proxy fight goes up for both sides as the market cap of the target company increases, but the jump small- to mid-cap companies is still pretty striking, increasing almost five-fold according to quarterly and annual reports. Activist Insight points out that large-cap proxy fights are still pretty rare so the sample size is small and the average could easily shift if large-cap fights become more common.

The costs to activists also go up based on the size of the target company, but not nearly as quickly. Going on proxy solicitation costs, which both sides have to disclose, activist investors are often outspent by 2:1 or more.

“Defending irresponsibility requires a lot of effort,” says Shareholder Forum chairman Gary Lutin, “but it will always be worth spending whatever amount of other peoples’ money is required.”

That’s a cynical way to view the situation, but it’s not entirely inaccurate either. Activist funds have a strong incentive to keep costs under control so that the investment works out, while board members playing defense in a proxy fight have more binary outcome that doesn’t give them much reason to hold back. At the same time, management has an obligation to give every shareholder the opportunity to vote, and reaching out to a diverse group of institutional and retail investors is labor intensive and expensive. Activists only have to contact the handful of institutional investors they think are likely to back them in the coming vote. Experienced activists will also have more experience with proxy fights and standing relationships with legal firms, PR, and other professional service providers.

Proxy fights can cause smaller companies to post losses

Even though the absolute cost goes down, small and medium-caps have to consider the possibility that spending a few million on a proxy fight will push them from black to red (to say nothing of micro-caps). Activist Insight gives the example ValueVision Media Inc (NASDAQ:VVTV) which spent $5.3 million unsuccessfully trying to fend of Clinton Group, which spent $800,000 to pick up four board seats and contributed to ValueVision’s losses for the quarter.

Copyright © 2014

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.