IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ehl/lserod/43078.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Delegated activism and disclosure

Author

Listed:
  • Dasgupta, Amil
  • Zachariadis, Konstantinos

Abstract

Mutual funds hold large blocks of shares in many major corporations. Practitioners and regulators alike have been concerned that mutual funds use their proxy votes in a promanagement manner in order to garner lucrative pensions administration contracts, thus hindering shareholder value. Such concerns led the SEC to mandate the disclosure of mutual fund proxy votes starting in 2003. We present a simple model of mutual fund proxy voting in the presence of potential business ties. Our model generates clean predictions on how funds would vote both prior and subsequent to mandatory disclosure. We provide theoretical foundation for the limited activism of mutual funds and demonstrate that mandatory disclosure is not a panacea. We also show that the strategic interaction between multiple mutual fund blockholders of comparable size can generate counterintuitive non-monotone relationships with relevant empirical implications.

Suggested Citation

  • Dasgupta, Amil & Zachariadis, Konstantinos, 2011. "Delegated activism and disclosure," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 43078, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
  • Handle: RePEc:ehl:lserod:43078
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/43078/
    File Function: Open access version.
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Martijn Cremers & Roberta Romano, 2009. "Institutional Investors and Proxy Voting on Compensation Plans: The Impact of the 2003 Mutual Fund Voting Disclosure Regulation," NBER Working Papers 15449, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Lauren Cohen & Breno Schmidt, 2009. "Attracting Flows by Attracting Big Clients," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 64(5), pages 2125-2151, October.
    3. Bengt Holmstrom & Jean Tirole, 1997. "Financial Intermediation, Loanable Funds, and The Real Sector," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 112(3), pages 663-691.
    4. Matvos, Gregor & Ostrovsky, Michael, 2010. "Heterogeneity and peer effects in mutual fund proxy voting," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(1), pages 90-112, October.
    5. Chevalier, Judith & Ellison, Glenn, 1997. "Risk Taking by Mutual Funds as a Response to Incentives," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 105(6), pages 1167-1200, December.
    6. Davis, Gerald F. & Kim, E. Han, 2007. "Business ties and proxy voting by mutual funds," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 85(2), pages 552-570, August.
    7. Amil Dasgupta & Giorgia Piacentino, 2011. "The Wall Street Walk when Blockholders Compete for Flows," FMG Discussion Papers dp692, Financial Markets Group.
    8. Admati, Anat R & Pfleiderer, Paul & Zechner, Josef, 1994. "Large Shareholder Activism, Risk Sharing, and Financial Market Equilibrium," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 102(6), pages 1097-1130, December.
    9. Dasgupta, Amil & Prat, Andrea, 2008. "Information aggregation in financial markets with career concerns," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 143(1), pages 83-113, November.
    10. Shleifer, Andrei & Vishny, Robert W, 1986. "Large Shareholders and Corporate Control," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 94(3), pages 461-488, June.
    11. Brickley, James A. & Lease, Ronald C. & Smith, Clifford Jr., 1988. "Ownership structure and voting on antitakeover amendments," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(1-2), pages 267-291, January.
    12. Pound, John, 1988. "Proxy contests and the efficiency of shareholder oversight," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(1-2), pages 237-265, January.
    13. K. J. Martijn Cremers & Roberta Romano, 2011. "Institutional Investors and Proxy Voting on Compensation Plans: The Impact of the 2003 Mutual Fund Voting Disclosure Rule," American Law and Economics Review, American Law and Economics Association, vol. 13(1), pages 220-268.
    14. Sanford J. Grossman & Oliver D. Hart, 1980. "Takeover Bids, the Free-Rider Problem, and the Theory of the Corporation," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 11(1), pages 42-64, Spring.
    15. Stuart L. Gillan & Laura T. Starks, 2007. "The Evolution of Shareholder Activism in the United States," Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, Morgan Stanley, vol. 19(1), pages 55-73, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Amil Dasgupta & Giorgia Piacentino, 2011. "The Wall Street Walk when Blockholders Compete for Flows," FMG Discussion Papers dp692, Financial Markets Group.
    2. Burkart, Mike & Dasgupta, Amil, 2013. "Why is hedge fund activism procyclical?," CEPR Discussion Papers 9409, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Amil Dasgupta & Giorgia Piacentino, 2011. "The Wall Street Walk when Blockholders Compete for Flows," FMG Discussion Papers dp692, Financial Markets Group.
    2. Szilagyi, P.G., 2007. "Corporate governance and the agency costs of debt and outside equity," Other publications TiSEM 9520d40a-224f-43a8-9bf9-b, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    3. Dasgupta, Amil & Piacentino, Giorgia, 2015. "The Wall Street walk when blockholders compete for flows," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 63144, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    4. Dasgupta, Amil & Fos, Vyacheslav & Sautner, Zacharias, 2021. "Institutional investors and corporate governance," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 112114, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    5. Gantchev, Nickolay, 2013. "The costs of shareholder activism: Evidence from a sequential decision model," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(3), pages 610-631.
    6. Ding, Rong & Hou, Wenxuan & Kuo, Jing-Ming & Lee, Edward, 2013. "Fund ownership and stock price informativeness of Chinese listed firms," Journal of Multinational Financial Management, Elsevier, vol. 23(3), pages 166-185.
    7. Nain, Amrita & Yao, Tong, 2013. "Mutual fund skill and the performance of corporate acquirers," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 110(2), pages 437-456.
    8. Stuart L. Gillan & Laura T. Starks, 2002. "Institutional Investors, Corporate Ownership, and Corporate Governance: Global Perspectives," WIDER Working Paper Series DP2002-09, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    9. Dasgupta, Amil & Piacentino, Giorgia, 2011. "The Wall Street walk when blockholders compete for flows," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 119060, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    10. Jing Huang & Steven R. Matsunaga & Z. Jay Wang, 2020. "The Role of Pension Business Benefits in Institutional Block Ownership and Corporate Governance," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(4), pages 1959-1989, December.
    11. Mike Burkart & Amil Dasgupta, 2014. "Activist Funds, Leverage, and Procyclicality," FMG Discussion Papers dp733, Financial Markets Group.
    12. Morgan, Angela & Poulsen, Annette & Wolf, Jack & Yang, Tina, 2011. "Mutual funds as monitors: Evidence from mutual fund voting," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 17(4), pages 914-928, September.
    13. Burkart, Mike & Dasgupta, Amil, 2013. "Why is hedge fund activism procyclical?," CEPR Discussion Papers 9409, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    14. Gillan, Stuart L. & Starks, Laura T., 2000. "Corporate governance proposals and shareholder activism: the role of institutional investors," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 275-305, August.
    15. Schwartz-Ziv, Miriam & Wermers, Russ, 2022. "Do institutional investors monitor their large-scale vs. small-scale investments differently? Evidence from the say-on-pay vote," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 141(C).
    16. Calluzzo, Paul & Dong, Gang Nathan, 2014. "Fund governance contagion: New evidence on the mutual fund governance paradox," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 28(C), pages 83-101.
    17. Helwege, Jean & Intintoli, Vincent J. & Zhang, Andrew, 2012. "Voting with their feet or activism? Institutional investors’ impact on CEO turnover," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 22-37.
    18. Grigori Erenburg & Janet Kiholm Smith & Richard Smith, 2015. "Does Institutional Ownership Promote the Transformation of Underperforming Firms?," Quarterly Journal of Finance (QJF), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 5(04), pages 1-40, December.
    19. Richard Chung & Scott Fung & Szu-Yin Hung, 2012. "Institutional Investors and Firm Efficiency of Real Estate Investment Trusts," The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, Springer, vol. 45(1), pages 171-211, June.
    20. Renneboog, L.D.R. & Szilagyi, P.G., 2009. "Shareholder Activism through the Proxy Process," Other publications TiSEM cc25d736-2965-4511-b100-1, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • G00 - Financial Economics - - General - - - General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ehl:lserod:43078. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: LSERO Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/lsepsuk.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.