IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/jfinqa/v47y2012i03p567-588_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Do Pension-Related Business Ties Influence Mutual Fund Proxy Voting? Evidence from Shareholder Proposals on Executive Compensation

Author

Listed:
  • Ashraf, Rasha
  • Jayaraman, Narayanan
  • Ryan, Harley E.

Abstract

We examine the relation between mutual fund votes on shareholder executive compensation proposals and pension-related business ties between fund families and the firms. In unconditional tests, we find that fund families support management when they have pension ties to the firm. We find no relation when we stratify by fund family in conditional tests, which suggests that fund families with pension ties vote with management at both client and nonclient firms. We confirm this result in an analysis of nonclient firms. Overall, our results suggest that pension-related business ties influence fund families to vote with management at all firms.

Suggested Citation

  • Ashraf, Rasha & Jayaraman, Narayanan & Ryan, Harley E., 2012. "Do Pension-Related Business Ties Influence Mutual Fund Proxy Voting? Evidence from Shareholder Proposals on Executive Compensation," Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 47(3), pages 567-588, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:jfinqa:v:47:y:2012:i:03:p:567-588_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0022109012000014/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Calluzzo, Paul & Kedia, Simi, 2019. "Mutual fund board connections and proxy voting," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 134(3), pages 669-688.
    2. Efrat Dressler & Yevgeny Mugerman, 2023. "Doing the Right Thing? The Voting Power Effect and Institutional Shareholder Voting," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 183(4), pages 1089-1112, April.
    3. 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.
    4. Agarwal, Vikas & Jiang, Lei & Wen, Quan, 2020. "Why do mutual funds hold lottery stocks?," CFR Working Papers 20-08, University of Cologne, Centre for Financial Research (CFR).
    5. Bolton, Patrick & Li, Tao & Ravina, Enrichetta & Rosenthal, Howard, 2020. "Investor ideology," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 137(2), pages 320-352.
    6. Wang, Xianjue, 2022. "Disloyal managers and proxy voting," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 44(C).
    7. Dragana Cvijanović & Amil Dasgupta & Konstantinos E. Zachariadis, 2016. "Ties That Bind: How Business Connections Affect Mutual Fund Activism," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 71(6), pages 2933-2966, December.
    8. Tang, Tingfeng, 2020. "Hedge fund activism and corporate innovation," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 335-348.
    9. 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.
    10. Dimmock, Stephen G. & Gerken, William C. & Ivković, Zoran & Weisbenner, Scott J., 2018. "Capital gains lock-in and governance choices," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 127(1), pages 113-135.
    11. Lucian A. Bebchuk & Alma Cohen & Scott Hirst, 2017. "The Agency Problems of Institutional Investors," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 31(3), pages 89-102, Summer.
    12. Bar-Isaac, Heski & Shapiro, Joel, 2020. "Blockholder voting," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 136(3), pages 695-717.
    13. 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.
    14. Agarwal, Vikas & Ma, Linlin, 2013. "Managerial multitasking in the mutual fund industry," CFR Working Papers 13-10, University of Cologne, Centre for Financial Research (CFR).
    15. Duan, Ying & Jiao, Yawen & Tam, Kinsun, 2021. "Conflict of interest and proxy voting by institutional investors," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    16. Jiekun Huang, 2023. "Thy Neighbor’s Vote: Peer Effects in Proxy Voting," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 69(7), pages 4169-4189, July.
    17. 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.
    18. Agarwal, Vikas & Ma, Linlin & Mullally, Kevin, 2015. "Managerial multitasking in the mutual fund industry," CFR Working Papers 13-10 [rev.], University of Cologne, Centre for Financial Research (CFR).
    19. Zhichuan Frank Li & Saurin Patel & Srikanth Ramani, 2021. "The Role of Mutual Funds in Corporate Social Responsibility," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 174(3), pages 715-737, December.
    20. Ashraf, Rasha & Li, Huimin & Ryan, Harley E., 2020. "Dual agency problems in family firms: Evidence from director elections," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 62(C).
    21. Dressler, Efrat, 2020. "Voice and power: Do institutional shareholders make use of their voting power?," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 65(C).
    22. Hshieh, Shenje & Li, Jiasun & Tang, Yingcong, 2021. "How do passive funds act as active owners? Evidence from mutual fund voting records11We are grateful for extremely helpful comments from one anonymous referee, Antonio Bernardo, Audra Boone, Mark Garm," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).
    23. Aneel Keswani & David Stolin & Anh L. Tran, 2017. "Frenemies: How Do Financial Firms Vote on Their Own Kind?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(3), pages 631-654, March.

    More about this item

    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:cup:jfinqa:v:47:y:2012:i:03:p:567-588_00. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/jfq .

    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.