IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jbfina/v33y2009i12p2207-2217.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Firm performance and mutual fund voting

Author

Listed:
  • Ng, Lilian
  • Wang, Qinghai
  • Zaiats, Nataliya

Abstract

We employ a new comprehensive proxy voting records database to investigate whether mutual funds consider prior firm performance when they vote on a diverse range of management- and shareholder-sponsored proposals relating to governance, compensation, and director election. We argue that prior firm performance plays a role in the monitoring effort of mutual funds as they fulfill their fiduciary duties. Results show that voting is related to prior firm performance for selected management and shareholder proposals and that it is consistent with Institutional Shareholder Services' recommendations. Mutual funds support management (shareholder) proposals less (more) when prior firm performance has been weak. Furthermore, even when mutual funds deviate from their fund family's voting policies, they attach importance to prior firm performance, and their voting is, to a certain degree, affected by business ties.

Suggested Citation

  • Ng, Lilian & Wang, Qinghai & Zaiats, Nataliya, 2009. "Firm performance and mutual fund voting," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 33(12), pages 2207-2217, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:jbfina:v:33:y:2009:i:12:p:2207-2217
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378-4266(09)00142-3
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Andres, Pablo de & Vallelado, Eleuterio, 2008. "Corporate governance in banking: The role of the board of directors," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 32(12), pages 2570-2580, December.
    2. Bebchuk, Lucian A. & Cohen, Alma, 2005. "The costs of entrenched boards," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(2), pages 409-433, November.
    3. Gordon, Lilli A & Pound, John, 1993. "Information, Ownership Structure, and Shareholder Voting: Evidence from Shareholder-Sponsored Corporate Governance Proposals," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 48(2), pages 697-718, June.
    4. Ferris, Stephen P. & Yan, Xuemin (Sterling), 2009. "Agency costs, governance, and organizational forms: Evidence from the mutual fund industry," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 33(4), pages 619-626, April.
    5. Prevost, Andrew K & Rao, Ramesh P, 2000. "Of What Value Are Shareholder Proposals Sponsored by Public Pension Funds?," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 73(2), pages 177-204, April.
    6. Matvos, Gregor & Ostrovsky, Michael, 2008. "Cross-ownership, returns, and voting in mergers," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(3), pages 391-403, September.
    7. Caton, Gary L. & Goh, Jeremy, 2008. "Corporate Governance, Shareholder Rights, and Shareholder Rights Plans: Poison, Placebo, or Prescription?," Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 43(2), pages 381-400, June.
    8. Bates, Thomas W. & Becher, David A. & Lemmon, Michael L., 2008. "Board classification and managerial entrenchment: Evidence from the market for corporate control," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(3), pages 656-677, March.
    9. 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.
    10. Brickley, James A. & Coles, Jeffrey L. & Terry, Rory L., 1994. "Outside directors and the adoption of poison pills," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 371-390, June.
    11. Bhagat, Sanjai & Jefferis, Richard H., 1991. "Voting power in the proxy process : The case of antitakeover charter amendments," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 193-225, November.
    12. Chen, Li-Wen & Chen, Fan, 2009. "Does concurrent management of mutual and hedge funds create conflicts of interest?," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 33(8), pages 1423-1433, August.
    13. Lucian Bebchuk & Alma Cohen & Allen Ferrell, 2009. "What Matters in Corporate Governance?," Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 22(2), pages 783-827, February.
    14. Dahya, Jay & McConnell, John J., 2007. "Board Composition, Corporate Performance, and the Cadbury Committee Recommendation," Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 42(3), pages 535-564, September.
    15. Del Guercio, Diane & Seery, Laura & Woidtke, Tracie, 2008. "Do boards pay attention when institutional investor activists "just vote no"?," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 90(1), pages 84-103, October.
    16. Malatesta, Paul H. & Walkling, Ralph A., 1988. "Poison pill securities : Stockholder wealth, profitability, and ownership structure," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(1-2), pages 347-376, January.
    17. Karpoff, Jonathan M. & Malatesta, Paul H. & Walkling, Ralph A., 1996. "Corporate governance and shareholder initiatives: Empirical evidence," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(3), pages 365-395, November.
    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. Juan Pineiro-Chousa & Marcos Vizcaíno-González & Jérôme Caby, 2018. "Linking market capitalisation and voting pattern in corporate meetings," Post-Print halshs-02001463, HAL.
    2. Duan, Ying & Jiao, Yawen & Tam, Kinsun, 2021. "Conflict of interest and proxy voting by institutional investors," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    3. Masumoto, Kazuhide & Takeda, Fumiko, 2022. "Market reactions to proxy advisory companies’ recommendations in Japan," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 50(C).
    4. Yafeh, Yishay & Hamdani, Assaf, 2010. "Institutional Investors as Minority Shareholders: Do They Matter When Ownership Is Concentrated?," CEPR Discussion Papers 7934, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    5. Foley, Maggie & Cebula, Richard & Houmes, Robert, 2014. "Contesting Corporate Control in the U.S.: The Role of Ownership Structure and the Anti-takeover Measure," MPRA Paper 55428, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Jiao, Yawen, 2010. "Stakeholder welfare and firm value," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 34(10), pages 2549-2561, October.
    7. Lee, Sanglae, 2015. "Corporate Governance And Firm Performance: Evidence From Institutional Investors And Proxy Voting In Korea," Hitotsubashi Journal of Economics, Hitotsubashi University, vol. 56(1), pages 35-53, June.
    8. repec:hit:hitjcm:v:56:y:2015:i:1:p:35-53 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. 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.
    10. 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).
    11. Bingrun Xu & Wenli Huang & Lu Li & Lei Lu, 2023. "Mutual fund activism and corporate innovation: Evidence from China," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 63(S2), pages 2755-2779, June.
    12. 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.
    13. Tsukioka, Yasutomo, 2020. "The impact of Japan’s stewardship code on shareholder voting," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 148-162.
    14. Chou, Julia & Ng, Lilian & Wang, Qinghai, 2011. "Are better governed funds better monitors?," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 17(5), pages 1254-1271.
    15. 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.
    16. Wang, Yang & Ashton, John K. & Jaafar, Aziz, 2019. "Does mutual fund investment influence accounting fraud?," Emerging Markets Review, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 142-158.

    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. Gine, Mireia & Moussawi, Rabih & Sedunov, John, 2017. "Governance mechanisms and effective activism: Evidence from shareholder proposals on poison pills," Journal of Empirical Finance, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 185-202.
    2. 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.
    3. Sokolyk, Tatyana, 2011. "The effects of antitakeover provisions on acquisition targets," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 17(3), pages 612-627, June.
    4. 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.
    5. Becker-Blease, John R., 2011. "Governance and innovation," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 17(4), pages 947-958, September.
    6. 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).
    7. Randall Morck & Bernard Yeung, 2010. "Agency Problems and the Fate of Capitalism," NBER Working Papers 16490, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    8. Renneboog, Luc & Szilagyi, Peter G., 2011. "The role of shareholder proposals in corporate governance," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 17(1), pages 167-188, February.
    9. 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.
    10. Maria Goranova & Rahi Abouk & Paul C. Nystrom & Ehsan S. Soofi, 2017. "Corporate governance antecedents to shareholder activism: A zero-inflated process," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(2), pages 415-435, February.
    11. Yeh, Tsung-ming, 2017. "Determinants and consequences of shareholder proposals: The cases of board election, charter amendment, and profit disposal," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 245-261.
    12. Ouyang, Wenjing, 2015. "The effect of M&A advisors’ opinions on acquirer shareholder voting," The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 175-190.
    13. Lucian A. Bebchuk & Michael S. Weisbach, 2012. "The State of Corporate Governance Research," Springer Books, in: Sabri Boubaker & Bang Dang Nguyen & Duc Khuong Nguyen (ed.), Corporate Governance, edition 127, pages 325-346, Springer.
    14. Cohen, Alma & Wang, Charles C.Y., 2013. "How do staggered boards affect shareholder value? Evidence from a natural experiment," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 110(3), pages 627-641.
    15. Bebchuk, Lucian & Cohen, Alma & Wang, Charles C.Y., 2014. "Golden Parachutes and the Wealth of Shareholders," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 140-154.
    16. Thomas Keil & Markku Maula & Evangelos Syrigos, 2017. "CEO Entrepreneurial Orientation, Entrenchment, and Firm Value Creation," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 41(4), pages 475-504, July.
    17. Rachelle Belinga & Blanche Segrestin, 2019. "A conceptual mapping of the logics of institutional investors' corporate governance responsibilities: The case for "custodian" investor stewardship," Post-Print hal-02167819, HAL.
    18. Rachelle Belinga & Blanche Segrestin, 2019. "A conceptual mapping of the logics of institutional investors' corporate governance responsibilities: The case for "custodian" investor stewardship," Post-Print hal-02444756, HAL.
    19. Stráska, Miroslava & Waller, Gregory, 2010. "Do antitakeover provisions harm shareholders?," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 16(4), pages 487-497, September.
    20. Borokhovich, Kenneth A & Brunarski, Kelly & Harman, Yvette S & Parrino, Robert, 2006. "Variation in the Monitoring Incentives of Outside Stockholders," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 49(2), pages 651-680, October.

    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:eee:jbfina:v:33:y:2009:i:12:p:2207-2217. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jbf .

    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.