IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/17797.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Does Shareholder Proxy Access Improve Firm Value? Evidence from the Business Roundtable Challenge

Author

Listed:
  • Bo Becker
  • Daniel Bergstresser
  • Guhan Subramanian

Abstract

We use the Business Roundtable's challenge to the SEC's 2010 proxy access rule as a natural experiment to measure the value of shareholder proxy access. We find that firms that would have been most vulnerable to proxy access, as measured by institutional ownership and activist institutional ownership in particular, lost value on October 4, 2010, when the SEC unexpectedly announced that it would delay implementation of the Rule in response to the Business Roundtable challenge. We also examine intra-day returns and find that the value loss occurred just after the SEC's announcement on October 4. We find similar results on July 22, 2011, when the D.C. Circuit ruled in favor of the Business Roundtable. These findings are consistent with the view that financial markets placed a positive value on shareholder access, as implemented in the SEC's 2010 Rule.

Suggested Citation

  • Bo Becker & Daniel Bergstresser & Guhan Subramanian, 2012. "Does Shareholder Proxy Access Improve Firm Value? Evidence from the Business Roundtable Challenge," NBER Working Papers 17797, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  • Handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:17797
    Note: CF
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w17797.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Milton Harris & Artur Raviv, 2010. "Control of Corporate Decisions: Shareholders vs. Management," Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 23(11), pages 4115-4147, November.
    2. 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.
    3. Larcker, David F. & Ormazabal, Gaizka & Taylor, Daniel J., 2011. "The market reaction to corporate governance regulation," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 101(2), pages 431-448, August.
    4. Paul Gompers & Joy Ishii & Andrew Metrick, 2003. "Corporate Governance and Equity Prices," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 118(1), pages 107-156.
    5. Renée B. Adams & Daniel Ferreira, 2007. "A Theory of Friendly Boards," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 62(1), pages 217-250, February.
    6. Yermack, David, 1996. "Higher market valuation of companies with a small board of directors," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(2), pages 185-211, February.
    7. Yael V. Hochberg & Paola Sapienza & Annette Vissing-Jørgensen, 2009. "A Lobbying Approach to Evaluating the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47(2), pages 519-583, May.
    8. Greenwood, Robin, 2005. "Short- and long-term demand curves for stocks: theory and evidence on the dynamics of arbitrage," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(3), pages 607-649, March.
    9. Alon Brav & Wei Jiang & Frank Partnoy & Randall Thomas, 2008. "Hedge Fund Activism, Corporate Governance, and Firm Performance," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 63(4), pages 1729-1775, August.
    10. Guercio, Diane Del & Hawkins, Jennifer, 1999. "The motivation and impact of pension fund activism," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(3), pages 293-340, June.
    11. Charles Kahn & Andrew Winton, 1998. "Ownership Structure, Speculation, and Shareholder Intervention," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 53(1), pages 99-129, February.
    12. Lucian Arye Bebchuk & John C. Coates IV & Guhan Subramanian, 2002. "The Powerful Antitakeover Force of Staggered Boards: Theory, Evidence and Policy," NBER Working Papers 8974, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    13. Mike Burkart & Denis Gromb & Fausto Panunzi, 1997. "Large Shareholders, Monitoring, and the Value of the Firm," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 112(3), pages 693-728.
    14. Schwert, G William, 1981. "Using Financial Data to Measure Effects of Regulation," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 24(1), pages 121-158, April.
    15. 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.
    16. Greenwood, Robin & Schor, Michael, 2009. "Investor activism and takeovers," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(3), pages 362-375, June.
    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. Acemoglu, Daron & Johnson, Simon & Kermani, Amir & Kwak, James & Mitton, Todd, 2016. "The value of connections in turbulent times: Evidence from the United States," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 121(2), pages 368-391.
    2. Daron Acemoglu & Tarek A. Hassan & Ahmed Tahoun, 2014. "The Power of the Street: Evidence from Egypt's Arab Spring," NBER Working Papers 20665, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. repec:eee:jfinec:v:125:y:2017:i:2:p:389-415 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. repec:eee:corfin:v:44:y:2017:i:c:p:405-424 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Vizcaíno, Marcos & Chousa, Juan P., 2016. "Analyzing the influence of the funds' support on Tobin's q using SEM and fsQCA," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 2118-2124.
    6. Eric A. Posner & E. Glen Weyl, 2014. "Benefit-Cost Paradigms in Financial Regulation," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 43(S2), pages 1-34.
    7. Lucian A. Bebchuk & Alma Cohen & Charles C.Y. Wang, 2011. "Staggered Boards and the Wealth of Shareholders: Evidence from Two Natural Experiments," NBER Working Papers 17127, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    8. Colonnello, Stefano & Herpfer, Christoph, 2016. "Do courts matter for firm value? Evidence from the U.S. court system," IWH Discussion Papers 1/2016, Halle Institute for Economic Research (IWH).
    9. repec:spr:qualqt:v:51:y:2017:i:5:d:10.1007_s11135-016-0375-5 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. 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.
    11. repec:eee:jfinec:v:125:y:2017:i:3:p:637-647 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. repec:eee:finlet:v:21:y:2017:i:c:p:34-39 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Edmans, Alex & Holderness, Clifford, 2016. "Blockholders: A Survey of Theory and Evidence," CEPR Discussion Papers 11442, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • G14 - Financial Economics - - General Financial Markets - - - Information and Market Efficiency; Event Studies; Insider Trading
    • G32 - Financial Economics - - Corporate Finance and Governance - - - Financing Policy; Financial Risk and Risk Management; Capital and Ownership Structure; Value of Firms; Goodwill
    • G34 - Financial Economics - - Corporate Finance and Governance - - - Mergers; Acquisitions; Restructuring; Corporate Governance
    • G38 - Financial Economics - - Corporate Finance and Governance - - - Government Policy and Regulation

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:nbr:nberwo:17797. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/nberrus.html .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.