Outsourcing Corporate Governance: Conflicts of Interest Within the Proxy Advisory Industry

References

• Aggarwal R, Saffi PAC, Sturgess J (2015) The role of institutional investors in voting: Evidence from the securities lending market. J. Finance 70(5):2309–2346.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Agrawal AK (2012) Corporate governance objectives of labor union shareholders: Evidence from proxy voting. Rev. Financial Stud. 25(1):187–226.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Alexander C, Chen M, Seppi D, Spatt C (2010) Interim news and the role of proxy voting advice. Rev. Financial Stud. 23(12):4419–4454.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Amihud Y (2002) Illiquidity and stock returns: Cross-section and time-series effects. J. Financial Markets 5(1):31–56.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Barber BM, Lehavy R, Trueman B (2007) Comparing the stock recommendation performance of investment banks and independent research firms. J. Financial Econom. 85(2):490–517.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bebchuk LA, Cohen A (2005) The costs of entrenched boards. J. Financial Econom. 78(2):409–433.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Becker B, Milbourn T (2011) How did increased competition affect credit ratings? J. Financial Econom. 101(3):493–514.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bethel JE, Gillan SL (2002) The impact of the institutional and regulatory environment on shareholder voting. Financial Management 31(4):29–54.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Biglaiser G (1993) Middlemen as experts. RAND J. Econom. 24(2):212–223.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bolton P, Scharfstein DS (1990) A theory of predation based on agency problems in financial contracting. Amer. Econom. Rev. 80(1):93–106.Google Scholar
• Bolton P, Freixas X, Shapiro J (2012) The credit ratings game. J. Finance 67(1):85–112.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brav A, Jiang W, Kim H (2010) Hedge fund activism: A review. Foundations Trends Finance 4(3):1–66.Google Scholar
• Brav A, Jiang W, Partnoy F, Thomas R (2008) Hedge fund activism, corporate governance, and firm performance. J. Finance 63(4):1729–1775.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Busso M, DiNardo J, McCrary J (2014) New evidence on the finite sample properties of propensity score reweighting and matching estimators. Rev. Econom. Statist. 96(5):885–897.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cai J, Garner JL, Walkling RA (2009) Electing directors. J. Finance 64(5):2389–2421.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chen J, Hong H, Stein JC (2002) Breadth of ownership and stock returns. J. Financial Econom. 66:171–205.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chen Q, Chen X, Schipper K, Xu Y, Xue J (2012) The sensitivity of corporate cash holdings to corporate governance. Rev. Financial Stud. 25:3610–3644.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Choi S, Fisch J, Kahan M (2009) Director elections and the role of proxy advisors. Southern Calif. Law Rev. 82:649–702.Google Scholar
• Christoffersen S, Geczy C, Musto D, Reed A (2007) Vote trading and information aggregation. J. Finance 62(6):2897–2929.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Crystal G (1994) Interests in conflict in ISS’ governance reviews. Pensions Investments (March 21), http://www.pionline.com/article/19940321/PRINT/403210736/interests-in-conflict-in-iss-governance-reviews.Google Scholar
• Cuñat V, Gine M, Guadalupe M (2012) The vote is cast: The effect of corporate governance on shareholder value. J. Finance 67(5):1943–1977.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Danielson MG, Karpoff J (1998) On the uses of corporate governance provisions. J. Corporate Finance 4(4):347–371.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Davis GF, Kim EH (2007) Business ties and proxy voting by mutual funds. J. Financial Econom. 85(2):552–570.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dehejia R, Wahba S (1999) Causal effects in nonexperimental studies: Reevaluating the evaluation of training programs. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 94(488):1053–1062.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ertimur Y, Ferri F, Oesch D (2013) Shareholder votes and proxy advisors: Evidence from say on pay. J. Accounting Res. 51(5):951–996.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ferreira MA, Matos P (2008) The colors of investors’ money: The role of institutional investors around the world. J. Financial Econom. 88(3):499–533.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fos V (2016) The disciplinary effects of proxy contests. Management Sci., ePub ahead of print February 29, http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2015.2340.Link, Google Scholar
• Fos V, Jiang W (2016) Out-of-the-money CEOs: Private control premium and option exercise by CEOs. Rev. Financial Stud. 29(6):1549–1585.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fos V, Li K, Tsoutsoura M (2016) Do director elections matter? Working Paper, Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA.Google Scholar
• Gantchev N (2013) The costs of shareholder activism: Evidence from a sequential decision model. J. Financial Econom. 107(3):610–631.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gillan ST, Starks LT (2007) The evolution of shareholder activism in the United States. J. Appl. Corporate Finance 19(1):55–73.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gompers PA, Metrick A (2001) Institutional investors and equity prices. Quart. J. Econom. 116(1):229–259.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gompers PA, Ishii JL, Metrick A (2003) Corporate governance and equity prices. Quart. J. Econom. 118(1):107–155.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Government Accountability Office (GAO) (2007) Corporate shareholder meetings: Issues relating to firms that advise institutional investors on proxy voting. Report GAO-07-765, Government Accountability Office, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
• Guadalupe M, Kuzmina O, Thomas C (2012) Innovation and foreign ownership. Amer. Econom. Rev. 102(7):3594–3627.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hartzell J, Ofek E, Yermack D (2004) What’s in it for me? CEOs whose firms are acquired. Rev. Financial Stud. 17(1):37–61.Crossref, Google Scholar
• He Y, Li T (2016) The benefits of friendship in hedge fund activism. Working paper, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.Google Scholar
• Hong H, Kacperczyk M (2010) Competition and bias. Quart. J. Econom. 125(4):1683–1725.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hörner J (2002) Reputation and competition. Amer. Econom. Rev. 92(3):644–663.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Iliev P, Lowry M (2015) Are mutual funds active voters? Rev. Financial Stud. 28(2):446–485.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Imbens G (2004) Nonparametric estimation of average treatment effects under exogeneity: A review. Rev. Econom. Statist. 86(1):4–29.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Institutional Shareholder Services, Inc. (2006) Due diligence compliance package. Report, ISS, Rockville, MD. https://www.issgovernance.com/file/duediligence/due-diligence-package-may-2016.pdf.Google Scholar
• Jiang W, Li T, Mei D (2016) Influencing control: Jawboning in risk arbitrage. Working paper, Columbia University, New York.Google Scholar
• Klein A, Zur E (2009) Entrepreneurial shareholder activism: Hedge funds and other private investors. J. Finance 64(1):187–229.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Larcker D, McCall A, Ormazabal G (2015) Outsourcing shareholder voting to proxy advisory firms. J. Law Econom. 58(1):173–204.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lizzeri A (1999) Information revelation and certification intermediaries. RAND J. Econom. 30(2):214–231.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Malenko A, Malenko N (2016) Proxy advisory firms: The economics of selling information to voters. Working paper, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge.Google Scholar
• Malenko N, Shen Y (2016) The role of proxy advisory firms: Evidence from a regression-discontinuity design. Rev. Financial Stud. 29(12):3394–3427.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Matvos G, Ostrovsky M (2010) Heterogeneity and peer effects in mutual fund proxy voting. J. Financial Econom. 98(1):90–112.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Michaely R, Womack KL (1999) Conflict of interest and the credibility of underwriter analyst recommendations. Rev. Financial Stud. 12(4):653–686.Crossref, Google Scholar
• MSCI Inc. (2013) Annual report 2013. MSCI, New York.Google Scholar
• Naidu S, Hornbeck R (2014) When the levee breaks: Black migration and economic development in the American South. Amer. Econom. Rev. 104(3):963–990.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rosenthal DS (2012) Comment on the concept release on the U.S. proxy system, nos. 34-62495; IA-3052; IC-293. Letter to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Exxon Mobil Corporation, Irving, TX. https://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-14-10/s71410-313.pdf.Google Scholar
• Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) (2010) Concept release on the U.S. proxy system. 17 CFR Parts 240, 270, 274, and 275 [Release nos. 34-62495; IA-3052; IC-29340; file no. S7-14-10]. https://www.sec.gov/rules/concept/2010/34-62495.pdf.Google Scholar
• Smith JA, Todd PE (2005) Does matching overcome LaLonde’s critique of nonexperimental estimators. J. Econometrics 125(1–2):305–353.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Starkman D (2005) A proxy adviser’s two sides. Washington Post (January 23), http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/22/AR2006012200627.html.Google Scholar
• Tuch AF (2014) Financial conglomerates and information barriers. J. Corporation Law 93(3):563–616.Google Scholar