Understanding Uncontested Director Elections

References

• Adams RB, Ferreira D (2007) A theory of friendly boards. J. Finance 62(1):217–250.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Adams RB, Akyol AC, Verwijmeren P (2017) Director skill sets. ECGI working paper, European Corporate Governance Institute, Brussels, Belgium.Google Scholar
• Aggarwal R, Dahiya S, Prabhala N (2016) The power of shareholder votes: Evidence from director elections. Working paper, Georgetown University, Washington, DC.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
• Allen CH (2007) Study of majority voting in director elections. Neal, Gerber & Eisenberger LLP. Last updated November 12, http://www.nge.com/files/uploads/documents/majoritystudy111207.pdf.Google Scholar
• Armstrong C, Gow I, Larcker DF (2013) The efficacy of shareholder voting: Evidence from equity compensation plans. J. Accounting Res. 51(5):909–950.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Balachandran S, Joos P, Weber J (2012) Do voting rights matter? Evidence from the adoption of equity-based compensation plans. Contemporary Accounting Res. 29(4):1204–1236.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bebchuk L (2005) The case for increasing shareholder power. Harvard Law Rev. 118(3):833–917.Google Scholar
• Bebchuk L, Cohen A (2005) The costs of entrenched boards? J. Financial Econom. 78(2):409–433.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Becker B, Bergstresser D, Subramanian G (2013) Does shareholder proxy access improve firm value? Evidence from the business roundtable challenge. J. Law Econom. 56(1):127–160.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Berman DK (2008) Where was Lehman’s board. Wall Street Journal (September 15), http://blogs.wsj.com/deals/2008/09/15/where-was-lehmans-board.Google Scholar
• Black BS (1990) Shareholder passivity reexamined. Michigan Law Rev. 89(3):520–608.Crossref, 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
• Cai J, Garner J, Walkling R (2009) Electing directors. J. Finance 64(5):2389–2421.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cai J, Garner J, Walkling R (2013) A paper tiger? An empirical analysis of majority voting. J. Corporate Finance 21:119–135.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chhaochharia V, Grinstein Y (2007) Corporate governance and firm value: The impact of the 2002 governance rules. J. Finance 62(4):1789–1825.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Choi S, Fisch J, Kahan M (2009) Director elections and the role of proxy advisors. Southern Calif. Law Rev. 82(4):649–702.Google Scholar
• Choi S, Fisch J, Kahan M (2010) The power of proxy advisors: Myth or reality? Emory Law J. 59(4):101–151.Google Scholar
• Cohen A, Wang CY (2013) How do staggered boards affect shareholder value: Evidence from a natural experiment. J. Financial Econom. 110(3):627–641.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cohn J, Gillan S, Hartzell J (2015) On enhancing shareholder control: A (Dodd-) frank assessment of proxy access. J. Finance 71(4):1623–1668.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Coles J, Daniel N, Naveen L (2012) Board advising. Working paper, Arizona State University, Tempe.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Coles J, Daniel N, Naveen L (2014) Co-opted boards. Rev. Financial Stud. 27(6):1751–1796.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Core JE, Guay W, Larcker DF (2008) The power of the pen and executive compensation. J. Financial Econom. 88(1):1–25.Crossref, 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
• Dao M, Raghunandan K, Dasaratha R (2012) Shareholder voting on auditor selection, audit fees, and audit quality. Accounting Rev. 87(1):149–171.Crossref, Google Scholar
• DeFond M, Hann RN, Hu X (2005) Does the market value financial expertise on audit committees of boards of directors? J. Accounting Res. 43(2):153–193.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Del Guercio D, Seery L, Woidtke T (2008) Do boards pay attention when institutional investors “just vote no”? J. Financial Econom. 90(1):84–103.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ertimur Y, Ferri F, Maber D (2012) Reputation penalties for poor monitoring of executive pay: Evidence from option backdating. J. Financial Econom. 104(1):118–144.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ertimur Y, Ferri F, Muslu V (2011) Shareholder activism and CEO pay. Rev. Financial Stud. 24(2):535–592.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
• Ertimur Y, Ferri F, Oesch D (2015) Does the director election system matter? Evidence from majority voting. Rev. Accounting Stud. 20(1):1–41.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ertimur Y, Ferri F, Stubben S (2010) Board of directors’ responsiveness to shareholders: Evidence from shareholder proposals. J. Corporate Finance 16(1):53–72.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Faleye O (2007) Classified boards, firm value, and managerial entrenchment. J. Financial Econom. 83(2):501–529.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Faleye O, Hoitash R, Hoitash U (2011) The costs of intense board monitoring. J. Financial Econom. 101(1):160–181.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Faleye O, Hoitash R, Hoitash U (2018) Industry expertise on corporate boards. Rev. Quant. Finance Accounting 50(2):441–479.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ferri F (2012) “Low-cost” activism: A review of the evidence. Hill CA, McDonnell BH, eds. Research Handbook on the Economics of Corporate Law (Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK),192–215.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ferri F, Maber D (2013) Say on pay votes and CEO compensation: Evidence from the UK. Rev. Finance 17(2):527–563.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ferri F, Oesch D (2016) Management influence on investors: Evidence from shareholder votes on the frequency of say on pay. Contemporary Accounting Res. 33(4):1337–1374.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ferri F, Sandino T (2009) The impact of shareholder activism on financial reporting and compensation: The case of employee stock options expensing. Accounting Rev. 84(2):433–466.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Field l, Lowry M, Mkrtchyan A (2013) Are busy boards detrimental? J. Financial Econom. 109(1):63–82.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fischer P, Gramlich J, Miller B, White H (2009) Investor perceptions of board performance: Evidence from uncontested director elections. J. Accounting Econom. 48(2–3):172–189.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fos V, Li K, Tsoutsoura M (2017) Do director elections matter? Working paper, Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA.Google Scholar
• Gallagher DM (2014) Outsized power & influence: The role of proxy advisors. September 5; transcript. Accessed May 30, 2017, https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2014/09/05/outsized-power-influence-the-role-of-proxy-advisers/.Google Scholar
• Georgeson (2013) Annual corporate governance review 2013. Accessed May 30, 2017, http://www.computershare-na.com/sharedweb/georgeson/acgr/acgr2013.pdf.Google Scholar
• Graham J, Campbell H (2001) The theory and practice of corporate finance: Evidence from the field. J. Financial Econom. 60(2–3):187–243.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Graham J, Campbell H, Rajgopal S (2005) The economic implications of corporate financial reporting. J. Accounting Econom. 40(1–3):3–73.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Huber PJ (1967) The behavior of maximum likelihood estimates under nonstandard conditions. Proc. Fifth Berkeley Sympos. Math. Statist. Probab. 1:221–223.Google Scholar
• Iliev P, Lowry M (2015) Are mutual funds active voters? Rev. Financial Stud. 28(2):446–485.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Innisfree (2010) Trends in shareholder voting—The impact of proxy advisory firms. Report, Innisfree, New York, http://apps.americanbar.org/buslaw/committees/CL260000pub/materials/20101012/TrendsShareholderVoting.PDF.Google Scholar
• Kahan M, Rock EB (2014) Symbolic corporate governance politics. Boston University Law Rev. 94(6):1997–2014.Google Scholar
• Keswani A, Stolin D, Tran AL (2016) Frenemies: How do financial firms vote on their own kind? Management Sci. 63(3):631–654.Link, 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 DF, McCall AL, Ormazabal G (2013) Proxy advisory firms and stock option repricing. J. Accounting Econom. 56(2):149–169.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Larcker DF, Ormazabal G, Taylor D (2011) The market reaction to corporate governance regulation. J. Financial Econom. 101(2):431–448.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Levit D, Malenko N (2011) Nonbinding voting for shareholder proposals. J. Finance 66(5):1579–1614.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Li T (2018) Outsourcing corporate governance: Conflicts of interest within the proxy advisory industry. Management Sci. 64(6):2951–2971.Link, 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
• Masulis R, Mobbs S (2011) Are all inside directors the same? Evidence from the external directorship market. J. Finance 66(3):823–872.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Minow N (2012) Zombie directors should exit U.S. boardrooms. BloombergView (July 18), http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-07-18/zombie-directors-should-exit-u-s-boardrooms-nell-minow.Google Scholar
• Norris F (2004) Corporate democracy and the power to embarrass. New York Times (March 4), http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/04/business/market-place-corporate-democracy-and-the-power-to-embarrass.html.Google Scholar
• Rogers WH (1993) Regression standard errors in clustered samples. Stata Technical Bull. 13:19–23.Google Scholar
• Srinivasan S (2005) Consequences of financial reporting failure for outside directors: Evidence from accounting restatements and audit committee members. J. Accounting Res. 43(2):291–334.Crossref, Google Scholar
• U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) (2007) Corporate shareholder meetings: Issues relating to firms that advise institutional investors on proxy voting. GAO-07-765, Report to Congressional Requesters, June, http://www.gao.gov/assets/270/263233.pdf.Google Scholar
• U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) (2010) Concept release on the U.S. proxy system. Release No. 34-62495, http://www.sec.gov/rules/concept/2010/34-62495.pdf.Google Scholar
• U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) (2013) Proxy advisory services roundtable. December 5; transcript available at http://www.sec.gov/spotlight/proxy-advisory-services.shtml.Google Scholar
• U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) (2014) Proxy voting responsibilities of investment advisers and availability of exemptions from proxy rules for proxy advisory firms. Staff Legal Bulletin No. 20 (IM/CF), June 30, http://www.sec.gov/interps/legal/cfslb20.htm.Google Scholar
• von Meyerinck F, Oesch D, Schmid MM (2016) Is director industry experience valuable? Financial Management 45(1):207–237.Crossref, Google Scholar
• White H (1980) A heteroskedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimator and a direct test for heteroskedasticity. Econometrica 48(4):817–838.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Yermack D (2004) Remuneration, retention, and reputation incentives for outside directors. J. Finance 59(5):2281–2308.Crossref, Google Scholar