RotaryGallop
  • Home
  • Reports
  • Services
    • Shareholder Activism
    • Strategic IR
    • M & A
    • Startups
  • Press
  • Blog
  • About
    • The Team
    • The Advisory Board
  • Contact
(217) 419 3257

Measuring the Influence of ISS

2/20/2012

0 Comments

 
Though the influence of ISS varies from company to company, the proxy voting advisory firm’s impact can be measured. (Originally published on Directorship.com)

There has been much ink spilled, angst and teeth gnashing about the outsized influence that Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS)  holds, much of it based on broad averages—such and such a percentage of institutions subscribe to ISS, for example, or the average company in the S&P 500 has X percent of it shareholder base subscribed to ISS.

So exactly how much attention should you pay to these numbers? The truth is that the influence of ISS varies drastically from company to company. The best part—this can be measured.

In calculating ISS’s influence at a target company I once asked a well-known proxy solicitor working the case with me, “Roughly what percent of ISS’s subscribers end up voting along with ISS’s recommendations?” After some thought, he said “Oh, about 50 percent.” There is no need to break out the spreadsheet here. In this case, despite boasting a subscriber base holding over 20 percent of outstanding shares, ISS had exactly 0 influence. You’d expect the same level of agreement with the phases of the moon.

That said, I’ve worked on other cases where ISS was the absolute key to victory. (By the way, having a big effective-shareholder like ISS, who does what it says, isn’t all bad when compared to many large shareholders who will tell you what you want to hear and then vote the other way.)

Knowing ISS’s influence on your elections isn’t hard and isn’t abstract. You just need two things: a little information about your shareholder base and an analysis of where the voting power lies. The former tells you who subscribes to and votes with ISS. The latter tells you how much influence those shares have over the election.

Here is an example from a company I worked on recently: 12 shareholders representing 16 percent of the total outstanding shares subscribed to ISS. Of those, only seven with nine percent of outstanding shares regularly voted with ISS’s recommendations. In this company, this bloc of ISS-swayed voters, had a 53 percent chance of winning an election and a five-percent chance of swinging the election. An ISS recommendation for management would increase management’s odds of victory by 14 percent, while a recommendation against would only decrease their winning odds by 3 percent.

There you have it. ISS has been weighed and has been measured.

It won’t be the same answer for your company but the key point is that there is an answer. ISS’s influence is not abstract and cannot be calibrated by “a gut feeling.” It is measurable. Once you know how much sway ISS has on your election, you can plan accordingly, stop worrying about what the talking heads are saying and put that chunk of bandwidth back into making the company better.

0 Comments

The Real Source of Activists’ Positive Returns?

2/14/2012

0 Comments

 

(Originally a Guest Post for The Activist Investor. )There is a perception among many that granting an activist significant board representation over and above what ownership might indicate grants unfair and detrimental control to the activist. Such an action is often derided as a stealth takeover, or a takeover with no premium.

However, granting an activist significant board representation, to balance the secured votes of management, actually transfers significant power to the unaligned board members already serving. Those unaligned board members (with significant ties to neither management nor the activist) are utterly familiar with the company and its problems, but have not had sufficient voice to cause change. It may be that the best effect an activist has, even one without a detailed, 30 point, 5-year plan, is to cause this shift in power towards these already serving board members.


The unfolding drama between the current management of Canadian Pacific Railway and Bill Ackman of Pershing Square Capital Management, L.P. offers a prime example. Pershing is seeking 5 board seats on a 15 member board while owning only 14% of outstanding shares. To some, this may seem like an undue amount of representation. However, we find that far from concentrating power in the hands of Pershing Square, granting Pershing significant representation would actually result in a much more even distribution of power on the board of directors.

Since things are in the late negotiating stages, with management offering Pershing a single seat, we looked at what would happen to the distribution of power on Canadian Pacific Railway’s board of directors if Pershing Square were granted 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6 additional seats. As Pershing is granted more seats the unaligned board members’ power increases significantly, as seen in the graph below. In fact, when Pershing Square is granted four seats, matching management’s secured votes[1], the power of the unaligned board members more than doubles to 25%!

Picture
Exhibit 1: As Bill Ackman and Pershing square receive more seats the unaligned board members’ control increases, more than doubling at 4 seats for Pershing. Notice that the unaligned board members’ power grows even as their percentage of the vote shrinks steadily. As we move to the right on the horizontal axis we see the percentage of the total vote (black) and Control (Green) of each unaligned board member if Bill Ackman is given 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6 seats added to the board.
It can, and perhaps ought to, be argued that this spreading of power on the board is exactly what one would hope for at a time when a new direction is necessary. Such a leveling effect will allow new ideas to more effectively compete, whether they come from Pershing or the unaligned board members familiar with Canadian Pacific’s problems. 

We wonder how much of activists’ proven effectiveness at delivering returns stems from this simple redistribution of power to previously disenfranchised, but established  board members. Let us know what you think in the comments below!


[1] For these calculations we have assumed that management controls 4 of the 15 votes on the board of directors. We have no inside knowledge and have never spoken to anyone on the board. However, we do believe this is a conservative assumption, given that 5 board members have been on the board for 10 years, one board member is the CEO, two board members joined the board in the same month as the CEO, and two board members were appointed in the face of Pershing’s activism.  
0 Comments

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner

    RSS Feed

    Archives

    February 2014
    October 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    June 2012
    March 2012
    February 2012
    November 2011

    Categories

    All
    Activism
    Contested Situation
    Icahn
    Iss
    Lcv Capital
    Moduslink Global
    Negotiating
    Peerless
    Pershing Square
    Projections
    Proxy Strategy
    Raging Capital
    Risk Management
    Steel Partners


Big Data Analytics for Governance, Risk and Compliance