Commentary: SEC does a deal on dissidents
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.The design behind the reform of rules governing American annual meetings is finally becoming clear after almost a year of uncharacteristically activist revision of corporate governance regulations by the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Under the controversial stewardship of its chairman, Richard Breeden, the commission has been seen to side with dissident shareholders - for the most part large state pension funds and institutional investors - forcing managers to open themselves to proxy votes on a range of issues traditionally regarded as their exclusive purview.
In June, the SEC voted to require US corporations to provide shareholders with clearer information on what they pay their executives, and made it easier for them to collaborate with each other without having to file formal documents with the commission. Earlier this month it insisted that under-performing managers permit shareholders to vote on their compensation.
It is all a far cry from the laissez-faire attitude of the 1980s.
But forget the notion of the SEC as an agent of social change. Last week it ruled against allowing a liberal New York pension fund to force a vote on a discrimination case involving the sacking of a dozen homosexuals by a Tennessee firm.
The message was clear: the trade-off for more say in corporate performance is less say in a company's social policy. Analysts expect the new doctrine will extend to other areas. The immediate effect will be to keep votes on 'rank-and-file employment issues' off the agenda of AGMs.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments