|
April 19, 2006
Conflict of Interests Policies and Practices Vary Widely at Proxy Advisory Firms
by Bill Baue
Part two of this two-part article examines how Institutional Shareholder Services, Glass Lewis, and
PROXY Governance handle potential conflicts of interest.
SocialFunds.com --
The first page of the proxy voting recommendation report from Glass Lewis on Chevron (ticker: (CVX) includes a much different
conflict of interests disclaimer than the boilerplate version from competing proxy advisory firm
Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS).
While ISS notes that companies covered in the proxy reports often purchase self-assessment tools,
publications, advice, and analysis from ISS' Corporate Services division, the Glass Lewis report
discloses its relationship with a shareowner resolution filer.
Harvard Law Professor
Lucian Bebchuk, whose resolution calls on Chevron to reimburse shareowner expenses for resolutions
receiving majority support, is a minority shareholder of Glass Lewis, serves on its advisory board,
and collaborates on its shareholder rights index. Of the six shareowner resolutions up for vote at
Chevron, Prof. Bebchuk's is the only one Glass Lewis recommends voting for.
"Glass
Lewis believes we would have reached the same conclusions irrespective of who proposed the
resolution," states the proxy report.
ISS recommends voting in favor of the Bebchuk
resolution through both its US Standard Policy and its Socially Responsible Investing (SRI) Policy.
The other major proxy advisory firm, PROXY Governance, also
recommends voting for it.
A similar resolution
filed at Citigroup (C) by the American Federation of
State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) asks for reimbursement of shareowner expenses for running
a short slate of directors who receive over 30 percent support. Glass Lewis recommends voting
against this resolution, as does ISS (on both its US Standard and SRI Policies), while PROXY
Governance recommends voting for it.
For Glass Lewis, a primary distinction
between the two resolutions is that majority support triggers reimbursement with Prof. Bebchuk's
resolution, whereas AFSCME's calls for reimbursement with less than majority support.
"It's not that we wouldn't consider supporting such a resolution as AFSCME's ever, but given
the circumstances at Citigroup, we didn't feel it was worth it," said Bob McCormick, vice president
of proxy research and operations at Glass Lewis. "If Citigroup had a history of being intransigent
or ignoring shareholder concerns, we would be more inclined to support this proposal, but since it
allows somebody who hasn't even gotten a majority of shareholders to agree with them to be
reimbursed, we feel that using shareholder assets to pay for even a portion of expenses wasn't in
shareholders' best interest.
Of course potential conflicts of interest with companies is a
much more grave concern for proxy advisory clients than potential conflicts of interest with
resolution filers. Glass Lewis guards against such conflicts by not doing any business with
corporate clients.
"Just as Regulation FD says that all investors should have equal access
to information when making their investment decisions, we feel the same should apply to proxy
voting decisions, which really are part and parcel of the investment decisions,” Mr.
McCormick told SocialFunds.com
"The closest we come to such conflicts of interest would be
when we have a corporate pension plan as a client for our proxy advisory services," Mr. McCormick
added.
Glass Lewis does not have any such client relationships with Citigroup or Chevron,
according to Glass Lewis spokesperson Bayley Diamond.
 ISS has faced criticism about potential
conflicts of interest by working with corporate clients, but Jim Letsky, a senior analyst with ISS,
calls these "inaccurate critiques."
"A company's status as a client has absolutely no
bearing on my recommendations--there is a very clearly delineated separation between our Corporate
Services group and our Institutional Services," Mr. Letsky told SocialFunds.com. "To be honest, I
don't know if either of these companies are our clients."
This lack of knowledge is not
accidental, according to Cheryl Gustitus, senior vice president of communications at ISS.
"To protect the integrity of our own firewall and ensure that our analysts cannot learn of an
issuer's status as a client or not, as a matter of policy and procedure, we do not disclose this
information publicly," Ms. Gustitus told SocialFunds.com when asked if Chevron or Citigroup are
clients.
PROXY Governance has come under similar criticism as ISS. The Business
Roundtable, an industry organization of corporate CEOs, purchased a two-year bulk subscription for
its members that helped finance the 2004 founding of PROXY Governance--and in the eyes of
some, set the stage for potential conflicts of interest. PROXY Governance avoids such
conflicts of interest by maintaining a Chinese wall.
"Folks on the research side do not
know who the corporate clients are, and therefore can make unbiased recommendations," said Shirley
Westcott, managing director of policy at PROXY Governance. "It's kind of like ISS.
PROXY Governance maintains confidentiality agreements that prevent it from disclosing
which companies are clients, according to Ms. Westcott.
Given all the factors to weigh,
identifying the “right” proxy advisory firm is not a simple choice from an SRI
perspective. Take, for example, the resolution asking Chevron to adopt a human rights
policy--Glass Lewis recommends voting against it, while both ISS and PROXY Governance
recommend voting for it.
“We felt that in general, unless there's really
clear evidence of abuse of human rights by companies that taking this step isn't necessarily
warranted,” explained Mr. McCormick of Glass Lewis. “We felt this proposal wasn't
specific enough and there are other ways to address the issue at the company, particularly through
the election of directors.”
PROXY Governance had a somewhat different take.
"Chevron has been talking for several years about adopting a human rights policy--we
traced company statements back to 2002, and it's still not public," said Scott Fenn, managing
director of policy at PROXY Governance and former executive director of the Investor
Responsibility Research Center (IRRC--now part of ISS). "They say they're committed to doing it
later this year, but we feel it's really time to get on with it."
Part one of this two-part article
compares Institutional Shareholder Services, Glass Lewis, and PROXY Governance vote
recommendations on resolutions at Citigroup and Chevron.
©
SRI World Group, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Top
|
