Engaging With Your Investors
Posted by David Shammai and Kiran
Vasantham, Morrow Sodali, on Sunday, April 28, 2019
Editor’s Note: David
Shammai is Corporate Governance Director—Cross Border and Kiran
Vasantham is Director of Investor Engagement at Morrow Sodali.
This post is based on their Morrow Sodali memorandum. |
In addition to traditional Investor
Relations roadshows focused on financial performance, companies and
boards are now expected to conduct governance and sustainability
roadshows that reach out to institutional stewardship teams as well as
portfolio managers.
For issuers, these
engagements require the commitment of significant resources internally,
including valuable board time. For investors, the expansion of stewardship
activities means that even for those who increased the internal resources (see
our earlier piece on
Stewardship Principles), the escalating demand on capacity is forcing them
to be more selective and raise expectations on the content and quality of
engagements.
Based on Morrow
Sodali’s experience assisting companies with planning and organization of
governance and ESG roadshows, we note factors that are key to successful
engagements.
Clear objective
Starting with coherent
strategic thinking internally, the company should define and communicate the
objective of the engagement. It could be to showcase a new strategic direction,
or developments in the business that are related to material ESG themes, or it
could be part of an ongoing dialogue with investors about relevant issues.
Historically, most roadshows were scheduled in anticipation of a forthcoming
shareholders meeting, but we find that many shareholders are growing reluctant
to take meetings—given that their voting policies are published in detail—purely
on this basis, especially during the annual meeting season.
Mapping of shareholders
When the primary
purpose of a roadshow relates to a shareholder meeting, whether to improve
voting quorum or to canvass support, it makes sense to prioritize outreach by
holdings. Companies should always consider investors’ voting policies and should
follow up on issues raised during previous engagements. However, when the
engagement agenda is focused on ESG developments, companies may wish to cast the
net wider, and target those investors that are long-term oriented and known to
be focused on these issues. The guiding principle here should be to speak with
existing shareholders, but also reach out to targeted shareholders the company
wishes to have (or wishes to own more stock).
Deciding who to speak
with—location, team members
Many institutional
investors are making efforts to link internally their investment and stewardship
teams. Companies should reach out to both investment and stewardship teams, as
appropriate, but it is up to the investor to decide who is best to lead a
specific engagement. We recommend that companies do their homework and ensure
they are including all the appropriate contacts and positioning the engagement
campaign so as to make it easier for the investors to decide who should be
involved.
A key question for
companies is whether members of the board of directors should be involved and if
so, which directors are needed to address relevant issues. In addition, should
members of management be included or not? For example, on compensation issues,
investors may want to talk primarily to board compensation committee members. In
other cases, HR should be included. The demands on investor resources mean that
increasingly they view it as important to have direct dialogue with directors
(see our
Institutional Investor Survey 2019 more on why and how to do this) as well
as relevant members of the management team (e.g. HR representatives on issues of
human capital management).
On a practical note,
Morrow Sodali often come across companies who apply a strong home bias in
targeting their investors. Our experience indicates that cross-border ownership
is increasingly common even in controlled companies. In those cases, we
recommend roadshow itineraries should include markets where investors are
located (e.g. London, Paris, Netherlands), regardless of where the company is
domiciled.
Extensive preparation
Evolving stewardship
responsibilities and regulatory requirements mean that the information investors
are publishing about their voting and stewardship policies is more extensive
than ever. We recommend that companies conduct meticulous preparation in advance
of meetings, and tailor the meeting agenda and materials to meet investors’
preferences. Because investors’ time and resources are limited, engagements
should do more than rehash publicly stated positions. The goal is to conduct an
informed and informative dialogue.
Anecdotal evidence
shows that, at times, preparation is needed just to secure some meetings. At
Morrow Sodali, we are aware that some of the large investors have updated their
access processes to ensure that requests for engagement pass a threshold of
demonstrating preparedness as a condition to them being considered.
Follow up
This is perhaps stating
the obvious but thinking about the next meeting and the next engagement means
that companies have to maintain credibility and follow up as agreed. For
example, when a consultation process culminates in new proposals, it is
important to go back to the relevant investors and communicate the rationale for
the chosen course of action—i.e. even, and perhaps especially, if the company
felt it was not able to fully adopt the preference of the particular investor(s).
Why this is important?
Executing an effective
investor engagement draws on precious corporate resources including valuable
management and board time. It is important therefore that companies fully
consider the benefits. Most immediately, this includes strengthening of the
relationships with long-term minded owners—those shareholders most companies
would wish to have more of. Regular face-to-face meetings with investors can be
a critical part of this. Additionally, with the current level of activism, we
find that for some clients, especially in Europe, the ability to draw on support
from long-term shareholders has been a key component of activism defense. More
fundamentally, there are several pieces of academic research suggesting that
engagement enhances value, presumably by enhancing communication and helping to
close any possible disconnects between valuations and prices.
Harvard Law School Forum
on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation
All copyright and trademarks in content on this site are owned by
their respective owners. Other content © 2019 The President and
Fellows of Harvard College. |