I want to leave the question of whether or not the cost of employing proxy advisory firms can be justified for another day. But more importantly I would like to raise this point: on what substantive basis are investment institutions selecting a proxy firm. Surely it cannot be on price alone and must be somewhat related to the policies and rules a specific firm applies before it makes its recommendations. So hopefully there are major and detectable differences in the yardsticks each proxy firm applies - if not, why are there different firms, and can their different governance policies stand up to scrutiny? Which leads to the question: how do the investment firms justify the choice of a proxy advisory firm?
(29 May 2014)
Two weeks ago, Liz noted the SEC’s announcement that it is suing ISS in
federal court to compel compliance with an outstanding administrative
subpoena. The...
2 days ago
0 comments:
Post a Comment