Abstract
Abstract This paper studies the interaction between governance mechanisms and the effectiveness of shareholder activism by examining shareholder-initiated proposals on poison pills. After contrasting companies along their governance regime, we observe that dictatorship firms, characterized with higher number of governance provisions, are associated with more activist voting by institutional groups: ownership by mutual funds, independent investment advisors and pension funds are significantly related to greater support of shareholder proposals against poison pills. In democratic firms, characterized with lower levels of restrictions on shareholder rights ownership by various shareholder groups is not as highly correlated with support for these proposals, suggesting perhaps that shareholders use other internal channels to voice concerns. In dictatorships, we find that certain shareholders rely on annual meetings to pressure management, and that management is less likely to take action following shareholder votes. Finally, among all institutional shareholders, management seems more likely to respond favorably in the presence of ownership by public pension funds.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
