Setbacks After the Shareholder Spring

Don't let it get away!

Keep track of the stocks that matter to you.

Help yourself with the Fool's FREE and easy new watchlist service today.

Last year at this time, rumblings of a "shareholder spring" dominated proxy season. Shareholder resolutions proved important, and shareholder votes forced corporate managements to take notice, even at major companies.

In 2012, Citigroup shareholders voted against then-CEO Vikram Pandit's pay, preceding his eventual resignation in the fall. Former Aviva CEO Andrew Moss wasted no time, resigning immediately when the British company's shareholders rejected his pay package last year.

This year has been less satisfying and dramatic for shareholder rights advocates. Take just one surprising and deflating development: JPMorgan Chase (NYSE: JPM  ) shareholders did not vote to strip Jamie Dimon of his chairman title. Maybe the Dimon faithful can breathe a sigh of relief, but most of those who'd like to see real, constructive change in corporate governance probably aren't.

The Dimon dilemma
Dimon's success in keeping the chairman title is puzzling given negative events in the past year. The London Whale debacle resulted in a stunning $6 billion loss, and the incident poked a hole in a previously widely held belief: that Dimon was the best of banker CEOs. Bear in mind that when news of the London Whale scandal first broke last year, Dimon dubbed it a "tempest in a teapot." Instead, it turned out to be a bona fide tempest, and rebutted the idea that Dimon could do no wrong.

In a logical world, the shareholder proposal should have had a shot -- or at least garnered a much larger percentage of the vote, especially since proxy advisory firms Glass Lewis and Institutional Shareholder Services, or ISS, both recommended that shareholders vote for the resolution.

Instead, a mere 32% of JPMorgan shareholders voted to split the roles. That's not even as many as last year, when 40% voted in favor of a similar proposal. Here's some perspective: As of the beginning of May, the bank faces at least eight investigations by regulators. Were JPMorgan shareholders asleep when they voted?

The loyalty that most JPMorgan shareholders feel for Dimon is clear; it might even be called hero worship. His reputation may be tarnished in the public eye as well as regulators', but it appears that the firm's own shareholders were terrified that Dimon would head out the door if the vote didn't go his way.

Dimon wasn't even facing an outright firing; splitting the roles would simply reduce influence and imbalance of power at the top. Still, many shareholders and analysts seemed panicked at the thought that Dimon would resign altogether if he lost the chairman role.

If the majority vote had flipped the other way, wouldn't it have signaled a serious lack of character if Dimon decided to leave? A good leader can accept criticism and might even show a tad of humility after scandals.

A simple fix for stronger governance
From the corporate governance standpoint, separating the roles is simply common sense. Allowing a corporate leader to preside over the company and the board of directors doesn't sound like a commonsense path to a robust and independent board.

Slowly but surely, many corporations have been evolving and separating the roles. GMI Ratings' data shows that 68% of S&P 500 companies had combined CEO and chairman roles in 2005, but that percentage had dropped to 56.4% in 2012. About 21% of companies boasted an independent chairman last year, compared to a minuscule 8.5% in 2005.

Last summer, GMI also crunched its data to reveal that large-cap companies with different individuals holding the titles generated a 28% higher return over a five-year period.

Votes at some companies have crept close to the majority mark this year. John Chevedden's proposal demanding an independent chairman at Kohl's did creep over the majority mark, with votes in favor coming to 52%. Meanwhile, Hess recently agreed to split the roles, responding to pressure from activist investor Elliott Management, which was seeking to get five of its own onto Hess' board.

Beyond Dimon
oProxy season isn't over, and many companies still haven't held their annual meetings. There are plenty of proxies left to vote on proposals even beyond CEO pay and chairman independence.

There are also more victories than we might think after Dimon's continued hold of both his titles. Maybe shareholders were only half asleep.

JPMorgan shareholders did punish directors on the company's risk management committee; three barely gained majority votes in favor of their reelection. That's a step in the right direction, particularly because corporate boards are a core place to demand accountability when things go wrong. Directors are supposed to look out for shareholder interests, after all.

The fact that the mere concept of taking away Dimon's chairman title caused such a ruckus reflects a shift in the way public companies and their shareholders interact on governance issues. Shareholder proposals matter now, and have even become top headline material, and the ramifications of votes are taken seriously enough to be fodder for major debate. At one time, most shareholders barely registered the idea that voting their proxies mattered, so managements didn't have to care, either.

The votes are in for Dimon, but it's still just the beginning in the push for better corporate governance.

Want to learn more about JPMorgan?
With big finance firms still trading at deep discounts to their historic norms, investors everywhere are wondering if this is the new normal, or if finance stocks are a screaming buy today. The answer depends on the company, so to help figure out whether JPMorgan is a buy or a sell today, check out The Motley Fool's premium research report on the company. Click here now for instant access!

Check back at for more of Alyce Lomax's columns on environmental, social, and governance issues.

Read/Post Comments (5) | Recommend This Article (5)

Comments from our Foolish Readers

Help us keep this a respectfully Foolish area! This is a place for our readers to discuss, debate, and learn more about the Foolish investing topic you read about above. Help us keep it clean and safe. If you believe a comment is abusive or otherwise violates our Fool's Rules, please report it via the Report this Comment Report this Comment icon found on every comment.

  • Report this Comment On May 28, 2013, at 7:38 PM, matthewluke wrote:

    It isn't necessarily a setback just because the result didn't turn out a certain way. Dimon and his supporters made their case, supporters of splitting the CEO-Chairman roles made their case, then the shareholders voted. Shareholders got to speak their mind on the issue and that's a good thing. If the shareholders of JPMorgan want Dimon to keep his dual-role (or they didn't wish to call his bluff of taking his ball and going home), that's the shareholders of JPMorgan's decision to make.

    Would I like to see, in general, the dual CEO-Chairman role at any company be split? Sure. But I can't be too upset if shareholders of a company get the chance to vote on the issue and decide the opposite (especially when I'm not a shareholder of that company).

    Alright, it is a little disappointing. But that's the chance you take when you ask people to decide on these matters. Sometimes the vote goes the way your want, sometimes it doesn't.

  • Report this Comment On May 29, 2013, at 6:16 AM, TMFLomax wrote:


    Very good point. Shareholders did get their vote and their say and that is the most important part. Looking at it from the pure corporate governance standpoint, it is disappointing, and it's hard to get why it came down this way. But thanks for pointing out that the votes are in, and revealed what shareholders wanted.


  • Report this Comment On May 29, 2013, at 7:55 PM, matthewluke wrote:

    I'm still disappointed, but I'm happy that resolution got the amount of attention that it did (even if the result wasn't what I hoped it might have been).

    Maybe a short-term setback, but with long-term opportunities down the road.

  • Report this Comment On May 29, 2013, at 10:27 PM, skypilot2005 wrote:

    TMFLomax wrote:

    " it's hard to get why it came down this way. "


    Let me help.

    You need to look at Mr. Dimon’s long career in its totality.

    I don’t own JPM.

    I have made money off of companies Mr. Dimon has been involved with in the past.

    I.M.O., Mr. Dimon is a great talent.

    But, that is just me.


  • Report this Comment On May 31, 2013, at 11:54 AM, TMFLomax wrote:

    Thanks Sky -- I always like hearing your opinion too. I also know plenty of people who feel that way about Mr. Dimon. One of my friends is a JPM shareholder and he definitely disagrees with me on this one.



Add your comment.

Compare Brokers

Fool Disclosure

Sponsored Links

Leaked: Apple's Next Smart Device
(Warning, it may shock you)
The secret is out... experts are predicting 458 million of these types of devices will be sold per year. 1 hyper-growth company stands to rake in maximum profit - and it's NOT Apple. Show me Apple's new smart gizmo!

DocumentId: 2455827, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 9/26/2016 3:17:43 AM

Report This Comment

Use this area to report a comment that you believe is in violation of the community guidelines. Our team will review the entry and take any appropriate action.

Sending report...

Today's Market

updated 2 days ago Sponsored by:
DOW 18,261.45 -131.01 -0.71%
S&P 500 2,164.69 -12.49 -0.57%
NASD 5,305.75 -33.78 -0.63%

Create My Watchlist

Go to My Watchlist

You don't seem to be following any stocks yet!

Better investing starts with a watchlist. Now you can create a personalized watchlist and get immediate access to the personalized information you need to make successful investing decisions.

Data delayed up to 5 minutes

Related Tickers

9/23/2016 4:00 PM
JPM $67.25 Down -0.14 -0.21%
JPMorgan Chase CAPS Rating: ****