- CII Policies
- CII Advocacy Priorities – 2021
- CII Correspondence and Testimony
- Comment Opportunity Tracker
- Non-Financial Disclosure
- Investor-Company Engagement
- Majority-Supported Shareowner Proposals
- Director Elections
- Independent Board Leadership
- Executive Compensation
- Dual-Class Stock
- Divestment Debate
- Legal Issues
Index Providers and Dual-Class Stock
CII and some institutional investors turned to three major index providers in the wake of Snap Inc.’s egregious no-vote IPO, which led to three public consultations:
- S&P Dow Jones' consultation resulted in barring the addition of multi-class companies to the S&P Composite 1500 index and its components, which covers the S&P 500, MidCap 400 and SmallCap 600 indexes. Existing constituents were permanently grandfathered.
- FTSE Russell's consultation resulted in excluding past and future developed market constituents whose free float constitutes less than 5 percent of total voting power. Although only a handful of companies do not meet this requirement, FTSE Russell has indicated its intention to consider raising the 5 percent threshold in the future.
- MSCI conducted the most prolonged consultation of the three, but ultimately chose to continue to ignore voting rights for the purpose of major index construction. MSCI originally contemplated modest reform: excluding no-vote shares from major indexs in cases where the company's listed shares constitute under 17% of total voting power (25% for new constituents). MSCI subsequently released an expanded consultation with a discussion paper contemplating more significant reform: a weight adjustment for each index security based on the proportion of total voting power in free float hands, with no exemption for existing constituents. CII's supportive comment letter offered three ways to realize the benefits of this proposal while softening portfolio disruption: a three-year grace period for existing constituents; immediate and permanent exemptive relief for adopters of reasonable sunset provisions; and a gradual phase-in of the new methodology. Concluding its consultation, MSCI announced on October 30, 2018 it would continue to ignore voting rights for major index construction.
Providers of public equity indexes have an extensive history of exercising discretion to under-represent parts of the "investable universe" that don't meet certain fundamental norms of equity. The S&P 500, for example, has long-excluded master limited partnerships (MLPs), business development corporations (BDCs) and limited liability companies (LLCs). In 2018 the index continued to exercise discretion by excluding prospective entrants that violate the norm of proportionate voting influence according to economic stake.
Additionally, it is important to recognize the role of indexes within the context of deep institutional impediments to addressing this issue elsewhere. The Securities and Exchange Commission currently lacks statutory authority to require exchanges to curb unequal voting rights due to a federal suit brought decades ago by the Business Roundtable, establishing judicial precedent against the SEC taking action. Stock exchanges could address the matter by requiring listed companies to have equal voting rights or reasonable sunset provisions, but the for-profit model and intense competition for new present conflicts for these "self-regulatory organizations." Major U.S. exchanges have rebuffed formal proposals to act since 2014. Further reducing the likelihood of exchange-based reform, multiple non-U.S. exchanges with long-standing "one share, one vote" requirements recently have yielded to "race to the bottom" pressure to attract new listings, permitting dual-class structures in certain circumstances. Global regulatory coordinators like the International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) are empowered to provide guidance, but not to compel action.
Exchanges in Germany, France, Italy, Switzerland, Sweden, Canada, Hong Kong, Singapore and the U.K. permit public companies to issue multi-class stock. In other jurisdictions, such as Japan, dual-class offerings are technically allowed, but they are not market practice. Examples of markets that forbid the practices are Belgium, Spain, South Korea, India and Russia.