- About CII
- Board of Directors
- U.S. Asset Owners Advisory Council
- Corporate Governance Advisory Council
- Markets Advisory Council
- Committees & Working Groups
- CII Staff
- Press Releases
Leading Investor Group Fall Conference
September 11-13, Long Beach, CACII Elects Board Members for 2023-2024 Leading Investor Group Spring Conference,
March 6-8, Washington, D.C.CII Hails SEC for Closing Rule 10b5-1 Insider Trading Loopholes Leading Investor Group Fall Conference
September 21-23, BostonCII Elects Board Members for 2022-2023 - Members Also Approve Revised Policies on Poison Pills and Shareholder Meetings CII Spring Conference, March 7-9, Washington, D.C. Leading Investor Group Hails SEC Rule Requiring Universal Proxy Cards in Contests for Board Seats CII Virtual Fall Conference, September 22-24 CII Elects Board Members for 2021-2022 CII Virtual Spring Conference, March 8-10 SEC Muzzles the Voice of Investors by Raising the Bar on Shareholder Proposals Leading Investor Group Seeks Strengthened Sustainability Reporting CII Virtual Fall Conference, September 17-22 Leading Investor Group Dismayed by SEC Proxy Advice Rules Leading Investor Group Calls for Action on Racism Amy Borrus to Become Executive Director of the
Council of Institutional Investors on July 1CII Statement on Virtual Shareholder Meetings During Public Health Emergency CII Elects Board Members for 2020-2021, Approves Three Policies CII Spring Conference, March 9-11, Washington, D.C. Leading Investor Group Blasts SEC’s Proposed Rules for Proxy Advice and Shareholder Proposals CII Announces Advisory Council Members for 2020 Leading Investor Group Rebukes SEC for Proposed Rules That Undercut Critical Shareholder Rights Leading Investor Group Urges Companies to Commit to Long-Term Executive Compensation Council of Institutional Investors Board Appoints Amy Borrus to Succeed Ken Bertsch as Executive Director Media Advisory: CII Fall Conference, September 16-18, Minneapolis Council of Institutional Investors Responds to Business
Roundtable Statement on Corporate PurposeLeading Investor Group Calls Out Directors Responsible for
Dual-Class Companies Without “Sunsets”Leading Investor Group Petitions SEC to Require Clear Disclosure on CEO Pay Targets Council of Institutional Investors Says Lyft’s Planned Dual-Class Structure is Harmful to Investors Media Advisory
CII Spring Conference, March 4-6, Washington, D.C.CII Statement on Share Buybacks CII Research and Education Fund Publishes
Guide to Disclosure of Board Evaluation ProcessesInvestor Group Applauds CommonSense Principles 2.0 CII Fall Conference, October 23-25, New York City Leading Investor Group Responds to President’s Tweet on Quarterly Financial Reporting Investor Group Responds to Wall Street Journal Editorial CII Applauds Shareholder Protections in House Bill CII Elects New Board, Names Florida SBA Executive
Director & CIO Ashbel Williams ChairNew Report Details Practical Steps Corporate Boards Can Take to Combat Sexual Harassment CII Applauds SEC Commissioner Jackson's Call for Listing Standards to Require Sunsets on Dual-Class Stock CII Spring Conference, March 12-14, Washington. D.C. CII Announces Advisory Council Members for 2018 CII Report Highlights Risks Associated with a Common Chinese Corporate Structure Institutional Investors Oppose Stitch Fix Dual-Class Structure but Welcome Sunset Provision Uber’s Governance — Investor Response Do Not Disadvantage US Investors on Research,
CII Asks SECCII Fall Conference, September 13-15, San Diego CII Welcomes S&P Dow Jones’ Decision to Ban New Multi-Class Companies from Key Stock Indexes CII Applauds FTSE Russell Decision to Set Voting Rights
Minimum for Inclusion on IndexesInvestor Group Urges Blue Apron to Ditch No-Vote Shares Institutional Investors Dismayed by House Passage of
Financial CHOICE ActCII, Institutional Investors with $4+ Trillion in Assets Oppose
Anti-Shareholder Provisions of the CHOICE Act
- CII in the News
- Governance & Financial Information
- Contact Us
- CII Research and Education Fund
Institutional Investors Oppose Stitch Fix Dual-Class Structure but Welcome Sunset Provision
Washington, D.C., Nov. 16, 2017 —The Council of Institutional Investors (CII) says the clothing subscription company Stitch Fix’s initial public offering (IPO), expected tomorrow, is problematic given its proposed dual-class share structure. CII is, however, encouraged by Stitch Fix’s plans for a “sunset” provision that would terminate the dual-class structure in 10 years.
“A dual-class structure says to investors, ‘We’ll take your money, but we don’t value your vote on how we use your capital to run the business.’ That’s not equitable treatment of investors, and it’s certainly not effective corporate governance,” said Ken Bertsch, CII’s executive director.
At the vast majority of publicly traded U.S. companies, shareholders have voting power that is proportionate to their financial risk, in line with the longstanding corporate governance best-practice principle of “one share, one vote.” But controlled or dual-class companies have a capital structure that gives founders and other insiders voting rights that outweigh their financial stake, typically 10 votes per share.
No founder is infallible. Independent boards accountable to owners should be empowered to actively oversee management and make course corrections when appropriate. Super-voting rights for insiders weaken board oversight and give investors little influence.
Nearly four out of every five 2017 IPOs of U.S.-based companies address these realities by using a “one share, one vote” structure. Yet CII and many institutional investors are alarmed by the proliferation of dual-class companies. CII reports that 24 of 108 companies that made IPOs on U.S. exchanges in 2017 (22%) have dual-class structures with differential voting rights (the total excludes foreign private issuers, “blank check” companies and master limited partnerships).
At IPO, these 24 companies accounted for 55% of the total market cap of the 108 companies. This high proportion is heavily skewed by the large size of two IPO companies that feature “non-voting” shares—Altice USA and Snap—although both Altice and Snap share prices have slumped since IPO while most of the companies have seen increased share values, reducing the Altice/Snap relative weight if current market cap is used. As of November 15, the 24 dual-class companies accounted for 49 percent of the 108 IPO companies’ total market cap.
More dual-class companies opt for time-based sunsets. The silver lining in this trend is that a small but growing number of dual-class companies are adopting provisions that provide for automatic conversion to one share, one vote after a period of time. If Stitch Fix proceeds with its IPO this year, it will be the sixth dual-class company to IPO with a “clean” (non-contingent) time-based sunset provision this year (see table here), a record.
“We are encouraged that the Stitch Fix filing includes a sunset provision that offers a time-based path to avoid a permanent dual-class stock structure,” Bertsch said. “Investors are better served with one share, one vote from the outset, but the Stitch Fix sunset provision limits potential for lack of accountability in the long term, which is particularly important.” At 10 years, however, Stitch Fix’s sunset is much longer than the three to five years that CII believes is reasonable.
In contrast, Bertsch noted, “the MongoDB and Switch IPOs last month both featured dual-class structures without meaningful sunset provisions. Even worse, Switch uses super-voting rights to vest control with its CEO and his descendants in perpetuity.”
The most common terms for time-based sunset provisions are 10 years and seven years, though MuleSoft IPO’d with a five-year sunset earlier this year. Groupon did the same in 2011 and dissolved its dual-class structure in 2016. Time-based sunsets were rare prior to 2010, reports Stanford’s Rock Center for Corporate Governance.
CII also is encouraged that since June, no U.S. companies have made IPOs with non-voting share classes. CII believes that a key reason are restrictions that index providers have since put on including dual-class companies, especially no-vote companies, in benchmark indexes. Shareholder litigation against non-voting stock also helped.
“Actions by index providers S&P Dow Jones, FTSE Russell and MSCI, as well as recent decisions by Facebook and IAC/Interactive to drop plans for non-voting share classes in the face of litigation, may be limiting the worst forms of dual class,” Bertsch explained.
“A dual-class structure says to investors, ‘We’ll take your money, but we don’t value your vote on how we use your capital to run the business.’ That’s not equitable treatment of investors, and it’s certainly not effective corporate governance,” said Ken Bertsch, CII’s executive director.
At the vast majority of publicly traded U.S. companies, shareholders have voting power that is proportionate to their financial risk, in line with the longstanding corporate governance best-practice principle of “one share, one vote.” But controlled or dual-class companies have a capital structure that gives founders and other insiders voting rights that outweigh their financial stake, typically 10 votes per share.
No founder is infallible. Independent boards accountable to owners should be empowered to actively oversee management and make course corrections when appropriate. Super-voting rights for insiders weaken board oversight and give investors little influence.
Nearly four out of every five 2017 IPOs of U.S.-based companies address these realities by using a “one share, one vote” structure. Yet CII and many institutional investors are alarmed by the proliferation of dual-class companies. CII reports that 24 of 108 companies that made IPOs on U.S. exchanges in 2017 (22%) have dual-class structures with differential voting rights (the total excludes foreign private issuers, “blank check” companies and master limited partnerships).
At IPO, these 24 companies accounted for 55% of the total market cap of the 108 companies. This high proportion is heavily skewed by the large size of two IPO companies that feature “non-voting” shares—Altice USA and Snap—although both Altice and Snap share prices have slumped since IPO while most of the companies have seen increased share values, reducing the Altice/Snap relative weight if current market cap is used. As of November 15, the 24 dual-class companies accounted for 49 percent of the 108 IPO companies’ total market cap.
More dual-class companies opt for time-based sunsets. The silver lining in this trend is that a small but growing number of dual-class companies are adopting provisions that provide for automatic conversion to one share, one vote after a period of time. If Stitch Fix proceeds with its IPO this year, it will be the sixth dual-class company to IPO with a “clean” (non-contingent) time-based sunset provision this year (see table here), a record.
“We are encouraged that the Stitch Fix filing includes a sunset provision that offers a time-based path to avoid a permanent dual-class stock structure,” Bertsch said. “Investors are better served with one share, one vote from the outset, but the Stitch Fix sunset provision limits potential for lack of accountability in the long term, which is particularly important.” At 10 years, however, Stitch Fix’s sunset is much longer than the three to five years that CII believes is reasonable.
In contrast, Bertsch noted, “the MongoDB and Switch IPOs last month both featured dual-class structures without meaningful sunset provisions. Even worse, Switch uses super-voting rights to vest control with its CEO and his descendants in perpetuity.”
The most common terms for time-based sunset provisions are 10 years and seven years, though MuleSoft IPO’d with a five-year sunset earlier this year. Groupon did the same in 2011 and dissolved its dual-class structure in 2016. Time-based sunsets were rare prior to 2010, reports Stanford’s Rock Center for Corporate Governance.
CII also is encouraged that since June, no U.S. companies have made IPOs with non-voting share classes. CII believes that a key reason are restrictions that index providers have since put on including dual-class companies, especially no-vote companies, in benchmark indexes. Shareholder litigation against non-voting stock also helped.
“Actions by index providers S&P Dow Jones, FTSE Russell and MSCI, as well as recent decisions by Facebook and IAC/Interactive to drop plans for non-voting share classes in the face of litigation, may be limiting the worst forms of dual class,” Bertsch explained.
###