Grounds for Institutional investor intervention

Seven reasons are typically cited as potential grounds for investor intervention.

Whilst it would be rare to act on the basis of one factor (unless it was particularly unfavourable), an accumulation of factors may have such an effect. Furthermore, institutional investors have a moral duty to use their power to monitor the companies they invest in for the good of all investors, as recognised in most codes of corporate governance. Institutional investors have the expertise at their disposal to understand the complexities of managing large corporations. As such, they can take a slightly detached view of the business and offer advice where appropriate. The typical reasons for intervention are cited below.

1. Concerns about strategy, especially when, in terms of long-term investor value, the strategy is likely to be excessively risky or, conversely, unambitious in terms of return on investment. The strategy determines the long-term value of an investment and so is very important to shareholders.


2. Poor or deteriorating performance, usually over a period of time, although a severe deterioration over a shorter period might also trigger intervention, especially if the reasons for the poor performance have not been adequately explained in the company’s reporting.


3. Poor non-executive performance. It is particularly concerning when non-executives do not, for whatever reason, balance the executive board and provide the input necessary to reassure markets. Their contributions should always be seen to be effective. This is especially important when investors feel that the executive board needs to be carefully monitored or constrained, perhaps because one or another of the factors mentioned in this answer has become an issue.


4. Major internal control failures. These are a clear sign of the loss of control by senior management over the operation of the business. These might refer, for example, to health and safety, quality, budgetary control or IT projects. In the case of ZPT, there were clear issues over the control of IC systems for generating fi nancial reporting data.


5. Compliance failures, especially with statutory regulations or corporate governance codes. Legal non-compliance is always a serious matter and under comply-or-explain, all matters of code non-compliance must also be explained. Such explanations may or may not be acceptable to shareholders.


6. Excessive directors’ remuneration or defective remuneration policy. Often an indicator of executive greed, excessive board salaries are also likely to be an indicator of an ineffective remunerations committee which is usually a non-executive issue. Whilst the absolute monetary value of executive rewards are important, it is usually more important to ensure that they are highly aligned with shareholder interests (to minimise agency costs).


7. Poor CSR or ethical performance, or lack of social responsibility. Showing a lack of CSR can be important in terms of the company’s long-term reputation and also its vulnerability to certain social and environmental risks.




*************