A recent article in Pension and Investments regarding CalSTRS backing of new proxy access requirements by the SEC raised a couple of issues for me. The number one issue I saw was that there was no mention of S&P 500 index company, APOLLO GROUP (APOL). If a state fund like CalSTRS is going to back proxy access reform for director nominations I would think that companies that CalSTRS invests money in would at least have to offer shareholders voting-rights in their publicly traded shares; APOLLO GROUP doesn’t. As such, they don’t give shareholders access to a proxy whatsoever. Is this issue part of proxy reform? If so, I haven’t seen it. In fact, in Googling APOLLO GROUP and CalSTRS I find no news story where CalSTRS flags APOLLO GROUP as a proxy or shareholder Frankenstein. They replaced Worldcom in the S&P 500 in May 2002.
The second issue has to do with CalSTRS calls for greater diversity in corporate boardrooms. I’m very curious as to how CalSTRS equates greater diversity with improved long-term sustainable shareholder-value and how they intend to qualify and quantify how improved corporate performance is directly attributable to social diversity. I’m not saying that a correlation doesn’t exist; I’m asking how do they intend to track this and inform their investors and retirees.
What tools are they going to use in the process? How will they work with their investment managers to ensure their objectives are being met? How will they oversee this goal? From what I have read on the web, tying corporate performance to diversity goals is an imperfect alchemy at best and nailing Jello to a wall at worst.
If they’re calling for it, do they have an obligation to report on it to their constituents on a regular basis? Curious.
The second issue has to do with CalSTRS calls for greater diversity in corporate boardrooms. I’m very curious as to how CalSTRS equates greater diversity with improved long-term sustainable shareholder-value and how they intend to qualify and quantify how improved corporate performance is directly attributable to social diversity. I’m not saying that a correlation doesn’t exist; I’m asking how do they intend to track this and inform their investors and retirees.
What tools are they going to use in the process? How will they work with their investment managers to ensure their objectives are being met? How will they oversee this goal? From what I have read on the web, tying corporate performance to diversity goals is an imperfect alchemy at best and nailing Jello to a wall at worst.
If they’re calling for it, do they have an obligation to report on it to their constituents on a regular basis? Curious.
