All Things Digital

Skip to main content.

Yahoo Shareholder Vote Number-Crunching– Whither Cap Re’s No Vote?

There is a mini-tempest brewing over how shares were tallied in the Yahoo annual meeting last Friday, specifically around whether a group of votes withheld by one of Yahoo’s major shareholders was not counted, counted incorrectly or even voted incorrectly by the investor.

According to sources close to the thinking at Capital Research & Management, the proxy committees for its two large funds that hold a significant stake in Yahoo (YHOO) recommended last week that they withhold votes specifically from CEO Jerry Yang and from various board members, such as Chairman Roy Bostock, to register disappointment with their performance.

Thus, the investment fund confirmed it had approached outside vote tabulator Broadridge Financial Solutions, a Lake Success, N.Y.-based financial services company that does securities clearing and processing, to investigate whether those votes were correctly counted on behalf of its Capital Research Global Investors fund.

Capital Research Global Investors–one of two funds separately managed at Capital Research & Management–owns 6.5 percent of Yahoo, according to recent filings, and Capital World Investors owns 9.8 percent.

Capital Research Global Investors’ investor Gordon Crawford has been vocal about his disappointment with Yang and the board at Yahoo.

And sources close to the fund’s thinking said Crawford recommended that it withhold votes from Yang and some other board members.

Capital World Investors has been less critical of Yahoo, but sources said it was also leaning toward voting at least some of its stake against the company’s leadership.

But Yang, for example, only had 14.6 percent withheld, with 85.4 percent voting for him. Bostock fared worse, grabbing only 79.5 percent of the yes vote, with 20.5 percent withheld.

That would mean, assuming a large part of Capital Research’s votes to withhold were counted, that only a few other investors voted against Yahoo.

This is highly unusual in a year when many shareholders have been deeply unhappy with its management.

But, in fact, overall results for both Yang and Bostock were actually better than last year.

I called Broadridge for comment and am awaiting a response.

Yahoo does not do its own tabulation, which must be done by a third party, although it has hired MacKenzie Partners as a proxy solicitor to manage the process.

Said a spokesman in response to my inquiry about the situation:

“The independent inspector of elections certified the results of the election and Yahoo! accurately announced those results. Yahoo! did not participate in the execution of the votes and was not a party to any errors which may have been made either by a voting institution or a proxy processing intermediary acting on behalf of banks, brokers and institutions.”

While the recommendations of the proxy committees at Capital Research are apparently not binding on some individual directors of smaller funds that make up the larger ones, they typically follow along with the overall decision from the top.

They might not have in this case, of course, or they might not have voted the shares at all, although it is also possible they could have voted incorrectly or that the votes were not tallied properly.

This is better than a hanging chad!

Another unusual issue around the voting: The amazing drop in the number of shares that were voted at all.

In 2008’s shareholder tally (see below for individual director numbers), only 75.8 percent, or 1,046,095,584 out of 1,381,008,701 possible share votes, were cast.

There were 1,205,435,371 votes cast in 2007 and 1,276,175,601 in 2006, a much higher percentage of overall votes.

Sources at Yahoo speculated that this could be due to the fact that most investors vote automatically in an uncontested election and were waiting for an outcome in the proxy fight between activist investor Carl Icahn and Yahoo.

After that issue was settled right before the annual meeting, though, some investors might not have even bothered to vote.

More to come, but here are the pertinent stats on the Yahoo vote as of Friday:

Roy J. Bostock (Shares for: 832,023,657/79.5 %; Shares Withheld: 214,071,927/20.5%)

Ronald W. Burkle (849,373,291/81.2%; 196,722,293/18.8%)

Eric Hippeau (948,862,579/90.7%; 97,233,005/9.3%)

Vyomesh Joshi (971,594,650/92.9%; 74,500,934/7.1%)

Arthur H. Kern (814,871,925/77.9%; 231,223,659 /22.1%)

Robert A. Kotick (967,044,818; 92.4%; 79,050,766/7.6%)

Mary Agnes Wilderotter (964,939,727/92.2%; 81,155,857/7.8%)

Gary L. Wilson (856,006,576/81.8%; 190,089,008/18.2%)

Jerry Yang (893,055,602/85.4%; 153,039,982/14.6%)

Comments

  1. Hi Kara:

    Did not quite understand how the Math works here!

    “In 2008’s shareholder tally (see below for individual director numbers), only 75.8 percent or 751,046,095,584 out of 1,381,008,701 possible share votes were cast.”

    -S

    Posted by Sudheer Ravindra at August 4th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
  2. Hi Kara:
    As a stockholder, I was curious *which* of my proxy letters actually was counted - I recieved 4.

    1 was from Icahn, the other three were from Yahoo. The last of which arrived today, August 4th.

    Does this strike anyone as odd?

    Posted by Marc Mercuri at August 4th, 2008 at 8:06 pm
  3. It looks like the number of votes cast given in the article has an extra “75″ in front of it. The correct number is 1,046,095,584; that is 75.8% of the possible shares (1,381,008,701) and it is the sum of the “for” and “withheld” values for each of the board members.

    Also odd is the earlier sentence: “Another unusual issue around the voting: The amazing drop in the number of shares that were not voted at all.” I think that should be, “The amazing increase…”

    Posted by David Frankel at August 4th, 2008 at 8:08 pm
  4. No, Kara is correct. 200 million shares were not counted this year compared to the last 2 years of Yahoo! voting. With such publicity around this year’s vote, one would have expected the voting numbers to have increased - not decreased. Yet another reason why Capital Research is right in calling for a full review of the voting.

    Posted by Eric Jackson at August 4th, 2008 at 8:49 pm
  5. D:

    All fixed. I was typing quickly and made a typo!

    Thanks!

    Posted by Kara Swisher at August 4th, 2008 at 11:20 pm
  6. i have found much of your reporting on yahoo this year to have been a triumph of style over substance, an addiction to snark that clouds vision.

    this article seems more mature, and maybe i can read you again.

    thank you, gregory lent

    Posted by gregory lent at August 5th, 2008 at 2:09 am
  7. G:

    Sorry to disagree with your criticism, but this column has broken every major story on Yahoo over the last year and also was first (last April) to start to focus on the looming problems at the Internet giant.

    You might not like my style, but I can’t agree there has been no substance in the reports, which have been accurate, newsbreaking, more often than not, first.

    You might do some reporting yourself before saying otherwise. (But feel free to call me snarky!)

    Posted by Kara Swisher at August 5th, 2008 at 3:42 am

Add a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment. Sign up here or log in below.

Comments posted on this site must be signed with your full, real name. Please see our Comments policy for details.

About Kara

Kara Swisher started covering digital issues for The Wall Street Journal's San Francisco bureau in 1997 and also wrote the BoomTown column about the sector. With Walt Mossberg, she co-produces and co-hosts D: All Things Digital, a major high-tech and media conference.

Read more »

Ethics Statement

Here is a statement of my ethics and coverage policies. It is more than most of you want to know, but, in the age of suspicion of the media, I am laying it all out.

Read more »



Give until it hurts and
then give more