Shareholders began to play an active role in diminishing the growing agency costs due to recentfinancial crisis, poor corporate governance and excessive executive compensations. They act asindividual and corporate forms in order to protect their investment and increase firm value.Nowadays, social activities of the past have changed to replace the general manager, overcome theduality problem, elect a board member other than the management candidates, vote for acquisitionor sale decisions, and dividend distribution. The ownership structure in Turkey is generally composedof families or individuals who do not act aggressively as the hedge funds in USA. The sales of Turkishcompanies’ shares to foreign shareholders, introduction of international investment funds in the localmarket, and electronic general meeting system introduced a few years ago contribute to shareholderactivism in Turkey. Shareholder struggles are witnessed only in the Turkish stock market which isquoted in the NYSE. In this study, the two publicly traded companies in the telecommunicationsector, namely Türk Telekom and Turkcell, are examined in terms of their financial situation, theacceptance rate of the propositions of the management in the general meetings, and the behaviorof their share prices. Shareholder activism is not seen in the Telekom, whereas there have beentrials and regulation changes for Turkcell. In terms of accounting-based data, Türk Telekom has alower operational profitability and current ratio as compared to Turkcell. It is concluded that thelevel of shareholder activism occurred in the general meetings does not affect the share prices. Bothcompanies’ shares moved in high correlation during the last three years. The share prices did not showabnormal patterns during the days following the general meetings. The reasons might be the growthof the telecommunication industry being above the national growth rate and the positive evaluationsof the shareholders’ decisions by the investors for the future of the firm.
Activist Insight, Activist Investing Review, 2016, s. 9-10.
ARMOUR, John and Cheffins, Brian, “The Rise and Fall (?) of Shareholder Activism by Hedge Funds”, Journal of Alternative Investments, 14 (3), 2012, s. 17-27.
BLACK, Josh, Activist Investing 2016, www.activistinsight.com
BLACK, Josh, The Activist Investing Annual Review 2017, Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation, Feb. 21, 2017.
BLACK, Bernard S., “Shareholder activism and corporate governance in the United States”, In: Newman, Peter (Ed.), The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics and the Law, 3, 1998, s. 459-465.
BRAV, Alon and Jiang, Wei and Kim, Hyunseob, “Hedge Fund Activism: A Review. Foundations and Trends in Finance”, 4 (3), 2009, s. 185-246.
CHUNG, Huimin and Talaulicar, Till, “Forms and effects of shareholder activism”, Corporate Governance: An International Review, 18 (4), 2010, s. 253-257.
COHN, Jonathan B. and Gillan, Stuart L. and Hartzell, Jay C., “On Enhancing Shareholder Control: A (Dodd-) Frank Assessment of Proxy Access, The Journal of Finance, 71 (4), 2016, s. 1623-1668.
COPLAND, James R., The Push for Proxy Access Continues, Proxy Monitor Report, Manhattan Institute, 2016.
DENES, Matthew R. and Karpoff, Jonathan M. and McWilliams, Victoria B., “Thirty years of shareholder activism: A survey of empirical research”, Journal of Corporate Finance, in press, 2017.
ERGİN, Emre, “Does Excessive Executive Compensation Really Pay Shareholders?”, Academy of Accounting and Financial Studies Journal, 17 (1), 2013, s. 47-56.
ERGİNCAN, Yakup and Karaağaçlı, Bora, “How Electronic General Meetings Affected Exercise of Shareholder Rights in Turkey: An Analysis of the Turkish Model in Light of International Market Standards and Regulations”, Boğaziçi Journal Review of Social, Economic and Administrative Studies, 29 (1), 2015, s. 95-117.
ERTIMUR, Yonca and Ferri, Fabrizio and Muslu, Volkan, “Shareholder Activism and CEO Pay”, The Review of Financial Studies, 24 (2), 2011, s. 535-592.
FERRI, Fabrizio and Oesch, David, “Management Influence on Investors: Evidence from Shareholder Votes on the Frequency of Say on Pay”, Contemporary Accounting Research, 33 (4), 2016, s. 1337-1374.
FOS, Vyecheslav, The Disciplinary Effects of Proxy Contests, Working paper, Columbia University, 2011.
GANTCHEV, Nickolay, “The Costs of Shareholder Activism: Evidence from a Sequential Decision Model”, Journal of Financial Economics, 107 (3), 2013, s. 610-631.
LOW, Chee K., “A Road Map for Corporate Governance in East Asia”, Northwestern Journal of International Business Law, 25, 2004, s. 165-203.
PREVOST, Andrew K. and Wongchoti, Udomsak and Marshall, Ben R., “Does institutional shareholder activism stimulate corporate information flow?”, Journal of Banking and Finance, 70, 2016, s. 105-117.
SJÖSTRÖM, Emma, “Shareholder Activism for Corporate Social Responsibility: What Do We Know?”, Sustainable Development, 16 (3), 2008, s. 141-154.