Doron Levit
Institution
University of Washington
PhD Year
2011
dlevit@uw.edu
FTG Membership
Member
Website
https://sites.google.com/view/doronlevit
Featured Work
Jun 12, 2025
Nonbinding voting for shareholder proposals
Shareholder proposals are a common form of shareholder activism. Voting for shareholder proposals, however, is nonbinding since management has the authority to reject the proposal even if it received majority support from shareholders. We analyze whether nonbinding voting is an effective mechanism for conveying shareholder expectations. We show that, unlike binding voting, nonbinding voting generally fails to convey shareholder views when manager and shareholder interests...
Jun 27, 2024
Voting on Public Goods: Citizens vs Shareholders
We study the interplay between a "one person-one vote" political system and a "one share-one vote" corporate governance regime. If shareholders push firms for more pro-social policies, political backlash may arise, undoing ESG initiatives. In a frictionless economy, shareholder democracy becomes irrelevant: the political system fully offsets shareholder influence. With public policy frictions, pro-social corporations can mitigate regulatory shortcomings and enhance corporate public goods provision....
Jan 5, 2021
The Voting Premium
This paper develops a unified theory of blockholder governance and the voting premium, in a setting without takeovers and controlling shareholders. A voting premium emerges when a minority blockholder tries to influence the composition of the shareholder base by accumulating votes and buying shares from dissenting shareholders. Empirical measures of the voting premium do not reflect the value of voting rights or voting power. A...
Oct 3, 2019
Trading and Shareholder Democracy
We study shareholder voting in a model in which trading affects the composition of the shareholder base. Trading and voting are complementary, which gives rise to self-fulfilling expectations about proposal acceptance and multiple equilibria. Prices and shareholder welfare can move in opposite directions, so the former may be an invalid proxy for the latter. Relaxing trading frictions can reduce welfare because it allows extreme shareholders...
