Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 12

Ownership requires taking action

A fundamental tenet of free market capitalism is that owners choose how their assets are used to their best advantage.  It’s my belief that if our system erodes the capacity for owners to effectively exercise this choice the result will be sub-optimal.

At its simplest level ‘ownership’ connotes a set of behaviours, values and powers that co-exist with the asset owned. When exercised responsibly and actively in an informed and engaged manner, ownership plays a positive force in the economy and society.

Entrepreneurial corporate capitalism of the early 20th century aligned corporate ownership with its actual owners. Think of the founding fathers, Henry Ford and Andrew Carnegie, whose very large ownership stakes empowered and enabled its shareholder owners. Today’s form of shareholder capitalism, often called ‘fiduciary capitalism’, is in direct contrast to this.

Fiduciary capitalism

Fiduciary capitalism is the term used to describe a new style of corporate governance practised by a new breed of investor - the sophisticated institutional fiduciary.

Agency issues and lack of accountability

A key characteristic of fiduciary capitalism is that its participants, predominantly institutional investors, are not owners in the sense they benefit directly from ownership; rather they are agents of these owners. They, and myriad other fiduciary agents, form the long agency chain that exists between the owner and user of that capital. They are passive in their ownership. Fiona Reynolds, in her recent Cuffelinks article on United Nations Principles of Responsible Investing (UNPRI), described this as the ‘investment chain’ and exhorted agents to become active and responsible investors.

Ownerless capital

In a system where the gap between the owner and the user of capital is vast, any ownership empowerment is virtually impossible. This dilution has led to such capital being described as ‘ownerless capital’.

It’s difficult to see how successful governance can ensue in such a system, given the complete lack of accountability for those to whom power is entrusted.

In reality, managements are neither effectively accountable to individual shareholders or to the institutions and fund managers who are the agents of the ultimate shareholders.

Universal owners

A universal owner is a large institutional investor that holds its shares for the long term, in a portfolio that represents a broad cross-section of the economy, and mostly trades to maintain its index.

Large institutional investors have a spread of asset holdings across diversified asset classes and economies. Not only the asset in which they are invested, but also the economy itself influences returns for these institutions. This breadth of ownership is the reason they have been termed ‘universal owners’.

In these economies, universal owners come to occupy a quasi-public position in effect having an economic interest in the long-term health and well-being of society as a whole.  This somewhat unusual position suggests an interest in matters beyond standard macroeconomic policy issues, but more specifically in regulatory policy, and for example the provision of public goods such as education and health and infrastructure. Understandably perhaps, many universal owners confronted with this potential have moved cautiously not conceiving themselves as public policy makers.

James Hawley and Andrew Williams, in their article ‘Can universal owners be socially responsible investors’ predict the future may well be very different.

“… as the ultimate beneficiaries - pension fund participants, mutual fund owners, etc. - come to realise the importance of universal owners acting as such, more fund managers will find the political room to use the potential power that universal owners possess.”

Why Active Ownership Matters

In their article ‘Capitalism without owners will fail’, Robert Monks and Allen Sykes highlighted various weaknesses in today’s shareholder capitalism.

Among them are the inappropriate powers of corporate management, deeply entrenched short-termism, absentee ownership, managements not effectively accountable to individual shareholders or their agents, board composition and accountability, and remuneration practices.

They went on to say:

“The prime weakness underpinning all the others is undoubtedly the absence of effective, committed, knowledgeable long-term owners.”

Central to their debate is the notion of responsible ownership being critical to a corporate ethic. They state:

“The principal responsibility for shareholders is – or ought to be - to assure that the businesses they collectively own voluntarily disclose information necessary for appropriate law-making, exercise restraint in influencing the making and enforcement of law, and comply spaciously with the law. Only in this way can we ensure corporate functioning that is both profit-taking and compatible with the public good.”

I think we all buy the argument that accountability and responsibility rest with ownership.  Equally shared are the frustrations that exist with respect to the frameworks within which we operate where an abundance of regulations, global and domestic, are unfolding in an attempt to safeguard our somewhat rocky financial systems. But we appear to be caught in a vicious circle where weaknesses reinforce each other.

What can we do?

A few practical suggestions come to mind:

  • Analyse our own behaviours, knowledge, thought processes and commitment with respect to assets we own and enhance or change what might be necessary and practicable.
  • Exhort those who act on our behalf to take responsible active roles with respect to our assets and hold these agents accountable.
  • Where we ourselves act as Trustee and/or Agents in the investment chain ensure we play an active, committed and responsible role; that we have appropriate knowledge; and that we have great clarity in decision-making ensuring the long term benefit of those for whom we act is front of mind.
  • With respect to our assets which one day will pass to our family members and others through our wills, ensure that those to whom the task falls have knowledge or the capacity to increase their knowledge to enable them to perform this task responsibly.
  • Encourage our younger family members to involve themselves in their own assets, particularly their superannuation.  First step is for these members to understand that their superannuation is an asset of theirs, they will eventually take possession of it, they have choices as owners and they stand to benefit from understanding their choices.

In today’s increasingly institutionalised and globalised world, unless empowered ownership becomes reality, capitalism, as we know it, is at serious risk. We need to act to minimise the dilution in the power that rests with the owners of assets.

 

Melda Donnelly is the founder of Centre for Investor Education and is an Independent Non-Executive Director of Ashmore Group, Treasury Group and Unisuper. She is a member of the Advisory Committee of the Oxford University Centre for Ageing.

 


 

Leave a Comment:

RELATED ARTICLES

Investor downside when management controls access to the board

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

Are LICs licked?

LICs are continuing to struggle with large discounts and frustrated investors are wondering whether it’s worth holding onto them. This explains why the next 6-12 months will be make or break for many LICs.

Retirement income expectations hit new highs

Younger Australians think they’ll need $100k a year in retirement - nearly double what current retirees spend. Expectations are rising fast, but are they realistic or just another case of lifestyle inflation?

5 charts every retiree must see…

Retirement can be daunting for Australians facing financial uncertainty. Understand your goals, longevity challenges, inflation impacts, market risks, and components of retirement income with these crucial charts.

Why super returns may be heading lower

Five mega trends point to risks of a more inflation prone and lower growth environment. This, along with rich market valuations, should constrain medium term superannuation returns to around 5% per annum.

The hidden property empire of Australia’s politicians

With rising home prices and falling affordability, political leaders preach reform. But asset disclosures show many are heavily invested in property - raising doubts about whose interests housing policy really protects.

Preparing for aged care

Whether for yourself or a family member, it’s never too early to start thinking about aged care. This looks at the best ways to plan ahead, as well as the changes coming to aged care from November 1 this year.

Latest Updates

Shares

Four best-ever charts for every adviser and investor

In any year since 1875, if you'd invested in the ASX, turned away and come back eight years later, your average return would be 120% with no negative periods. It's just one of the must-have stats that all investors should know.

Our experts on Jim Chalmers' super tax backdown

Labor has caved to pressure on key parts of the Division 296 tax, though also added some important nuances. Here are six experts’ views on the changes and what they mean for you.        

Superannuation

When you can withdraw your super

You can’t freely withdraw your super before 65. You need to meet certain legal conditions tied to your age, whether you’ve retired, or if you're using a transition to retirement option. 

Retirement

A national guide to concession entitlements

Navigating retirement concessions is unnecessarily complex. This outlines a new project to help older Australians find what they’re entitled to - quickly, clearly, and with less stress. 

Property

The psychology of REIT investing

Market shocks and rallies test every investor’s resolve. This explores practical strategies to stay grounded - resisting panic in downturns and FOMO in booms - while focusing on long-term returns. 

Fixed interest

Bonds are copping a bad rap

Bonds have had a tough few years and many investors are turning to other assets to diversify their portfolios. However, bonds can still play a valuable role as a source of income and risk mitigation.

Strategy

Is it time to fire the consultants?

The NSW government is cutting the use of consultants. Universities have also been criticized for relying on consultants as cover for restructuring plans. But are consultants really the problem they're made out to be?

Sponsors

Alliances

© 2025 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.

Disclaimer
The data, research and opinions provided here are for information purposes; are not an offer to buy or sell a security; and are not warranted to be correct, complete or accurate. Morningstar, its affiliates, and third-party content providers are not responsible for any investment decisions, damages or losses resulting from, or related to, the data and analyses or their use. To the extent any content is general advice, it has been prepared for clients of Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892), without reference to your financial objectives, situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide. You should consider the advice in light of these matters and if applicable, the relevant Product Disclosure Statement before making any decision to invest. Past performance does not necessarily indicate a financial product’s future performance. To obtain advice tailored to your situation, contact a professional financial adviser. Articles are current as at date of publication.
This website contains information and opinions provided by third parties. Inclusion of this information does not necessarily represent Morningstar’s positions, strategies or opinions and should not be considered an endorsement by Morningstar.