Recently, TK Kerstetter of Corporate Board Member expressed his opinion that directors are underpaid. Earlier this week, he wrote this blog entitled “Directors Still Shy About Giving Themselves Raises.” I’m not sure where TK is getting his data from, but we haven’t seen any studies for this proxy season yet as the proxy disclosures are just rolling in now – and the data from last year (comparing 2010 to 2009 levels) revealed that boards received double digit (11%) raises on average when comparing total values of director compensation. That surely isn’t bad in a poor economy – and I predict the 2010-2011 comparison will also reveal a significant move upwards. [My data is pulled from Frederic W. Cook & Co.’s latest report on director compensation that compares the Nasdaq 100 vs. NYSE 100 for 2010.]
As reflected in TK’s blog, some argue that boards are doing more now so their pay levels should be adjusted upwards. But that doesn’t take into account that boards likely were overpaid in the past – so perhaps now they are finally earning what they make. $228,00 per year for a very part-time job isn’t bad (this is the median amount for 2010 noted in the Cook report). Go back a decade and talk to anyone who spent significant time in the boardroom and you’ll hear plenty of stories about how boards did very little before the advent of governance reforms and shareholder pressures directed towards them since the turn of the century. Consider that only a handful of companies had written procedures & policies (ie. corporate governance guidelines) about how their boards operate a decade ago. That says a lot about how seriously many boards took their role back then in my opinion.
And I strongly urge boards not to fall into the trap of relying solely on peer group studies to determine how much they should pay themselves. This would be repeating history as this type of benchmarking is one of the major causes of excessive CEO pay – the slippery slope upwards as everyone wants to be paid in the top quartile (who would say “we are a bad board and so should be paid at the bottom”?). Not to mention all the other perils of peer benchmarking, such as manipulating the data (as noted in the recent study). Common sense needs to prevail. Boards don’t need raises because “everyone else is doing it” without considering the sizable amounts they already earn for the fairly limited tasks they perform.
Ed Hauder of ExeQuity has updated his “Burn Rate Calculator” for the 2011 ISS burn rate caps and he notes that since Fidelity has apparently abandoned dilution in favor of 3-year average burn rate, which the Burn Rate Calculator also calculates for you, you might find some use for it.
Yesterday, Navigant Consulting filed this Form 8-K to report that it became the 9th company to fail to gain majority support for its say-on-pay, with only 45% voting in favor. Ted Allen’s blog provides some analysis.
Transcript: “What the Top Compensation Consultants Are NOW Telling Compensation Committees”
We have posted the transcript for the CompensationStandards.com webcast: Transcript: “What the Top Compensation Consultants Are NOW Telling Compensation Committees.”
Probably the most interesting development that happened while I was on vaca last week was the one noted by Mike Melbinger in his blog. Mike blogged about how some of the first companies to fail to receive majority support on their SOP have been sued (as well as their compensation committee members and even their compensation consultants) in shareholder derivative suits. Not only have the early failures of this proxy season been sued, but two of the companies that failed last year were sued (one case has been settled and one is still pending). We have begun to collect the pleadings from these cases for our “Say-on-Pay” Practice Area.
With the ante continuing to go up, take advantage of the early bird discount now for our pair of conferences – “The Say-on-Pay Workshop: 8th Annual Executive Compensation Conference” and the “6th Annual Proxy Disclosure Conference” (here’s the agendas) – which will be held on November 1st-2nd in San Francisco and via video webcast. Register now to obtain a 25% Early Bird Discount!
Last week, Stanley Black & Decker filed this Form 8-K to report that it became the seventh company to fail to gain majority support for its say-on-pay, with only 39% voting in favor. Not only did shareholders reject the company’s SOP, they also came down hard on the board – two directors had 49% withheld. Cooley’s Amy Muecke analyzes why the company failed in this memo.
Then on Friday – in a midst of a flurry of filings on a day when the markets were closed – Umpqua Holdings Corporation filed this Form 8-K to report it became the eighth failed say-on-pay with only 35% voting in support. Umpqua’s Form 8-K is unique in that it chose to include a narrative on why it believed it failed (ie. ISS recommended against the company and the company disagrees with ISS’s analysis).
In his “Proxy Disclosure Blog,” Mark Borges gives us the latest say-when-on-pay stats: with 2177 companies filing their proxies, 43% triennial; 4% biennial; 51% annual; and 4% no recommendation.
Here’s news from Jeannemarie O’Brien and Adam Shapiro as written in this Wachtell Lipton memo:
Recently, several federal agencies, including the OCC, Federal Reserve, FDIC, OTS, NCUA, SEC and FHFA, jointly issued a finalized proposed rule regarding incentive-based compensation under section 956 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. Section 956 of Dodd-Frank prohibits covered financial institutions from having incentive compensation arrangements that encourage inappropriate risk because they provide excessive compensation or pose a risk of material financial loss to the covered institution.
The final proposed rule is substantially similar to the proposed rule approved by the FDIC on February 7, 2011 (see our February 18, 2011 memorandum). Certain agencies have modified the proposed general rule in their agency-specific rule. There is a 45-day comment period following publication of the proposed rule in the Federal Register, and the agencies have invited comments on a variety of topics, including with respect to the feasibility of complying with the final rule in the proposed time frame.
The final rule may become effective as early as year-end (six months after publication of the final rule in the Federal Register). As we previously advised, bank financials and non-bank entities that could be covered institutions, such as broker-dealers and investment advisers, should review the proposed rule, evaluate its potential application and impact and take the opportunity to seek clarification through the comment process. Companies should maintain flexibility in the design of their 2011 incentive compensation arrangements in order to accommodate the final rule and should consider creating a working group to develop a compliance action plan.
It’s also worth reading analysis of this proposal by Prof. Steven Davidoff…
We have posted the survey results regarding the latest clawback policy trends, repeated below:
1. Has your company adopted a clawback policy:
– Yes, we adopted a policy during 2010 for first time – 9.6%
– Yes, we already had one before 2010 but we recently amended it – 5.2%
– Yes, we already had one before 2010 and we intend to amend it soon – 28.9%
– Not yet – 56.3%
2. If you answered “Not yet” to question above, do you intend to take any of the following steps in advance of adopting or amending a clawback policy:
– Add provision into terms & conditions of certain incentive awards to enable a potential clawback – 22.5%
– Have executives sign an independent document to enable a potential clawback of incentive awards generally – 7.5%
– Add disclosure in proxy statement about the intention to adopt or amend a clawback policy after finalization of SEC rules implementing Section 954 of Dodd-Frank – 45.0%
– None of the above – 40.0%
3. Does your company plan to adopt a new clawback policy or amend an existing policy:
– Prior to finalization of SEC rules implementing Section 954 of Dodd-Frank – 7.5%
– After finalization of SEC rules implementing Section 954 of Dodd-Frank – 70.7%
– Don’t know yet – 15.8%
– No – 6.0%
4. Once fully completed or amended, does/will your clawback policy apply to:
– Executive officers only – 25.9%
– Group of key employees broader than executive officers – 20.7%
– All employees – 3.0%
– Some provisions of policy apply to certain group of employees and other provisions apply to other groups or all employees – 5.9%
– Don’t know yet – 44.4%
5. Once fully completed or amended, does/will your clawback policy apply to directors:
– Yes, the entire clawback policy will apply to directors – 8.2%
– Yes, but only part of clawback policy will apply to directors – 0.8%
– No, it will not apply to directors – 33.6%
– Don’t know yet – 57.5%
Like Disney and Hewlett-Packard before them (see this blog), General Electric and Northern Trust recently filed additional soliciting materials challenging ISS’s recommendations on their say-on-pay. We are compiling a list of all the companies that do this on CompensationStandards.com’s “ISS Policies & Ratings” Practice Area.
GE notes a “significant disagreement” with ISS. GE’s materials directly confront ISS. GE’s points are:
– ISS’s analysis fails to consider actions that aligned pay with performance during the recession.
– Mr. Immelt’s pay increased a modest 6.4% since 2007, the last year he received a bonus.
– ISS’s valuation of Mr. Immelt’s option grant significantly overstates his total compensation.
– ISS’s model to value options differs from GE’s model and is inconsistent with applicable accounting guidance.
Northern Trust
ISS claims Northern Trust has a pay-for-performance disconnect. Northern Trust’s materials reemphasize components of compensation related to equity-based incentive pay, cash incentives and business results. Northern Trust also claims that ISS’s calculations of comparative financial performance are flawed because the index includes several companies engaged in entirely different and unrelated businesses. Its also worth noting that Glass Lewis & Co. recommended shareholders approve executive compensation.
Yesterday, Allegheny Technologies joined those fighting their proxy advisor recommendation with these additional solicitation materials. And ISS’s Ted Allen blogged about how AFSCME has launched the first public “just vote no” campaign this proxy season against two companies over their pay practices.
I’m not sure what you heard from your spouse, friends and colleagues about the news from the past week that CEO pay has gone up in the double digits over the past year, but I’m getting an earful. They are angry that too many CEO are being rewarded for laying people off in a poor economy or having their incentive packages reset at the bottom of the market. They have also read that there is a widening gap between the CEO’s pay and the median pay of other Named Executive Officers. And the recent Transocean flap doesn’t help things – here’s an excerpt from this Houston Chronicle article:
Only a wily compensation consultant could come up with a rationale whereby Transocean not only rewards its executives but touts its safety record after an accident like that. Only a tone-deaf board could endorse such a proposal and only a myopic corporate counsel could allow it to be placed in the company’s proxy statement.
Anyways, here are the two 2010 CEO pay studies that have been released so far:
And this Gretchen Morgenson NY Times’ column entitled “Enriching a Few at the Expense of Many” is quite thought-provoking, featuring a money manager who uses pay as a “crucial tire” to kick when making investment decisions and how companies overseas seem to do a better job of paying their CEOs.
I’m still in the process of developing the agenda for “The Say-on-Pay Workshop: 8th Annual Executive Compensation Conference,” but I do know it will feature a number of prominent investors since they are so important going forward in a say-on-pay world. Remember that this conference is paired with the “6th Annual Proxy Disclosure Conference” and they will be held on November 1st-2nd in San Francisco and via video webcast. Register now to obtain a 25% Early Bird Discount!
The Forbes Fictional 15
Hat tip to Lois Yurow for pointing out this hilarious “The Forbes Fictional 15.” Here is an excerpt from the opening:
You’re not imagining it: The rich do keep getting richer. Even the fictionally rich. The members of our 2011 list of wealthiest fictional characters have an average net worth of $9.86 billion, up 20% from last year. In aggregate, the Fictional 15 are worth $131.55 billion -more than the gross domestic product of New Zealand.
Last week, Ameron International filed a Form 8-K to reveal it has become the sixth company to fail to receive majority support for its say-on-pay, with 42% voting in favor. As noted in this LA Business Journal article, the company also was the subject of a proxy fight. As I blogged earlier, I’m counting Hemispherx Biopharma as the 5th failed vote until someone convinces me otherwise (here is our list of failed votes so far)…
In his “Proxy Disclosure Blog,” Mark Borges gives us the latest say-when-on-pay stats: with 1689 companies filing their proxies, 42% triennial; 4% biennial; 51% annual; and 4% no recommendation.