Pay continues to be the biggest issue this proxy season. The May 17 edition of Pirc Alert had several articles on point. In “A challenge to high pay” they discuss some of the findings by the High Pay Commission. Here’s a few choice tidbits from the Commission’s report:
- attempts to link top pay with company performance only seem to have resulted in pushing up remuneration, with little corresponding step up in business success.
- the top 0.1% earners – are finance workers (30%), those working in business (38%) and company directors (34%)
- Excessive rewards are undermining relationships with employees and shareholders; they are encouraging harmful risk taking and creating an economic elite which wields enormous power but appears to have lost touch with how the rest of us live.
- Defenders of high pay talk about executives being poached by international competitors but only one FTSE 100 company has been the victim of poaching in the last 5 years, that was from another British firm.
- a feeling that business leaders are ‘in it for themselves’ pervades all discussions on the behaviour of businesses.
- 58% of people either agree or strongly agree there is one rule for the rich and another for the poor; 18% disagree
- The failure of our corporate governance system means that we are now paying more and getting less
The Commission will now look at options, such as “reforms of the Remuneration Committees and the inclusion of other stakeholders.” PIRC has also argued that introducing dissident elements onto committees may restrict excess. We look forward to the Commission’s recommendations later this year.
Yesterday Broc Romanek reported “four more companies filed Form 8-Ks reporting failed say-on-pay votes: Helix Energy Solutions (34%); Curtiss-Wright (41%); Intersil (44%); and Cincinnati Bell (34%). I keep maintaining our list of Form 8-Ks for failed SOPs in CompensationStandards.com’s “Say-on-Pay” Practice Area.” His list was up to 24 when I looked yesterday; it could be higher today. See the agenda for their upcoming November 1 conference.
Thanks in part to “say on pay,” U.S. directors are receiving less opposition from investors this season. As of May 12, the average “withhold” vote was 4.7 percent, as compared with 5.5 percent last year. At S&P 500 companies, the average opposition rate has fallen from 4.1 percent in 2010 to 3.9 percent this year, according to ISS data. (Advisory Votes Help Shield Directors From Investor Dissent, Ted Allen, ISS, 5/19/2011)
The United States Proxy Exchange (USPX) released draft guidelines for shareowners to use in making say-on-pay voting decisions. Our guidelines call for a no vote on “say-on-pay” when the ratio of CEO pay to average workers exceeded a shareowner specified threshold or when the CEO was higher than the median. We also recommend voting against compensation committee members when shareowners vote down pay packages.
Is this a good strategy, or should we wait until the following year to vote out compensation members who don’t take voting down pay packages seriously? That seems to be the strategy of many shareowners this year. What are your ideas on how to ratchet down pay packages that seem to rise every year, regardless of company performance and oblivious to the widening gap between the super-rich and the rest of us?
Comment letters are due by June 2nd to email@example.com. Please put “Say-on-Pay Guidelines” in the e-mail subject line. Letters will be posted to the USPX website, unless you indicate you would rather remain anonymous.