Tag Archives | Conference Board

Business Development: Governance Center

The Conference BoardBusiness DevelopmentThe objective of the Director for New Business Development is to promote and sell Governance Center memberships globally, in conjunction with the Governance Center staff and the Directors of Associate Service. Being a well-educated, entrepreneurial, articulate and consultative sales professional, the Director, New Business Development, Governance Center cultivates Global F1000 companies, institutional investment firms and corporate governance services providers, including law firms, that become members of The Conference Board Governance Center and is responsible for closing new Governance Center sales. Continue Reading →

Continue Reading ·

Webinar Tomorrow Reviews How Sustainability Drives Growth

Driving Revenue Growth Through Sustainable Products and ServicesSustainability innovation is powering business growth, according to a new research report. Between 2010 and 2013, revenues from company-defined portfolios of sustainable products and services grew by 91% among the companies examined in the report. For S&P Global 100 companies that break out revenue for sustainable products or services separately, that revenue stream grew at six times the rate of overall company results. Continue Reading →

Continue Reading ·

Yvan Allaire: Shareholder Activism & Long-Term Value

Dr. Yvan Allaire

Dr. Yvan Allaire

In case you missed it last weekend, Donna Dabney, Executive Director of the Governance Center at The Conference Board posted this November 14th presentation by  Dr. Yvan Allaire presented at the Annual Meeting of The Conference Board Governance Center. His talk was titled Do activist interventions create long term shareholder value?

Allaire reviews a lot of studies and basically disputes the contention that activist interventions lead to long-term shareholder value. While I find his arguments compelling, what we really need in research going forward is much more nuanced than what his overview provides. Yes, I yield to the point that most shareholder activism doesn’t move in the direction I would like. For example, transferring wealth from employees and debt holders to shareholders only aggravates wealth disparity. Agreed – reducing cash, investment and R&D seem more likely to the hurt long-run prospects of a company. Continue Reading →

Continue Reading ·

Two More Proxy Season Reviews

ProxyAccessTwo more reviews of the 2013 proxy season came out the other day. The quickest read is from Jackie Cook at CookESG (Proxy Season Roundup: Shareholder Resolutions) who analyzed 502 shareholder-sponsored resolutions voted between July 2012 and June 2013. Two-thirds are governance-related, averaging 41% support. One-third address social and environmental issues, with an average 21% level of support. Continue Reading →

Continue Reading ·

Donna Dabney Heads The Conference Board's Governance Center

The Conference Board today announced that Donna Dabney has joined The Conference Board as Executive Director of the Governance Center. In this new role, Ms. Dabney will lead a team that will explore restoring trust in public corporations, identifying sustainable corporate governance policies and understanding global governance issues. The Governance Center will continue to sponsor rigorous governance research and education and will serve as a Continue Reading →

Continue Reading ·

Conference Board to Examine Corporate Political Spending

The Conference Board formed a committee of representatives from Fortune 500 companies and “corporate citizenship executives” to research issues related to disclosure and accountability of corporate political spending and develop a  report by fall that will provide corporations with a toolkit of resources to strengthen their governance practices in this area.

The current member companies of the Committee on Corporate Political Spending include Campbell Soup Company, Exelon Corporation, Merck & Co., Inc., Microsoft Corporation, and Pfizer Inc. The Committee is co-chaired by Dan Bross, Senior Director, Corporate Citizenship, Microsoft Continue Reading →

Continue Reading ·

Institutional Investor Ownerhip Up at Larger Firms

Institutional investors came back to the securities markets in droves in 2009 after fleeing during the financial crisis of 2007-2008, according to The 2010 Institutional Investment Report released by The Conference Board earlier last month.

The report showed that institutional investors owned 73 percent of the top 1,000 companies in 2009 compared to 69 percent in 2008. However, at the 50 largest companies their  average ownership concentration was reduced from 64.5 percent to 63.7 percent.

Overall, total institutional investment assets rose 14 percent to $25.35 trillion, a level that hadn’t been reached since the end of 2007, when it was $28.27 trillion. [See press release] via Report: Institutional Investors Owning More of Larger Companies | Governance Center Blog, 11/23/2010.

Continue Reading ·

Survey of Corporate Governance Practices

The 2010 U.S. Directors’ Compensation and Board Practices Report is based on a survey of 279 corporate secretaries in May and June 2010. The Conference Board conducted this edition of its annual survey in collaboration with the Society of Corporate Secretaries and Governance Professionals and sponsored by the Deloitte LLP Center for Corporate Governance, and expanded the questions to include board practices regarding risk oversight, CEO succession planning, and emerging executive compensation safeguards such as clawbacks, say-on-pay, and anti-gross-up policies.

Median total compensation to board members ranges from $67,500 in the smallest companies to $172,966 in the largest. No real surprises but certainly worth a look. (Annual Survey Shows Boards Increasing Clawbacks and Risk Oversight | The Conference Board, 10/18/2010)

Continue Reading ·

CorpGov Bites

“Bank of America persuaded the SEC to drop “proxy access” provision as they negotiated a $150 million settlement of a lawsuit tied to the takeover of Merrill Lynch & Co… The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which represents more than 3 million companies, has said “activist shareholders” would use proxy access to hijack elections to pursue “political or social issues.”” (SEC Said to Push BofA Proxy Rule in Enforcement Case, Bloomberg.com, 2/18/10)  “SOX substantially beefed up the obligations of the audit committee, at least for Exchange traded companies.  See Section 301 of SOX.  The committee was given the direct authority to supervise and to hire/fire the outside auditor.  The committee was also given the authority to hire counsel without full board approval.” “In the proposed settlement with BofA, the SEC is seeking to augment the authority of the audit committee one more time.  The Commission is giving to the audit committee (not the full board) the authority to hire counsel.  Counsel must not only review filings but must discuss possible deficiencies with the audit committee in executive session, without the presence of the non-indpendent directors.  The latter restriction is significant.” (The Board of Directors and a Review of Corporate Disclosure, theRacetotheBottom.org, 2/17/10)

Interesting, Bloomberg failed to get the Chamber’s new line. “Late last month, for the first time in more than a decade, the US Chamber of Commerce changed the boilerplate language that appears at the bottom of its press releases. The nation’s largest business lobby no longer claims to be “representing more than 3 million businesses and organizations of every size, sector, and region.” Instead, it claims to be “representing the interests of more than 3 million businesses” (emphasis added). The smallness of the tweak masks its major significance: Representing somebody, which strongly implies a direct relationship, is very different from representing their interests. The Chamber is in effect acknowleging that the “3 million” businesses aren’t actually its members… It was forced to admit that its true membership isn’t the 3 million businesses that it has claimed, but something on the order of 300,000.” (Chamber of Commerce No Longer “Represents” 3 Million Businesses, Mother Jones, 2/12/10)

I guess we at CorpGov.net should be claiming to represent the interests of the approximately 100 million Americans who own stocks or mutual funds… but why stop at Americans, since we occasionally cover corporate governance issues in other countries as well?

Apple, lags industry peers on sustainability reporting and has not made public greenhouse gas reduction commitments. Apple shareowners are beginning to vote their proxies on Moxy Vote, based on recommendations from Calvert Investments to support a resolution on on sustainability reporting. (Is Apple green enough?, Mac News)  The problem is there is another proposal seeking a bylaw requiring a board committee on sustainability… and there are all those directors to vote for or against. While I love Moxy Vote and own Apple stock, at this point, in Beta form, I’m disappointed the site has no one to advise me on how to vote the other issues or on the directors. So, I turn to ProxyDemocracy.org and even they have collected no votes in advance of the 2/25/10 meeting from “ten institutional investors that are particularly engaged in corporate governance.” I’ll wait until next week to vote.

Eric Jackson does a nice job interviewing John Gillespie and David Zweig, co-authors of “Money for Nothing.”  Gillespie says we won’t have real change until the old players like Bernanke, Geithner and Summers leave. Zweig says, “corporate governance needs a new name to encourage change, maybe corporate democracy.” (Corporate Governance Role in Meltdown, TheStreet.com, 2/17/10) See my review under the heading Fix the Boards – Fix the System. Buy the book.

“Advocates of genocide-free investing won another important victory this week, when American Funds, a family of mutual funds with more than $775 billion in investments, decided to divest virtually all its holdings in PetroChina. Before a shareowner meeting held on November 24, American Funds owned 167 million shares in PetroChina, worth $190 million.”  “Investors Against Genocide advanced a resolution asking that the Board of American Funds “institute procedures to prevent holding investments in companies that…substantially contribute to genocide or crimes against humanity.” American Funds opposed the measure, and affirmative votes for the proposal ranged from 8.5% to 11.8% at the meeting.” (American Funds Sells PetroChina Holdings, SocialFunds.com, 2/18/10) The showing on their resolution would have probably been much higher had voting instructions issued by Broadridge actually complied with the requirements for proxies to clearly indicate the voting topic instead of simply referencing “a shareholder proposal described in the proxy statement.” Broadridge could get away with it because that the language the issuer wanted and since Broadridge uses a voter information form, they don’t feel they are bound by SEC requirements that apply to proxies. (see our coverage of that issue at Investors Against Genocide Fighting American Funds, Broadridge and Vague SEC Requirements: More Problems Solved Using Direct Registration.

Corporate governance advisory firm PIRC made history again. In January 2009 they took a radical step, and began publicly disclosing via their website the voting recommendations they make for company meetings. Now they have set out have set out six best practice principles for corporate governance advisors, as follows:

  • Clear voting policy guidelines should be made available to clients, the companies whom the adviser is monitoring and to the market;
  • Clear audit trail and explanation of the process for assessing companies and making voting recommendations should be available to clients and the companies monitored;
  • Possible conflicts of interest should be disclosed to clients and to companies monitored and, where necessary, to market regulators (i.e. paid consulting with companies);
  • Companies monitored should be given reasonable opportunity to comment on voting recommendations made and the basis of such recommendations;
  • Voting agencies should routinely report to clients on actions taken on their behalf;
  • All voting recommendations made by a voting adviser should be publicly disclosed post-meeting. (Corporate governance agencies: the need for transparent voting decisions by Tom Powdrill on Responsible Investor, 2/18/10)

The Securities and Exchange Commission Investor Advisory Committee will meet in DC on February 22 at 9 a.m. The agenda for the meeting includes consideration of a Committee recusal policy, a report from the Education Subcommittee, including a presentation on the National Financial Capability Survey, a report from the Investor as Purchaser Subcommittee, including a discussion of fiduciary duty and mandatory arbitration, a report from the Investor as Owner Subcommittee, including recommendations for the Committee on Regulation FD and proxy voting transparency, as well as reports on a work plan for environmental, social, and governance disclosure and on financial reform legislation, and discussion of next steps and closing comments. I’ll be tuning into the webcast if time permits.

The Conference Board issued a new report, Directors’ Duties under the New SEC Rules on Disclosure Enhancement, available to members. From my quick review, the report appears comprehensive but written clearly and in an easy to understand format. Highly recommended for directors, their advisors and monitors. Additionally, the SEC posted six new Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations 116.07, 117.05; 119.21, 119.22 and 119.23, which offer guidance on disclosure under Items 401, 402(a), and Item 402(c) of Regulation S-K. Staff also added new question 121A.01 related to Exchange Act Form 8-K, which explains calculation of the four-business day filing period for disclosing the results of a shareholder vote. See also  guidance on the new requirements from Compliance Week issued in January and December as well as the original rule. Additional guidance from the Altman Group, Walking the Tightrope – New Proxy Disclosures on Director Qualifications, Board Risk Oversight and Board Diversity – and new Climate Change Disclosures for the 10K.

The Corporate Library’s ‘2010 Proxy Season Foresights #3: The Growth of Clawback Provisions, ($15) found that the number of companies with clawback provisions continued to increase in 2009, and almost half of such companies are smaller-cap firms outside the Russell 1000.

The Centre for Corporate Governance Research (CCGR) is organising its 8th International Corporate Governance Conference on Wednesday 23rd June 2010, to be held at the University of Birmingham, UK.  The theme of the conference is ‘Corporate Governance and Sustainability’. Keynote speakers include Colin Melvin (Chief Executive, Hermes Equity Ownership Services Ltd), Dr Michael Blowfield (University of Oxford) and Dr Beate Sjåfjell (University of Oslo). Sir Adrian Cadbury, the CCGR’s External Advisor, will be attending the event. Papers are invited on issues relating to any area of corporate governance and sustainability. Papers should be sent as an electronic copy in PDF format, by 31st March 2010 to Karen Hanson.

Moxy Vote is running a series, Here’s to the many pioneers!, Part 1 includes yours truly, Jim McRitchie, along with Mark Latham, Andy Eggers and Matt Keenan. Part 2 will include Glyn Holton, Nell Minow, and the Social Investment Forum. I’m blushing to be in such company. Thanks to Mark Schlegal and to all the fine work at Moxy Vote for facilitating involvement by retail investors and providing advocates such an important pipeline of influence.

The Council of Institutional Investors (CII) published a White Paper, The OBO/NOBO Distinction in Beneficial Ownership: Implications for Shareowner Communications and Voting, authored by Alan Beller and Janet Fisher of the law firm Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP.  Mr. Beller is a former Director of the SEC’s Division of Corporation Finance. From the Executive Summary:

The SEC is likely to be cautious in seeking to change the current framework in significant ways, at least in the near term. Defining the objective is critical to developing a proposal. If the goal is to increase the ability of shareowners and companies to communicate directly, a number of incremental steps may be taken to address the OBO/NOBO distinction and facilitate direct distribution of proxy materials, without discarding the current distribution platform. Such an approach could lead to meaningful improvements, without seriously affecting the interests of many of the participants in the current framework, and we believe it has a greater chance of widespread support than more radical alternatives… On balance, we believe that the immediate interest of shareowners and companies in better communications would be better and more effectively served with an incremental approach that promotes less reliance on — or eliminates altogether — the OBO/NOBO distinction and otherwise increases the potential for direct communications.

Continue Reading ·

Overcoming Short-termism: The Key Issue

Gary Larkin, who blogs for the Conference Board, did a great interview Q&A With Martin Lipton and Richard Ferlauto: Short-termism. (12/09/09) Here’s a snippet on the question, Do you think short-termism played a role in the destruction of long-term shareholder value:

Lipton: Absolutely. Short-termism resulted in financial services companies taking undue risk, more so than in the past. They created more and more leverage. Businesses were generally borrowing on a short-term basis and subjected themselves to a liquidity crisis. Monetary policy created historically low interest rates and too many companies did not resist the “bargain.”

Ferlauto: The time horizons and its parallel investment orientation may be the most fundamental question that investors — especially fiduciaries for retirement funds — face today. Too many investors till think that they are better off with “Make the money and get out [of the market]’ or ‘Make the money now and not care about its longer term repercussions.’ You’re eating your seed corn for short term gains. Many firms are not competitive now because they didn’t make the investments in technology, human resources or internal development that in the long run contributes to wealth creation for shareowners and other stakeholders.

I found it interesting that it is the conservative, Lipton, who sees the solution in direct action by the federal government, while Ferlauto appeals to issuers to work more closely with their shareowners… although in the end Ferlauto also sees intervention by the federal government as necessary, since individual companies aren’t willing to break out of the model on their own.

// < ![CDATA[
// < ![CDATA[
//

Continue Reading ·

Powered by WordPress. Designed by WooThemes