Part 4 28th Annual SRI Conference in San Diego. Search #AllinForImpact on Twitter to see more posts. See Parts 1, 2, and 3. Yes, I know, this conference was held months ago but I’m still digesting… maybe until the next one. I could spend a productive year just exploring links to the work of the speakers. Mark your calendar for November 1-3, 2018. The SRI Conference returns to the Broadmoor in Colorado Springs. Get on the mailing list. Continue Reading →
Tag Archives | Ric Marshall
Are we paying CEOs too much? Is the Pope Catholic? (That’s my own bad joke, not from the panelists.)
Executive compensation is front and center on the minds of shareholders, regulators—and politicians. What IS pay? What IS performance? What are the right time frames for measuring performance? And what to do about the perception that pay is not tied to performance?
I was less interested in our “perception” that pay is not tied to performance and more interested in the reality, where such discrepancies exist.
Are We Paying CEOs Too Much? is Part 5 of my coverage of the Corporate Directors Forum 2017 in San Diego @, which was billed as Directors, Management, & Shareholders in Dialogue. I was also hoping to learn more about President Donald J. Trump and how his administration might impact corporate governance. More about that in a future post. See Part I, Part 2, Part 3 and Part 4. As usual, the Directors Forum was under Chatham House Rule, so I’m mostly just posting a few observations and my reflections that I hope readers will find interesting.Much better photos from the professional photographer at Directors Forum 2017 Photo Slide Show. Continue Reading →
This the fifth part of my coverage of this year’s ICGN event in Boston. I haven’t taken the time to edit the prose to make complete well-flowing sentences. Still, I hope you find them of some value. Here we touch on the idea of a Stewardship code for the US and I captured a few remarks from DuPont’s former CEO, Ellen Pullman. Continue Reading →
Congratulations to GMI Ratings for winning top place for corporate governance research firms and Kimberly Gladman, Ric Marshall, and Sarah Wilson for top individual awards. Top ranking for SRI research goes to Sustainalytics. Continue Reading →
GMI Ratings announced today the launch of an enhanced version of its flagship product, GMI Analyst, an integrated web-based platform providing research on environmental, social, governance (ESG) and accounting-related risks affecting the performance of public companies. According to Ric Marshall, GMI Ratings’ Chief Analyst and Director of Development, Continue Reading →
I see from Alcoa’s 8-K filing, that William Steiner’s proposal to end supermajority requirements won 68%. Last year, a similar proposal won 73% but this year management put their own proposals on the proxy, so some just voted for their proposals to end supermajority requirements in three areas. Management’s highest proposal won 736,143,769 votes, with 20,319,646 opposed and 4, 344, 531 abstentions. I understand that’s 74% of stock outstanding, so the measures still failed to meet the 80% supermajority threshold required for change.
With 74% favoring, and 2% opposing, it is yet another frustrating exercise in futility by shareowners. Since management placed proposals on the proxy, they look like they’re being cooperative. However, how much was real and how much was just for show? Did they make any real effort to solicit proxies to overturn supermajority requirements? My guess is that it was minimal, if any.
I see from the 8-K filing by Kellogg that my proposal to end supermajority requirements won about 46% of the vote, despite opposition from the Kellogg Foundation, which owns about 23% of shares. At least with the new filing requirements, we’re getting results a lot quicker.
At Bank of America, shareholders passed a resolution by John Chevedden that would give shareholders the right to call a special meeting as long as owners of at least 10% of shares vote in favor of it, down from the current 20-25% requirement (unclear in Fortune article). (Bank shareholders fight back — and win, Fortune, 4/29/10)
I reviewed Dawn Following Darkness: An Outcome-Oriented Model for Corporate Governance by Martin B. Robins on April 22 in Require Affirmative Proof in Specified Circumstances of “Too Big to Fail Companies” in Order to Meet the Business Judgment Rule. I may be going out on a limb but I think that publicity was all that was needed to push the paper onto the list of SSRN top downloads. Now, if we can only influence proxy voters as much as we influence SSRN readers, we’ll have a huge impact on corporate governance.
Ric Marshall and Cheri Gaudet, of The Corporate Library, put on a great webinar yesterday, “Director Elections 2010: A Shareowner’s Guide.” Ric was able to demonstrate their tools using some well know examples of outrageous disclosures. If you missed it, you may be able to catch the recorded version on-demand, assuming it is available to those who didn’t register. It was especially interesting to see how TCL flags directors for various issues such as overboarding, lack of full independence, involvement in corporate failures, compensation and for several other reasons. Want to know which directors have lucrative compensation contracts with management? TCL has the tools to get you their in seconds. Check out Director Flags – Highlighting Shareholder Concerns. You can also request a free trial to Board Analyst to try out the Director Highlights feature.
John Chevedden brought to my attention what appears to be draconian bylaw provisions that call for a whole bunch of hoops to be jumped through for raising issues at shareowner meetings. Some companies appear to be trying to discourage shareowner proposals by telling proponents that in order to file a rule 14a-8 proposal they have to jump through the same hoops as hedge funds. See item 4 in this example from H&R Block but note the language near the end that says rights of Rule 14(a)-8 aren’t impacted. Comments on what this is all about?
And speaking of John Chevedden, he e-mailed me with yet another way retail shareowners get the shaft when voting through a voter information form (VIF) from Broadridge. I’ve written extensively on the “blank vote” issue and even filed a rulemaking petition with the SEC. Actual proxies must include a bold-face warning if blank votes will be turned into votes for management. However, VIFs typically include a practically microscopic footnote. Chevedden point out that after you cast your preliminary vote, it is easier to see how your blanks will be voted; and he provided this example from Mattel. Of course, if you do notice how your blanks have changed and you try to go back to fill in the blanks, you are punished because the system then requires you to vote all over again. The votes you want to remain valid have all disappeared. Gotcha! I revised my post, Jim Crow “Protections” for Retail Shareowners, to include this additional information.