Glass Lewis New Peer Group Methodology for Say on Pay

Due to Glass Lewis now using CGLytics data to power their Say on Pay recommendations and adapting their methodology to peer-based approach, what is the impact on companies’ pay for performance gradings?

Glass Lewis and CGLytics recently held a webinar to explain Glass Lewis’ new peer group methodology, taking effect from January 1 this year.

The new model implemented by Glass Lewis changes the way peer groups are determined for the Say on Pay recommendations in their proxy papers. During the webinar Glass Lewis’ Julian Hamud, Senior Director of Executive Compensation Research, explains:

“The new partnership with CGLytics has given the opportunity to provide better research for our clients. We are moving from a market-based approach to a proven peer-approach, which will improve our say on pay and compensation analysis.”

Hamud goes on to explain in detail the problems they encountered with the previous model including rigidity with no ability for manual adjustments to the peer algorithm when unique context of a company is justified, and large industry favoritism.

The impact on pay for performance grades and recommendations is also highlighted with a case study detailed by Aaron Bertinetti, Senior Vice President, Research and Engagement, Glass Lewis.

Using the example of Franklin Resources Annual General Meeting (AGM) being held on February 12, 2020,  Bertinetti shows the difference in pay for performance grades awarded using both the old and new Glass Lewis model and peer methodology. This example reveals an improved Grade C, whereas using the previous peer groups and model it would result in a Grade D.

Due to the change of Glass Lewis now using CGLytics data to power their Say on Pay recommendations, and adapting their methodology to peer-based approach, companies need to understand:

  • • How the Glass Lewis peer groups are now constructed,
  • • Why you and your company should care, and
  • • The benefits of the new peer group methodology.

 

To learn more, click here to watch the webinar by Glass Lewis and CGLytics.

Latest Industry News, Views & Information

AGMs: Tactics for a Plague Year

In a time of crisis and confusion, shareholders are more eager than ever to get answers from their boards and management. Yet holding traditional AGMs is nearly impossible. What are the best options for running AGMs during a plague year?

A diverse supervisory board: This is how to unlock a wealth of talent

Aniel Mahabier, CEO of governance data specialist CGLytics, welcomes the fact that selection committees are using corporate governance analytics to assess the diversity of their own supervisory board. Technology is bridging the gap between the available talent and the knowledge and experience that committees already have in-house.

What’s your flavor? Companies get a taste of CEO pay for the proxy season

This article, originally published in Dutch in Mgmt. Scope, CGLytics examines CEO compensation issues going into the 2020 proxy season

The DOs and DON’Ts when rethinking incentive plans

Why have 75% of first-time say-on-pay votes failed in 2019? A large number of negative votes can be attributed to incentives. Companies need to rethink their incentive plans and make sure metrics truly benchmark performance.

Seventy-five percent of first-time say-on-pay (SoP) votes failed in 2019, and a large number of these negative votes focused on incentives.

There is an increasing need for companies to fully rethink their incentive plans, as the CGlytics whitepaper “How to take the testing of equity-based compensation plans into your own hands” points out.

“It is imperative that companies design their equity pay plans to ensure they receive shareholder approval first time, every time. In order to meet investor expectations, companies need to understand how they, and the proxy advisors they rely on, evaluate equity plans and make voting decisions.”

Marc Ullman, a partner with Meridian Compensation Partners explains what to do and what not to do in rethinking incentive plans.

First of all, companies need to fully rethink their compensation plans, and not to just tweak them. Making just a few cosmetic changes will not suffice to ensure that incentives are effective. At least every two years, a real restructuring is needed.

Often shareholder pushback will incite a rethink, but even with shareholder support, benchmarking for effectiveness is critical as priorities change and the business climate evolves. The plan must reflect the new realities the business faces.

Or the incentive plan may simply become too complicated to be useful, as continually including more metrics and other add-ons makes application confusing. This often happens as businesses try to simply tweak the plan instead of really rethinking it.

 

Here are the do’s and don’ts to achieve as near optimal alignment between pay and performance as possible:

– If you need a full-scale rethink, don’t settle for a mere tweak. Make sure that what you do matters, don’t nibble around the edges. Make sure the metrics truly benchmark performance.

– But don’t overdo it. Pick out the key metrics and focus on that; don’t try to transform the whole structure unless you really feel that you have to.

– As the rethinking process is underway, take note of the solid rationale that stems from the business model. This will be something to communicate at the end of the process, and one that can be used for grounding the basis of your thinking.

– Make sure you include all the right people: Finance, HR, Corporate leadership, corporate leadership and the business unit. Everyone should buy in to the metrics and the targets that are being set.

– Make sure your plan pays something in year one. After a big rollout you need to make sure that design provides results. Otherwise it could hurt your credibility.

– Take advantage of feedback from shareholder outreach. More and more companies are actively talking to shareholders, and their points of view should at least be considered as the design is taking shape. Consider investor relations and investor perspective and proxy advisors like ISS and Glass Lewis.

– Communicate internally and externally. You have multiple audiences internally.

 

Predict Shareholder Approval with Glass Lewis’ Equity Compensation Model

 

The Glass Lewis Equity Compensation Model (ECM) allows you to instantly test and review your incentives plan using the same key criteria and scoring system as leading proxy advisor Glass Lewis. The ECM supports testing of 4,300+ publicly-traded U.S. firms including the Russell 3000 and exclusively available via CGLytics.

With the ECM you can confidently engage, knowing the strengths and weaknesses of your current and future equity plans. Ensure you get the votes to legally grant equity compensation to your executives, board members and staff.

Click here to learn more about the ECM application or request a no-obligation demonstration.

Latest Industry News, Views & Information

AGMs: Tactics for a Plague Year

In a time of crisis and confusion, shareholders are more eager than ever to get answers from their boards and management. Yet holding traditional AGMs is nearly impossible. What are the best options for running AGMs during a plague year?

A diverse supervisory board: This is how to unlock a wealth of talent

Aniel Mahabier, CEO of governance data specialist CGLytics, welcomes the fact that selection committees are using corporate governance analytics to assess the diversity of their own supervisory board. Technology is bridging the gap between the available talent and the knowledge and experience that committees already have in-house.

What’s your flavor? Companies get a taste of CEO pay for the proxy season

This article, originally published in Dutch in Mgmt. Scope, CGLytics examines CEO compensation issues going into the 2020 proxy season

Sims Metal Management: Tracking Pay for Performance Over Time

A key element in an assessment of remuneration outcomes is the payout track record and payout variability over several years. Sophisticated remuneration structures should result in pay outcomes which vary in line with performance.

CGI Glass Lewis assesses both executive remuneration structure and outcomes, which is highly valuable when considering our support for remuneration reports of ASX-listed entities.

Concepts of appropriate structure and appropriate outcomes are related, given that strong remuneration structures should result in appropriate remuneration outcomes. However, we have found that a) the complexity of remuneration structures, b) challenges in measuring performance, and c) a large degree of discretion built in to remuneration structures (whether visible or not) often stretch this relationship.  To compensate, CGI Glass Lewis will often consider remuneration structure and remuneration outcomes independently so as to have each component act as a cross-check of the other.

A key element in an assessment of remuneration outcomes is the payout track record and payout variability over several years. Sophisticated remuneration structures should result in pay outcomes which vary in line with performance. Furthermore, the relationship between pay and performance should persist over longer periods as a result of common short-term incentives and long-term incentive remuneration structures.

CGLytics data has allowed us to consider the relationship between executive pay and company performance over a five-year period and has been a key element in our remuneration reports.

CGLytics in use

Sims Metal Management (“SGM”) buys and processes scrap metal from businesses, other recyclers and the general public with over 250 processing facilities in the United States, United Kingdom and Australasia.

CGLytics captures the total realizable pay of ASX300 CEO’s, including for SGM, where total realizable pay is the value of awards vested to the CEO in any given year. CGLytics tools have allowed the charting of realizable pay for the CEO of SGM against realizable pay for CEO’s of peer entities. CGLytics also captures the EBITDA performance for SGM and peers.

The CGLytics analysis, which is included in our Proxy Paper for the SGM 2019 AGM is presented below:

SGM Peer Groups

Looking at the charts, SGM has outperformed its peers on an EBITDA basis between 2015 and 2018 and the CEO’s realizable pay rose to match that.  In FY2019, EBITDA has dipped, which is matched by a significant drop in the CEO’s take home pay—notwithstanding the payout is still above those of peer groups.

We are please to see this relationship between performance and pay and can easily see the variability in pay outcomes over time, which corresponds to company performance as measured by EBITDA.

As SGM has no obvious direct peers listed on the ASX, a diversified approach to peer groups is used.  The first peer group, Country, is a group of 10 peer entities which are similar to SGM in terms of market capitalisation, revenues and employee numbers.  Similarly, the second peer group, Industry, is a group of 10 peer entities with similar size as in the Country peer group, but with the addition of a further industry filter.

A common problem for ASX-listed entities is the sourcing of appropriate peers. The use of the two sets of companies addresses the shortcomings of using a single peer group and allows us to see if trends and patterns persist when moving from one peer group to another.

Conclusion

CGI Glass Lewis assessed SGM’s 2019 remuneration structure as Fair following application of our Good/Fair/Poor assessment options.  This has historically been our assessment of SGM’s remuneration structure.

After reviewing of remuneration outcomes, including CGLytics charts which enable us to see historic payout variation and an ongoing relationship between pay and performance, we were comfortable in supporting the remuneration report proposal at the 2019 AGM.  In this case, using an assessment of remuneration outcomes has supported a Fair grading of remuneration structure and has given us confidence in SGM’s remuneration report.

Ultimately, the 2019 AGM held on November 14, 2019, SGM’s remuneration report proposal received support from 92.80% of votes cast.

 

Access Glass Lewis’ Say on Pay analysis – Available through CGLytics

For the 2020 proxy season, CGLytics data will provide the basis of Glass Lewis’ Say on Pay recommendations.

Latest Industry News, Views & Information

AGMs: Tactics for a Plague Year

In a time of crisis and confusion, shareholders are more eager than ever to get answers from their boards and management. Yet holding traditional AGMs is nearly impossible. What are the best options for running AGMs during a plague year?

A diverse supervisory board: This is how to unlock a wealth of talent

Aniel Mahabier, CEO of governance data specialist CGLytics, welcomes the fact that selection committees are using corporate governance analytics to assess the diversity of their own supervisory board. Technology is bridging the gap between the available talent and the knowledge and experience that committees already have in-house.

What’s your flavor? Companies get a taste of CEO pay for the proxy season

This article, originally published in Dutch in Mgmt. Scope, CGLytics examines CEO compensation issues going into the 2020 proxy season

Remuneration policy: Directors reward attracts more and more attention

A well-founded remuneration policy is no longer optional. The new European Shareholder Rights Directive demands transparency around remuneration of directors.

At many of the annual shareholders meetings, the remuneration of the directors will soon be prominently on the agenda. It is one of the most important governance issues for companies. In 2019, companies already received a taste of the increasing interest in this topic of shareholders and employees. We expect that this attention will only increase. It is not only shareholders who look critically at the remuneration of the directors and everything that is related to it. The legislator is also alert. De new European Shareholder Rights Directive (SRD II) demands the transparency of the company around the remuneration of directors and senior managers. The reward must also be in line with the long-term value creation.

Active involvement

An increasing number of directors, supervisors renumeration committees and investors are using corporate governance analytics to review remuneration policy. That helps determine an adequate reward structure. And overseeing it. The wide-ranging discussion on Shell-CEO’s remuneration, Ben van Beurden, illustrates that. It more than doubled to € 20.1 million in 2018. Important detail: the data shows that his wages are 143 times higher than the average wage of the British staff of Shell. At Shell’s most recent meeting, shareholders had the chance to vote on the pay package, 10 percent of the shareholders voted against.

Equal to employees

We also see how stakeholders can appreciate a long-term remuneration policy. For example, insurer ASR came into the news positively when it wanted to permanently put an end to bonuses and pay in shares for the board. After the agreement with the shareholders, it is also stipulated that there are no variable remuneration schemes for the members of the Board of Directors, thus the remuneration policy is equal to that of the other employees in the company.

Effect new law

It is clear that companies need to be aware of the effects of their remuneration policy. We see a positive effect if companies do talk about the remuneration policy with shareholders and other stakeholders before the general meeting of shareholders, underpinning this with data. We see signals that this reduces the number of oppositions to the proposed policy.

A well-founded remuneration policy is no longer optional. Dutch companies must draw up their remuneration reporting for the 2019 financial year in line with the new requirements of SRD II. This includes a comprehensive overview of the remuneration and benefits of each individual director covered by the advisory vote of shareholders. In addition, Dutch listed companies need to explain how their salary strategy connects with the long-term goals. The new law also gives shareholders more participation and influence. Since the introduction of the law, companies need 75 percent of shareholders’ votes to adapt their salary strategy. This was previously 50 percent. All the more reason for companies – also non-listed ones – to put their remuneration policy into perspective.

For more information about how CGLytics’ executive compensation data and tools informs companies of how they compare to their peers reumuneration practices click here.

About the Author

Aniel Mahabier: CEO and founder of CGLytics

Mahabier interviews and writes for Management Scope about the remuneration of directors and corporate governance analytics. This blog was published in Management Scope.

Latest Industry News, Views & Information

AGMs: Tactics for a Plague Year

In a time of crisis and confusion, shareholders are more eager than ever to get answers from their boards and management. Yet holding traditional AGMs is nearly impossible. What are the best options for running AGMs during a plague year?

A diverse supervisory board: This is how to unlock a wealth of talent

Aniel Mahabier, CEO of governance data specialist CGLytics, welcomes the fact that selection committees are using corporate governance analytics to assess the diversity of their own supervisory board. Technology is bridging the gap between the available talent and the knowledge and experience that committees already have in-house.

What’s your flavor? Companies get a taste of CEO pay for the proxy season

This article, originally published in Dutch in Mgmt. Scope, CGLytics examines CEO compensation issues going into the 2020 proxy season

How Glass Lewis improved their executive compensation analysis and Say on Pay recommendations for European markets

Andrew Gebelin from Glass Lewis talks through how he and his team of analysts have benefited from using the CGLytics data and tools to improve their executive compensation analysis and Say on Pay recommendations for European markets.

In the continuously evolving and sometimes volatile economic times, investors have to make tough decisions. To ensure they are making the best possible decisions they require greater insights into activities within portfolios. Whether it’s sustainability practices, gender and cultural diversity, or executive compensation and remuneration, Glass Lewis has experienced, first-hand, the increasing demand for additional information from their investor clients.

CHALLENGE

Glass Lewis had a vision to create the next generation version of their quantitative pay and peer analysis, which they include in their Proxy Papers for annual shareholder meetings. Their approach to proxy advising focuses on providing investor clients with independent, in-depth analysis that looks at each company on a case-by-case basis. When it comes to executive pay, regardless of the company’s size or sector, Glass Lewis’ methodology requires a contextual assessment incorporating two consistent peer comparisons: one against similarly sized peers in the same country, and the other against a wider geographic pool of companies in the same industry.

Prior to the partnership with CGLytics, Glass Lewis’ analysis of the relationship between executive pay and performance within the European market was limited by the quantitative pay and peer tools they had available. With their client investors expecting increasingly detailed evaluations of an
ever-wider pool of companies, Glass Lewis realized that achieving their vision would require tools that provide:

  • • Greater flexibility to model unique peer groups;
  • • An ability to view CEO pay comparisons over different time periods that appropriately reflect a company’s business cycle or performance period;
  • • Comparisons incorporating a larger range of key performance indicators and remuneration metrics, allowing deep-dives into individual pay practices;
  • • Flexibility to consider and make comparisons between grant-date, target and realized pay over different time periods; and
  • • The ability to model differences in pay outcomes based on any changes contemplated to the remuneration framework or metrics.
  • APPROACH

    For the 2018 proxy season Glass Lewis integrated CGLytics data and analytics into their analytical processes and Proxy Papers for the European markets.

    Working with CGLytics, Glass Lewis defined a new peer group methodology focused around two distinct comparator groups:cross-border industry groups, and in-country groups based on company size. These peer groups were proofed and refined with CGLytics’ support to ensure they provide an appropriate basis of comparison. Glass Lewis analysts then incorporated key metrics from CGLytics’ rich library of performance data, displayed against three years of realized pay to allow for a balanced assessment over the longer term.

    CGLytics’ platform allowed Glass Lewis to provide their clients with a standardized approach to pay analytics across Europe, while retaining flexibility to account for market-, company- or plan-specific features. The performance metrics included in the Proxy Paper analysis were chosen for the greatest possible consistency across all European listed companies, providing a common point of comparison regardless of market or sector. That said, not all companies (or pay plans) are alike. Where unique circumstances require bespoke pay analytics using different indicators or uniquely designed peer groups, access to the CGLytics SaaS platform allows Glass Lewis analysts to drilldown and perform a multitude of quantitative  comparisons and tests.
    With the new peer group methodology in place, CGLytics helped Glass Lewis develop a graphical layout that illustrates the relationship between pay and performance. The new Remuneration Analysis section within the Proxy Paper
    incorporates peer comparisons and a breakdown of remuneration components to present a comprehensive picture, allowing investors to assess pay outcomes on both a relative and absolute basis.

    SUCCESS

    Incorporating CGLytics compensation data and analytics into Glass Lewis’ Proxy Paper and voting recommendations has yielded overwhelmingly positive feedback from investor clients and from companies.

    By implementing a standardized display that allows every company to be compared on a like-for-like basis, while retaining the flexibility to utilize an array of customized key performance metrics, CGLytics and Glass Lewis developed the tools to produce quantitative pay analysis and peer comparisons that are second-to-none. Investors appreciate the easy access to CGLytics rich data and powerful tools, yielding valuable remuneration insights whether they are comparing the entire market or diving deep into a single pay plan. For the companies that Glass Lewis covers, the use of bespoke peer groups and the sheer range of options that can be customized provide reassurance that their company’s pay policies will be assessed appropriately.

     

    BENEFITS OF IMPLEMENTING CGLYTICS’ DATA AND ANALYTICS

    Analysts can access 10+ years of historical compensation data
    Glass Lewis analysts are able to both view historical pay practices over an extended horizon, and model the anticipated future impact of new pay policies.

    Comparison of pay practices on a like-for-like basis
    Standardized display options for every company across Europe supports greater consistency when comparing pay practices across industries and regions.

    Greater flexibility to analyze information beyond Proxy Papers
    Analysts can now use CGLytics SaaS platform to look at specific remuneration components and factors outside of the standard information displayed in Proxy Papers.

    Expanded European market coverage
    Glass Lewis expanded their European market with additional indexes and 200+ companies to cover more than 1,100 companies.

    50% time-savings when generating quantitative pay analysis
    Using graphical templates and standardized data, analysts were able to complete the
    quantatitive pay component of the Proxy Paper in half the time compared to prior years.

    Empowered investor clients to customize their own pay for performance analysis Glass Lewis clients have embraced the ability to customize their own analysis for Say on Pay in accordance with their own methodologies using CGLytics’ data.

    Leveled the playing field for corporate issuers
    With access to the same tools and underlying data as Glass Lewis, corporate issuers can now proactively understand how they are viewed in relation to their peers.

     

    USE THE SAME DATA AND TOOLS AS GLASS LEWIS

    Customers can now instantly view the Glass Lewis executive compensation analysis and peer group modeling for planning their Say on Pay agenda via CGLytics. CGLytics and Glass Lewis have established a global partnership to provide unmatched compensation data and analytics for corporates, investors and advisors.

     • Ensure effective engagement, risk oversight and modern governance practices with CGLytics.

     • Instantly view the Glass Lewis CEO and executive remuneration analysis in the CGLytics platform.

     • Use the same data set and analytical tools trusted by Glass Lewis’ global research team and featured in the reports used by its institutional investor clients.

     • Self-construct peer groups from an extensive global data set of 5,000+ public companies for benchmarking executive pay

    Click here to learn more about CGLytics’ boardroom intelligence capabilities and executive remuneration analytics, used by institutional investors, activist investors and advisors.

    Latest Industry News, Views & Information

    AGMs: Tactics for a Plague Year

    In a time of crisis and confusion, shareholders are more eager than ever to get answers from their boards and management. Yet holding traditional AGMs is nearly impossible. What are the best options for running AGMs during a plague year?

    A diverse supervisory board: This is how to unlock a wealth of talent

    Aniel Mahabier, CEO of governance data specialist CGLytics, welcomes the fact that selection committees are using corporate governance analytics to assess the diversity of their own supervisory board. Technology is bridging the gap between the available talent and the knowledge and experience that committees already have in-house.

    What’s your flavor? Companies get a taste of CEO pay for the proxy season

    This article, originally published in Dutch in Mgmt. Scope, CGLytics examines CEO compensation issues going into the 2020 proxy season

    Basic Energy Services, Inc. (BAS): Hitting the Brakes on Dilutive Granting Practices

    Basic Energy Services, Inc. could well have benefited from some foresight when plotting out the award schedule under its new 2019 Long-Term Incentive Plan. Glass Lewis use their equity compensation model to examine the shareholder opposition and how it could have been potentially avoided.

    A little foresight can go a long way. Glass Lewis’ new Equity Compensation Model (ECM) tool allows users to predict the likely Glass Lewis voting recommendation for equity plan proposals, allowing companies to modify share requests, avoid potential pitfalls, and reduce the uncertainty that surrounds securing shareholder approval.

    Simulating the eleven tests used in Glass Lewis’ equity plan analysis framework, the ECM tool predicts the proxy advisor’s recommendation for an equity plan proposal based on the size of the share request, the company’s granting history, plan terms and features, and other user-inputted datapoints. In addition, the ECM tool generates specific datapoints from the tests exactly as they would appear in Glass Lewis’ proxy paper. This data includes information that is closely monitored by the proxy advisor’s institutional clients, informing their ultimate voting decisions for both equity plan proposals and Say on Pays.

    Basic Energy Services, Inc. could well have benefited from some foresight when plotting out the award schedule under its new 2019 Long-Term Incentive Plan (2019 LTIP). Announcing its 2019 annual shareholder meeting, the company sought approval of the 2019 LTIP, which would have authorized 1.8 million new shares for future issuance. However by the time the meeting took place, investor opposition had forced last-minute amendments to the agenda, including a cancellation of the share request.

    In its analysis of the equity plan and the broader advisory vote on executive compensation, Glass Lewis raised concerns regarding massive grants made to executives after the 2018 fiscal year. In fact, much of the additional 1.8 million share request that would be voted upon at the May 2019 annual meeting was already ear-marked for April 2019 incentive awards to named executive officers, pending shareholder approval. After the plan failed a number of Glass Lewis’ tests, including measures of the company’s historic pace of grants and cost of the share request, the proxy advisor recommended that shareholders vote AGAINST the proposal.

    An AGAINST recommendation for an equity plan proposal from Glass Lewis is infrequent and typically driven by particularly egregious granting practices and/or highly shareholder-unfriendly provisions. Cost concerns drove 21.97% of the advisor’s AGAINST recommendations during the 2019 proxy season; dilution issues accounted for 13.64%; and evergreen and repricing/buyout provisions together spurred 62.12% of the negative recommendations.

    Glass Lewis’ voting recommendation contributed to growing investor momentum against the proposal. However, it appears that Basic Energy Services’ board and management had not anticipated the scope of opposition. As a result, the company, which had climbed out of Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2016, found itself in what appeared to be another scramble — this time to revise its equity plan proposal with only eight days to go before the annual meeting.

    On May 6th, with some investors having already cast their votes, the company filed an amendment to its 2019 proxy statement announcing that it was no longer seeking an additional share request. Instead, shareholders would vote on whether to move currently available shares from prior plans into the 2019 LTIP for future issuance.

    Meanwhile, to compensate for the elimination of the 1.8 million share request, the large April 2019 grants that the company made to its named executive officers were revised to rely less on equity-settled payouts and more heavily on cash. Subsequent to the amended proposal, and in the absence of either a share request or associated problematic features (such as repricing provisions or evergreen replenishment authority), Glass Lewis revised its voting recommendation to FOR.

    Basic Energy Services’ revision of its equity plan proposal and NEO grants represented more than just a minor hiccup in front of a public audience of voting shareholders. While the equity plan was ultimately approved, it received just 75% support, relatively low for this type of proposal. Obtaining that approval required a costly last-minute engagement campaign, a series of supplementary fillings, and an outsized outlay to fund the switch of executives’ 2019 awards from equity to cash—all with the company’s shareholder meeting looming.

    Well before filing its proxy statement, the company could have understood that the rate of granting over the last three fiscal years would be an important concern—and one that would be exacerbated by the additional awards granted in April. Using the intelligence provided by CGLytics’ ECM tool, the company could have foreseen concerns regarding plan costs and granting pace under the equity analysis plan framework, designed a proposal that was more widely acceptable to investors, and avoided the costs and uncertainty associated with renegotiating proposals and compensation policies in the days before a shareholder meeting.

    Set the Agenda

    The benefits of the ECM go well beyond its predictive proposal recommendation abilities. The tool is an integral part of the executive pay decision-making process and longer-term compensation program planning with real-time calculations of cost, burn rate and overhang information.

    Well before equity awards are granted, the ECM can identify policies and practices that draw shareholders ire. For Basic Energy Services, which failed Glass Lewis’ tests on its historical pace of grants, the ECM tool could be used to evaluate the impact of potential grants, and help the company manage its available share pool to avoid excessive dilution.

    More than just an internal planning tool, the ECM provides important intel to prep directors and executives during shareholder engagement efforts. The analyses generated on the platform provide comparisons to industry benchmarks relating to cost, overhang, burn-rate and grants to named executive officers, which can help a company control and inform its messaging during its annual outreach to shareholders.

    Armed with such information, a company could not only avoid missteps such as the one experienced by Basic Energy Services. It could also use the data to more effectively formulate its message to its shareholders on matters related its executive compensation program for its annual say on pay vote.

    Another interesting insight is that Hampton is not currently sitting on any other company’s board, unlike Symonds who is currently sitting on four different boards (including HSBC Holdings plc). One could easily argue about the effectiveness of that choice when it comes to availability and focus/time dedication for the heavy incoming agenda.

    The Glass Lewis Equity Compensation Model

    Glass Lewis’ Equity Compensation Model (ECM) is now available exclusively via CGLytics. Providing unprecedented transparency to the U.S. market in one powerful online application, both companies and investors can use the same 11 key criteria as the leading proxy advisor to assess equity incentive plans.

    Click here to experience Glass Lewis’ new application.

    Latest Industry News, Views & Information

    AGMs: Tactics for a Plague Year

    In a time of crisis and confusion, shareholders are more eager than ever to get answers from their boards and management. Yet holding traditional AGMs is nearly impossible. What are the best options for running AGMs during a plague year?

    A diverse supervisory board: This is how to unlock a wealth of talent

    Aniel Mahabier, CEO of governance data specialist CGLytics, welcomes the fact that selection committees are using corporate governance analytics to assess the diversity of their own supervisory board. Technology is bridging the gap between the available talent and the knowledge and experience that committees already have in-house.

    What’s your flavor? Companies get a taste of CEO pay for the proxy season

    This article, originally published in Dutch in Mgmt. Scope, CGLytics examines CEO compensation issues going into the 2020 proxy season

    GlaxoSmithKline: Hampton’s departure gives a sense of unfinished business

    CGLytics’ examines the board expertise and director interlocks of GSK both pre- and post-appointment of Mr. Jonathan Symonds, following Philip Hampton’s resignation as Chairman.

    This article examines GlaxoSmithKline’s board expertise and director interlocks both prior and post the appointment of Mr. Jonathan Symonds; replacing Chairman Philip Hampton.

    GlaxoSmithKline plc (GSK) announced in December 2018 the merger of its non-prescription drug and parapharmacy activities with those of the American giant Pfizer. The two labs are creating a GBP 10 billion joint venture, which will become the industry leader with GSK holding a majority of the shares – 68% and Pfizer a 32% holding. Within three years however, GSK plans to separate from this new entity and introduce it on the London Stock Exchange, placing Emma Walmsley as the CEO. There will therefore be a demerger project for GSK, aiming at separating their consumer health division (merged with Pfizer’s business) from their pharmaceutical and vaccines one. A lot of investors have been asking for this demerger over the past few years, however GSK is still in the middle of a transformation that is not quite complete.

    The company intended, since 2015, to recover its Free Cash Flow (FCF) after the expenses arising from the costs of restructuration and integration of the Novartis deal. The company’s FCF is recovering quite well, with a GBP 5.7 billion in 2018 (+63% compared to 2017).

    In January of this year, the Chairman of GSK, Philip Hampton, announced his decision to step down from his position after three and a half years and declared:

    “Following the announcement of our deal with Pfizer and the intended separation of the new consumer business, I believe this is the right moment to step down and allow a new Chair to oversee this process through to its conclusion over the next few years.”

     

    GSK announced their decision for a successor of Mr. Hampton, and it appears that Mr. Jonathan Symonds will be taking that role. Both individuals have different backgrounds and expertise. Mr. Symonds brings with him a strong pharmaceutical background together with corporate governance and corporate development experience. He was CFO of Novartis AG from 2009 to 2013 and prior to that CFO of AstraZeneca plc. He has been Deputy Group Chairman at HSBC Holdings plc since August 2018 and its Independent Non-Executive Director since April 2014. During his past experience, he has proven to be an expert of corporate changes. The most important transactions of Novartis (acquisition of Alcon) and AstraZeneca (acquisition of MedImmune) took place under his tenure. The experience Mr. Symonds brings with him added to his international finance knowledge make him a great fit for the upcoming challenges GSK will face.

    The board expertise diagrams, produced directly from data and analytics in CGLytics’ platform, show GlaxoSmithKline’s board expertise matrix before and after Symonds’ appointment. The information used for producing CGLytics’ expertise and skills matrices in the SaaS offering is standardized and applied consistency to more than 5,500 companies globally for easy comparison, analysis and benchmarking of boards composition.

    GSK board expertise prior to Symonds 4

    Looking at the current board composition of GlaxoSmithKline, the Board’s strongest expertise are International, Governance, Leadership and Executive. The Board however currently has no director with Technology expertise. Five directors, including Sir Philip Hampton, have Financial expertise, having served as Finance Director of BG Group Limited. The Chairman nonetheless lacks Industry expertise which is in line with what market watchers have said.

    The chart below displays the company’s expertise with the coming of the new Chairman Mr. Symonds. Jonathan also brings with him Non-Executive, Financial, Executive, Governance expertise among others. However, he also brings with him Industry expertise having served as CFO of Novartis AG. With his addition, the board will still lack in the area of Technology expertise.

    GSK board expertise with Symonds 4

    Another interesting insight is that Hampton is not currently sitting on any other company’s board, unlike Symonds who is currently sitting on four different boards (including HSBC Holdings plc). One could easily argue about the effectiveness of that choice when it comes to availability and focus/time dedication for the heavy incoming agenda.

    The UK Corporate Governance Code advises:

    “Additional external appointments should not be undertaken without prior approval of the board, with the reasons for permitting significant appointments explained in the annual report. Full-time executive directors should not take on more than one non-executive directorship in a FTSE 100 company or other significant appointment.”

    Glass Lewis, in their UK 2019 Proxy Paper Guidelines, recommends:

    “Voting against a director who serves as an executive officer of any public company while serving on a total of more than two public company boards, and any other director who serves on a total of more than five public company boards.”

    On the other hand, investment management company BlackRock Inc., top shareholder of GSK’s capital, shares in their 2019 Proxy Voting Policy document that they would:

    “Expect companies to provide a clear explanation in situations where a board candidate is a director serving on more than three other public company boards; or a Chairman serving on more than two other public company boards (or only one if this is an additional chairmanship).”

    Finally, the recommendations of GSK’s second largest shareholder – asset management group Vanguard – state that:

    “A fund will vote against any director who is a Named Executive Officer (NEO) and sits on more than one outside public board.”

    Additionally,

    “A fund will also vote against any director who serves on five or more public company boards.”

    Mr. Symonds is sitting on one other public company’s board (from which he will be stepping down from at the beginning of 2020) and does not hold any executive position, which means that he satisfies the previous recommendations. But at the same time, Symonds remains on the board of three private companies: Proteus Digital Health Inc. (Chairman), Genomics England Limited (Chairman) and Rubius Therapeutics Inc. (Non-Executive Director). Despite the fact that he’s satisfying all guidelines, we can question if his agenda will allow him to dedicate the optimal amount of time for all the changes GSK is about to face.

    As a conclusion, we can obviously always find a rational explanation to Hampton’s resignation and highlight the benefits of Symonds’ arrival. But at the end of the day, we must remember everything Hampton has done since joining the company: he has replaced the CEO, has reorganized the Board of Directors and led one of the biggest corporate restructuring projects seen these past years.

    What makes this resignation a big event, is that GSK is currently in a timeframe where it needs as much stability as possible on a management level. The massive projects that are being led rely on the company to be extra cautious with its many moving parts. Considering the time needed for the restructuring and demerger to be concluded, we can think Hampton should have ideally stayed until the very end and then recruited a board for each entity.

    All the reasons lead to thinking of the possibility of activities being overshadowed to keep investors from worrying. However, GSK has been clear about the fact that Hampton decided to leave once the Pfizer deal was announced. There may never be light over the other possible reasons that pushed Hampton to resign.

    For more information regarding how CGLytics’ deep, global data set and unparalleled analytical screening tools can potentially help you make better decisions, click here.

    About the Author

    Amine Chehab: European Research Analyst

    Amine completed his Master’s degree in International Financial Analysis at INSEEC Bordeaux, France. As part of his studies, he also attended the University of California, Riverside as an exchange student. Previously, he gained experience in the field of finance as a Finance Business Analyst and Financial consultant. Most recently he worked as a Credit Manager Assistant.

    Latest Industry News, Views & Information

    AGMs: Tactics for a Plague Year

    In a time of crisis and confusion, shareholders are more eager than ever to get answers from their boards and management. Yet holding traditional AGMs is nearly impossible. What are the best options for running AGMs during a plague year?

    A diverse supervisory board: This is how to unlock a wealth of talent

    Aniel Mahabier, CEO of governance data specialist CGLytics, welcomes the fact that selection committees are using corporate governance analytics to assess the diversity of their own supervisory board. Technology is bridging the gap between the available talent and the knowledge and experience that committees already have in-house.

    What’s your flavor? Companies get a taste of CEO pay for the proxy season

    This article, originally published in Dutch in Mgmt. Scope, CGLytics examines CEO compensation issues going into the 2020 proxy season

    Equity Incentive Schemes: Examining the rationale behind shareholder rejection

    Two historical examples of organizations that have had their stock option plans rejected by shareholders include Red Lion Hotels and HomeAway. How could they have reduced the likelihood of rejected plans? Read to find out

    The approval for equity-based incentive plans, or amendments to current plans, is a critical part of many organizations strategies to acquire and retain premium talent. Opposition or even rejection by shareholders can derail these efforts.

    In this article we look at two historical examples of organizations that have had their equity incentive plans rejected and explore the reasons behind and impact of shareholder opposition.

    When Red Lion Hotels was punished for lack of clear strategy

    In 2019, Red Lion Hotels Corporation’s (NYSE: RLH) shareholders delivered a blow to the company by voting overwhelmingly (70% opposed) against the proposed amendment to the 2015 stock incentive plan.

    Shareholders were troubled by, what they perceived, as the board’s continued inability to fulfil its obligations and the absence of a clear strategy (Vindico Capital LLC – letter to the board). Flat performance of the stock over time and significant underperformance against the market and industry peers were particular points of concern for shareholders.

    When HomeAway was sent packing

    In 2015, HomeAway (NASDAQ: AWAY) had their amended equity incentive plan rejected. Investors felt equity awards continued to be granted despite diminishing returns for investors over time. While the Market Capitalization of HomeAway had remained relatively steady over two years, the rest of the index saw significant gains. Total Shareholder Return was perceived as minimal in this context and the equity awards were seen to be rewarding poor performance. Ultimately HomeAway was acquired shortly afterwards and incorporated into one of the largest travel industry players, Expedia.

    Trends in the opposition

    When shareholders are considering the impact of diluting their holdings, they require that any potential value lost by the equity incentive plan is offset by the value the business gains by meeting the qualifying KPIs. Whether this is Market Capitalization, Total Shareholder Return, EBITDA or free cashflow, there has to be a compelling strategic rationale for the award of equity. Further, the remuneration committee must ensure that the organization behaves is a prudent manner, even after the plan is agreed to.

    Test your equity compensation plans with Glass Lewis’ Equity Compensation Model

    Reduce the likelihood of shareholder rejection on your stock option plans and proposals with Glass Lewis’ new  Equity Compensation Model (ECM) application. Now available exclusively via CGLytics. Providing unprecedented transparency to the U.S. market in one powerful online application, both companies and investors can use the same 11 key criteria as the leading proxy advisor to assess equity incentive plans.

    Click here to experience Glass Lewis’ new application.

    Latest Industry News, Views & Information

    AGMs: Tactics for a Plague Year

    In a time of crisis and confusion, shareholders are more eager than ever to get answers from their boards and management. Yet holding traditional AGMs is nearly impossible. What are the best options for running AGMs during a plague year?

    A diverse supervisory board: This is how to unlock a wealth of talent

    Aniel Mahabier, CEO of governance data specialist CGLytics, welcomes the fact that selection committees are using corporate governance analytics to assess the diversity of their own supervisory board. Technology is bridging the gap between the available talent and the knowledge and experience that committees already have in-house.

    What’s your flavor? Companies get a taste of CEO pay for the proxy season

    This article, originally published in Dutch in Mgmt. Scope, CGLytics examines CEO compensation issues going into the 2020 proxy season

    Capri Holdings – A Glass Lewis Use Case into Executive Compensation Benchmarking

    In this use case, Glass Lewis examine the “additional considerations” regarding the quantitative examination with respect to Capri Holdings, Inc. (formerly Michael Kors Holdings Ltd.) using CGLytics’ analytical tools.

    Glass Lewis’ two-pronged approach to executive compensation analysis in the North American market is delineated between the quantitative analysis and a qualitative assessment. The quantitative portion, while anchored by the pay for performance grade, incorporates additional considerations to supplement the standardized pay for performance analysis.

    CGLytics’ suite of tools is fast becoming an integral part of the quantitative analysis for the North American market. In July 2019, the Compensation Analysis section became a part of Glass Lewis’ Proxy Paper for S&P 1500 companies in the U.S. and Canada. The page illustrates total realized compensation of CEOs based on data provided by CGLytics. Covering the past three years, realized CEO pay is presented on both an absolute basis and relative to country and industry peer groups developed by Glass Lewis using CGLytics tools.

    In the following discussion, we examine the aforementioned “additional considerations” regarding the quantitative examination with respect to Capri Holdings, Inc. (formerly Michael Kors Holdings Ltd.) using CGLytics’ analytical tools.

    Review of Capri Holdings’ Compensation Program

    On August 1, shareholders gave their appraisals of executive pay practices at Capri Holdings, casting votes in favor or against the compensation packages of its named executive officers. The company is one of the few in the broader markets where multiple named executive officers receive pay at the CEO level or higher. Michael Kors as chief creative officer (CCO) and honorary chair and John Idol as CEO have received largely equivalent pay packages for most if not all of Capri Holdings’ history as a publicly traded company.

    Multiple CEO-level pay recipients at individual companies have drawn the ire of shareholders in the past and no doubt will continue to do so in the future. However, executives from the apparel industry who engaged with Glass Lewis note that the industry is distinct in that the parity between chief executive and chief creative officer pay is not uncommon, but CCO pay is rarely reported on the Summary Compensation Table as these officers are not typically considered executives. In Capri Holdings’ case, however, perhaps because of his additional title of honorary chair, Mr. Kors is thus a named executive officer whose pay is subject to scrutiny at the Company’s annual advisory say on pay vote.

    Overview of the Pay For Performance Grade and the Compensation Analysis Page:

    Despite its dual CEO pay level executives, Capri Holdings received a “C” grade under Glass Lewis’ pay for performance model in each year from fiscal years 2015 to 2018, indicating adequate alignment. But in fiscal 2019, the company received a “D” grade after a jump in equity compensation to Messrs. Kors and Idol pushed Capri Holdings’ three-year weighted average compensation levels up – a move unsupported by the company’s weighted average performance that dipped in this year’s analysis. The analysis concluded that the company paid moderately more than its peers but performed moderately worse compared to peers.

    Unique situations such as Capri Holdings’ case demonstrate the benefits that additional quantitative  analyses have had in Glass Lewis’ approach to executive compensation. One might contend that the pay for performance grade penalized Capri Holdings for common industry pay practices of chief creative officer pay, boosting total named executive officer pay above peers that do not also list their chief creative officer as a top executive.

    The CGLytics-powered Compensation Analysis page in Glass Lewis’ research provided additional perspective to help consider Capri Holdings’ executive pay situation. Its focus on CEO pay underscored concerns flagged by the pay for performance analysis. In the same year that the company granted $7.5 million in equity incentives to each of Messrs. Kors and Idol, Mr. Idol’s fiscal 2019 total realized pay increased by 210% from $22.2 million to $68.9 million. At the same time, the Compensation Analysis reported that the median CEO total realized pay among industry peers remained relatively stagnant, highlighting the stark difference in realized pay levels for the CEO position at Capri Holdings compared to peers. While many companies often cite retention concerns due to low realized or realizable pay as reasons for significant increases in equity grants, the analysis using CGLytics indicated this to not be the case, at least for realized pay to the CEO.

    Additional Perspectives Through CGLytics:

    Beyond the Compensation Analysis page, by focusing on CEO pay using the CGLytics’ broader suite of tools, Glass Lewis found evidence to suggest deeper concerns with pay-setting for the short-term incentive. While the company provided Mr. Idol with no LTIP award in 2018 and only $1 million in 2017, the company’s incentives focused on short-term performance made up for the deficiency. Using CGLytics we can observe the following short-term incentive payout comparison to the industry peer median for most of Capri Holdings’ history as a publicly traded company where 2018 represents the most recently completed fiscal year for the company:

    In our view, excessive upside opportunities under a bonus plan may unduly incentivize short-term performance and may undermine a long-term focus on company performance among executives. In fact, Mr. Idol received his maximum payout opportunity under the short-term incentive every year since 2012.

    Switching gears in 2019, the Company decided to grant Mr. Idol $7.5 million in long-term incentives. Indeed, the grant resuscitated the level of Mr. Idol’s outstanding compensation following the exercise of a significant number of stock options. Mr. Idol exercised options to acquire 906,076 shares in fiscal 2019 – a value of $58.3 million according to the company’s proxy statement. The following chart shows the change in Mr. Idol’s total outstanding awards with the 2018 data representing the company’s fiscal 2019 and showing the net effect of his exercise of options and increased levels of long-term incentive grants during that year:

    The effects of the long-term grant on total CEO pay was quite pronounced as seen in the graph below:

    Review of GL recommendation:

    In the end, an 89% year-over-year jump in Mr. Idol pay placed it at the 85th percentile of CEO compensation compared to the company’s self-disclosed peer group. The pay decisions for fiscal 2019 degraded the alignment between pay and performance in our analysis. Additional analysis into in the quantum of pay for Mr. Idol through CGLytics compounded our concerns. That Mr. Kors’ pay presented similar issues as Mr. Idol’s was also considered.

    A deeper dive beyond our initial pay for performance analysis into the CEO’s total direct compensation uncovered a history of over-focus on short-term performance. Capri Holdings’ short-term incentive payouts rose well above the industry median since 2013. Due to the equity grants made to Mr. Idol during the most recently completed fiscal year, his pay spiked 1.2 times the median industry peer level, according to CGLytics’ multiple of median analysis.

    As a result of these concerns, and following a qualitative assessment of the pay program, Glass Lewis recommended against supporting Capri Holdings’ executive compensation proposal for the 2019 annual meeting.

    Conclusion:

    Overall, the additional quantitative analysis using CGLytics underscored the concerns initially highlighted by Glass Lewis’ pay for performance grade by illustrating issues with pay regardless of the impact of Mr. Kors’ compensation on total NEO pay.

    Access Glass Lewis’ Say on Pay analysis – Available through CGLytics

    Glass Lewis uses CGLytics as it’s global compensation data provider. For the 2020 proxy season our data will provide the basis of Glass Lewis’ Say on Pay recommendations.

     

    Learn More

    Latest Industry News, Views & Information

    AGMs: Tactics for a Plague Year

    In a time of crisis and confusion, shareholders are more eager than ever to get answers from their boards and management. Yet holding traditional AGMs is nearly impossible. What are the best options for running AGMs during a plague year?

    A diverse supervisory board: This is how to unlock a wealth of talent

    Aniel Mahabier, CEO of governance data specialist CGLytics, welcomes the fact that selection committees are using corporate governance analytics to assess the diversity of their own supervisory board. Technology is bridging the gap between the available talent and the knowledge and experience that committees already have in-house.

    What’s your flavor? Companies get a taste of CEO pay for the proxy season

    This article, originally published in Dutch in Mgmt. Scope, CGLytics examines CEO compensation issues going into the 2020 proxy season

    Proxy Season Lookback: CGG marks first binding ‘non’ on pay in France – A guest blog by Glass Lewis

    The 2019 season marked the second opportunity for French shareholders’ to cast retrospective binding votes on executive compensation. And for the first time, shareholder votes prevented the payment of a bonus award, as well as the implementation of a new pay policy.

    A guest blog by

    The 2019 season marked the second opportunity for French shareholders’ to cast retrospective binding votes on executive compensation. And for the first time, shareholder votes prevented the payment of a bonus award, as well as the implementation of a new pay policy.

    In many markets a say-on-pay vote is offered, but under Sapin II legislation, which came fully into effect in 2018, French shareholders get several “says” on remuneration arrangements. The variable payments due to each executive are subject to a series of “ex-post” binding votes (one for each executive) and there is an annual “ex-ante” binding vote on the intended remuneration policy for the current year. In addition, shareholders also get forward-looking advisory votes on severance arrangements.

    It’s the binding “ex-post” vote that has drawn the most attention — in particular, the potential implications of how a rejection could affect the organisation, with several possible scenarios. How would an executive react to such a public rebuke from shareholders? To losing the bonus they thought they had earned? Would the board take emergency measures and what could these be, or would continued service prove untenable, prompting an immediate resignation? In 2018 there were several backward-looking compensation proposals that came close to providing answers, with Teleperformance, Vinci, Renault, Technicolor and Atos coming close to failing. But it wasn’t until this year’s shareholder meeting of SBF120 listed CGG, specializing in geophysical services, that shareholders got to see the implications of voting down a CEO’s pay. Well, sort-of.

    After changing CEO early in the fiscal year, CGG had a number of proposals covering executive pay on the agenda. Shareholders received two binding, backward-looking votes, covering the FY2018 variable remuneration due to both the current and former CEOs, as well as one binding, forward looking vote, covering the proposed FY2019 remuneration policy of the current CEO, and one advisory forward looking vote on post-termination severance arrangements.

    Shareholders voiced their dissent across the board. Support for executive pay proposals ranged from a high of just 56.65% to a low of 38.63%, with two voted down. These were the ex-post, binding vote on the remuneration due to the former CEO Jean-Georges Malcor for fiscal year 2018, and the ex-ante, binding vote on the 2019 remuneration policy for the current CEO, Sophie Zurquiyah.

    Besides being historic, the ex-post rejection was somewhat surprising. Mr. Malcor’s variable package contained no surprises and only represented a small fraction of his total quantum for the year. Payment of a €75,000 extraordinary award in respect of a successful debt restructuring may have been viewed as somewhat questionable, especially after CGG decided to pursue a new strategy after his departure in order to recover from a record of poor financial performance. However, the payment was relatively modest, particularly in comparison to the total of €1,626,673, that Mr. Malcor received in respect of fixed salary and a non-competition agreement (the ex-post votes under Sapin II do not cover fixed remuneration). Also surprising was that the award was not unexpected, having been clearly disclosed as part of Mr. Malcor’s forward-looking binding remuneration proposal, which received 96.90% support at the 2018 meeting.

    With only 53.52% support, the binding proposal covering variable remuneration due to the current CEO, Sophie Zurquiyah, narrowly avoided the same fate. The binding, forward-looking proposal covering the remuneration policy intended to apply for the current fiscal year was not so fortunate, garnering just 44.3% support. The consequences of this vote are more transparent, and nowhere near as potentially far-reaching, as that of the “ex-post” vote. Instead of the policy terms that had been proposed, Ms. Zurquiyah’s remuneration will continue to be determined by the company’s existing policy, previously approved by shareholders at the 2018 AGM. That may ultimately suit shareholders – while the company had not proposed any material changes to the existing policy, specific details of the 2019 iteration were not fully disclosed.

    The company has issued a press release acknowledging the vote results and stating that the board “will consider the adjustments to be made to the Chief Executive Officer’s remuneration policy in order to obtain the shareholders’ approval at the next General Meeting.” It’s unclear if that consideration will include an engagement programme to garner feedback from investors – or what will happen if and when French shareholders reject the variable pay due to a current, rather than former, CEO.

    This article was originally published on the Glass Lewis website, 23/07/2019. You can read the article here: https://www.glasslewis.com/proxy-season-lookback-cgg-marks-first-binding-non-on-pay-in-france/ 

    About the Author

    1030648

    Iris Bucelli
    Senior Research Analyst at Glass Lewis & Co.,

    Irene joined Glass Lewis as Corporate Governance Analyst for Continental Europe in 2017. She specialises in executive compensation analysis of French blue-chip and mid-cap companies. After completing a Masters Degree at the University of Bologna, she worked on international projects in Italy, France and Spain, before landing in Ireland.

    Access Glass Lewis’ Say on Pay analysis – Available through CGLytics

    Glass Lewis uses CGLytics as it’s global compensation data provider. For the 2020 proxy season our data will provide the basis of Glass Lewis’ Say on Pay recommendations.

     

    Learn More

    Latest Industry News, Views & Information

    AGMs: Tactics for a Plague Year

    In a time of crisis and confusion, shareholders are more eager than ever to get answers from their boards and management. Yet holding traditional AGMs is nearly impossible. What are the best options for running AGMs during a plague year?

    A diverse supervisory board: This is how to unlock a wealth of talent

    Aniel Mahabier, CEO of governance data specialist CGLytics, welcomes the fact that selection committees are using corporate governance analytics to assess the diversity of their own supervisory board. Technology is bridging the gap between the available talent and the knowledge and experience that committees already have in-house.

    What’s your flavor? Companies get a taste of CEO pay for the proxy season

    This article, originally published in Dutch in Mgmt. Scope, CGLytics examines CEO compensation issues going into the 2020 proxy season