How to independently and efficiently benchmark executive compensation for Say-on-Pay

There are many software applications and tools now available to support compensation decisions, but what should be taken into consideration before purchasing? This 5-minute guide details what Compensation Committees, Heads of Reward and Compensation Professionals should take into account when selecting software and tools for Say-on-Pay decisions.

08.04.2020

A 5-minute guide to support Compensation Committees, Heads of Reward and Compensation Professionals when selecting software and tools for compensation decisions. Read and learn about the four considerations that should be taken into account before purchasing.

1. Look for tools that support peer group modeling functionality

2. Access the same peer groups as leading proxy advisor Glass Lewis

3. Ensure Pay-for-Performance alignment and benchmarking tools are included

4. Check the quality of data available in the software platform you choose

We live in a digital age where access to information has never been easier. No longer having to scroll through complex and endless spreadsheets and obtain an analytical degree to understand trends – insights and information is at our fingertips.

For Compensation Committees, Heads of Rewards and Benefits, and Compensation Professionals it is no different.

Ensuring executive compensation, bonuses, and incentives are in line with market standards, has never been so important.

Activist activity has increased in 2020, with traditional investors changing their position from passive to active engagement and focusing on executive pay. In a recent article by the Financial Times, it was reported that misalignment of incentives and negative say-on-pay votes at annual meetings increase the likelihood of a company suffering share price underperformance.

Software that provides flexibility for assessing compensation in comparison to peers, and supports say-on-pay resolutions, is available and increasingly implemented by companies, activist investors, and proxy advisors.

When a user begins searching for compensation software there are questions typically asked:

  • – Does it contain information on the executive pay practices of my peers and competitors?
  • – How does is support benchmarking my company’s executive compensation practices?
  • – Does it show me how my company’s compensation practices are perceived in the market?
  • – Can I find tailored insights in seconds to be sure my company’s CEO, NEO and Director pay is aligned to market standard and company performance?

 

Sustainable and justifiable decisions surrounding executive compensation has kept rewards and benefits professionals up at night, with additional key questions that should be asked:

  • – How can I access high-quality, reliable executive compensation information that I do not need to maintain?
  • – Where can I find standardized compensation information for efficient comparison and instant benchmarking?
  • – What software and tools are available in the market that other compensation professionals, activist investors, proxy advisors and compensation consultants currently use?

 

How to utilize software and tools for fast, efficient, and flexible executive compensation and rewards benchmarking.

 

Greater scrutiny calls for companies and their boards to be one step ahead

Transparency encourages market confidence. With the current pandemic causing havoc on stock prices and resulting in employee layoffs, salary and bonuses paid to executives has again been pushed to the front and center.

Compensation policies and reporting are continuing to come under scrutiny from investors, shareholders, employees and the media. Boards must have clear and transparent compensation processes in place that allow for investors to see a fair comparison has been made of executive payouts and promised rewards, against peers and taking into account the broader market context.

How peer companies are adapting their executive compensation practices and adopting new measures needs to be clearly understood for socially responsible decisions about executive pay – continuing to be highlighted again by the events and happenings of 2020.

Decisions made need to be based on fact, not fiction, with easy to understand explanations for investors to digest. Granted, no one wants to become a media headline or attract attention from activist investors.

 

How can Compensation Committees, Heads of Reward and Compensation Professionals model different scenarios with software tools, and benchmark against their companies’ peers?

 

1. Look for tools that support peer group modeling functionality

 

Generating your own peer groups allows for benchmarking and comparison on a like for like basis. Companies that have very few similar peers in their region, index and sector might need to look further afield to design an appropriate group to justify the competitiveness of pay plans. Modeling against different peers can significantly change the scenario and perception of pay. Using CGLytics platform, fit-for-purpose peer groups can be created in seconds with access to 5,900+ globally listed companies, for instant comparison of compensation practices.

2. Access the same peer groups as leading proxy advisor Glass Lewis

 

Do you know how your compensation is viewed by activist investors and proxy advisors? As Glass Lewis and large activist investors are already using data and software provided by CGLytics, Compensation Committees should be doing the same. This allows Compensation Committees and Heads of Reward to proactively plan for, and justify, any compensation decisions that may attract unwanted attention.

Glass Lewis CEO and Executive Compensation analysis (used in their proxy papers globally) is found in the CGLytics platform ready for companies use.

As stated in the recent webinar by Glass Lewis’ SVP & Global Head, Research & Engagement, Aaron Bertinetti:

“All the data that we now use, whether it’s compensation data, peer data, or other types of governance data that we may need…we exclusively source from CGLytics. Not just within the United States but globally. The only other firm outside of Glass Lewis that has access to our methodology is CGLytics.”

Using the same data set, peer modeling and analytical tools as Glass Lewis, and leading institutional investors, for reviewing public company CEO compensation and Say on Pay proposals, results in Compensation Committees being market intelligent and one step ahead. This fosters better dialogue with stakeholders and data-based decisions justified with relevant and real-time information.

Learn how Glass Lewis Europe improved their executive compensation analysis with governance data from CGLytics

3. Ensure Pay-for-Performance alignment and benchmarking tools are included

 

Compensation Committees and HR Professionals are empowered by modeling scenarios against different KPIs and measurements using software tools. With the recent volatility in market performance, justifying indictors used to design compensation plans mitigates risk. Boards need to be equipped with in-depth analysis of their company’s pay practice and compare against their peers to preempt say on pay risk.

As mentioned by Ronald Kliphuis, Global Head of Rewards at Randstad (a large market leading global HR company):

“In the past only consultants had access to the information that CGLytics provides. We can now play with data and information and make fair comparisons. We understand the potential risks and vulnerabilities a lot better.”

Learn more about Randstad’s Head of Rewards making data-based decisions going into the AGM

Powerful pay-for-performance benchmarking tools allow for efficient comparison and automated output of CEO and executive compensation against competitors and peers.

4. Check the quality of data available in the software platform you choose

 

Where the data is sourced from and how often it is updated should be a concern when deciding on insights to trust for effective engagement. In addition to how many years of compensation data is recorded in the software platform. A wealth of global and structured data for meaningful comparison of executive compensation practices across industries and borders, should be a large consideration of tools purchased to support compensation decisions.

Compensation Committees, Head of Rewards and Benefits, and other HR Professionals can ensure reliability when using CGLytics software with executive compensation data sourced from millions of publicly listed company filings, proxy materials and social networks, which undergoes rigorous checks by a dedicated team of equity market research analysts 24/7. More than 10 years of historical compensation data is standardized for efficient comparison of 5,900+ companies’ pay and rewards across different regions, industries, and sectors.

Downloadable data and insights in an array of formats (such as excel) allow compensation professionals to model and easily transport charts directly into their board decks and presentations, for the ultimate time and cost savings.

 

CGLytics offers the broadest and deepest global compensation data set in the market for reviewing corporate executive compensation plans, assessing Say on Pay vote proposals and performing benchmarking analysis.

Contact CGLytics and learn about the governance tools available and currently used by institutional investors, activist investors and leading proxy advisor Glass Lewis for recommendations in their proxy papers.

Latest Industry News, Views & Information

Ubisoft’s sexual misconduct scandal reveals governance gaps

CGLytics reviews Ubisoft’s board and corporate governance practices after accusations of widespread, systemic sexual misconduct. How does Ubisoft’s board diversity, board effectiveness and director expertise measure up?

Ontex Group’s remuneration report voted down for the fourth consecutive year

With shareholders voting against the Ontex Group’s remuneration report for four consecutive years, CGLytics has conducted a review of the company’s CEO pay for performance against peers.

CNBC Report: More activist investors to focus on corporate governance and executive pay

This week CGLytics CEO discussed the increase in activist investor activity with CNBC Street Signs. New research from CGLytics reveals that activist investors are broadening their focus.

How to independently and efficiently benchmark executive remuneration for Say-on-Pay

There are many software applications and tools now available to support remuneration decisions, but what should be taken into consideration before purchasing? This 5-minute guide details what Remuneration Committees, Heads of Reward and Compensation Professionals should take into account when selecting software and tools for remuneration decisions.

07.28.2020

A 5-minute guide to support Remuneration Committees, Heads of Reward and Compensation Professionals when selecting software and tools for remuneration decisions. Read and learn about the four considerations that should be taken into account before purchasing.

1. Look for tools that support peer group modeling functionality

2. Access the same peer groups as leading proxy advisor Glass Lewis

3. Ensure Pay-for-Performance alignment and benchmarking tools are included

4. Check the quality of data available in the software platform you choose

We live in a digital age where access to information has never been easier. No longer having to scroll through complex and endless spreadsheets and obtain an analytical degree to understand trends – insights and information is at our fingertips.

For Remuneration Committees, Heads of Rewards and Benefits, and Compensation Professionals it is no different.

Ensuring executive remuneration, bonuses, and incentives are in line with market standards, has never been under such scrutiny.

Activist activity has increased in 2020, with traditional investors changing their position from passive to active engagement and focusing on executive pay. In a recent article by the Financial Times, it was reported that misalignment of incentives and negative say-on-pay votes at annual meetings increase the likelihood of a company suffering share price underperformance.

Software that provides flexibility for assessing remuneration in comparison to peers, and supports say-on-pay resolutions, is available and increasingly implemented by companies, activist investors, and proxy advisors.

When a user begins searching for remuneration software there are questions typically asked:

  • – Does it contain information on the executive remuneration practices of – peers and competitors?
  • – How does is support benchmarking my company’s executive remuneration practices?
  • – Does it show me how my company’s remuneration practices are perceived in the market?
  • – Can I find tailored insights in seconds to be sure my company’s CEO, NEO and Director pay is aligned to market standard and company performance?

 

Sustainable and justifiable decisions surrounding executive remuneration has kept compensation professionals up at night, with additional key questions that should be asked:

  • – How can I access high-quality, reliable executive compensation information that I do not need to maintain?
  • – Where can I find standardized remuneration information for efficient comparison and instant benchmarking?
  • – What software and tools are available in the market that other compensation professionals, activist investors, proxy advisors and compensation consultants currently use?

 

How to utilize software for fast, efficient, and flexible executive remuneration and rewards benchmarking, and the tools that are available.

 

Greater scrutiny calls for companies and their boards to be one step ahead

Transparency encourages market confidence. With the current pandemic causing havoc on stock prices and resulting in employee layoffs, salary and bonuses paid to executives has again been pushed to the front and center.

Remuneration policies and reporting are continuing to come under scrutiny from investors, shareholders, employees and the media. Boards must have clear and transparent remuneration processes in place that allow for investors to see a fair comparison has been made of executive payouts and promised rewards, against peers and taking into account the broader market context.

How peer companies are adapting their executive remuneration practices and adopting new measures needs to be clearly understood for socially responsible decisions about executive pay – continuing to be highlighted again by the events and happenings of 2020.

Decisions made need to be based on fact, not fiction, with easy to understand explanations for investors to digest. Granted, no one wants to become a media headline or attract attention from activist investors.

 

How can Remuneration Committees, Heads of Reward and Compensation Professionals model different scenarios with software tools, and benchmark against their companies’ peers?

 

1. Look for tools that support peer group modeling functionality

 

Generating your own peer groups allows for benchmarking and comparison on a like for like basis. Companies that have very few similar peers in their region, index and sector might need to look further afield to design an appropriate group to justify the competitiveness of pay plans. Modeling against different peers can significantly change the scenario and perception of pay. Using CGLytics platform, fit-for-purpose peer groups can be created in seconds with access to 5,900+ globally listed companies, for instant comparison of remuneration practices.

2. Access the same peer groups as leading proxy advisor Glass Lewis

 

Do you know how your compensation is viewed by activist investors and proxy advisors? As Glass Lewis and large activist investors are already using data and software provided by CGLytics, Remuneration Committees should be doing the same. This allows Remuneration Committees and Heads of Reward to proactively plan for, and justify, any compensation decisions that may attract unwanted attention.

Glass Lewis CEO and Executive Compensation analysis (used in their proxy papers globally) is found in the CGLytics platform ready for companies use.

As stated in the recent webinar by Glass Lewis’ SVP & Global Head, Research & Engagement, Aaron Bertinetti:

“All the data that we now use, whether it’s compensation data, peer data, or other types of governance data that we may need…we exclusively source from CGLytics. Not just within the United States but globally. The only other firm outside of Glass Lewis that has access to our methodology is CGLytics.”

Using the same data set, peer modeling and analytical tools as Glass Lewis, and leading institutional investors, for reviewing public company CEO compensation and Say on Pay proposals, results in Remuneration Committees being market intelligent and one step ahead. This fosters better dialogue with stakeholders and data-based decisions justified with relevant and real-time information.

learn how Glass Lewis Europe improved their executive compensation analysis with governance data from CGLytics

3. Ensure Pay-for-Performance alignment and benchmarking tools are included

 

Remuneration Committees and Compensation Professionals are empowered by modeling scenarios against different KPIs and measurements using software tools. With the recent volatility in market performance, justifying indictors used to design compensation plans mitigates risk. Boards need to be equipped with in-depth analysis of their company’s pay practice and compare against their peers to preempt say on pay risk.

As mentioned by Ronald Kliphuis, Global Head of Rewards at Randstad (a large market leading global HR company):

“In the past only consultants had access to the information that CGLytics provides. We can now play with data and information and make fair comparisons. We understand the potential risks and vulnerabilities a lot better.”

Learn more about Randstad’s Head of Rewards making data-based decisions going into the AGM

Powerful pay-for-performance benchmarking tools allow for efficient comparison and automated output of CEO and executive compensation against competitors and peers.

4. Check the quality of data available in the software platform you choose

 

Where the data is sourced from and how often it is updated should be a concern when deciding on insights to trust for effective engagement. In addition to how many years of compensation data is recorded in the software platform. A wealth of global and structured data for meaningful comparison of executive compensation practices across industries and borders, should be a large consideration of tools purchased to support remuneration decisions.

Remuneration Committees, Head of Rewards and Benefits, and other Compensation Professionals can ensure reliability when using CGLytics software with executive compensation data sourced from millions of publicly listed company filings, proxy materials and social networks, which undergoes rigorous checks by a dedicated team of equity market research analysts 24/7. More than 10 years of historical compensation data is standardized for efficient comparison of 5,900+ companies’ pay and rewards across different regions, industries, and sectors.

Downloadable data and insights in an array of formats (such as excel) allow compensation professionals to model and easily transport charts directly into their board decks and presentations, for the ultimate time and cost savings.

 

CGLytics offers the broadest and deepest global remuneration data set in the market for reviewing corporate executive remuneration plans, assessing Say on Pay vote proposals and performing benchmarking analysis.

Contact CGLytics and learn about the governance tools available and currently used by institutional investors, activist investors and leading proxy advisor Glass Lewis for recommendations in their proxy papers.

Latest Industry News, Views & Information

Ubisoft’s sexual misconduct scandal reveals governance gaps

CGLytics reviews Ubisoft’s board and corporate governance practices after accusations of widespread, systemic sexual misconduct. How does Ubisoft’s board diversity, board effectiveness and director expertise measure up?

Ontex Group’s remuneration report voted down for the fourth consecutive year

With shareholders voting against the Ontex Group’s remuneration report for four consecutive years, CGLytics has conducted a review of the company’s CEO pay for performance against peers.

CNBC Report: More activist investors to focus on corporate governance and executive pay

This week CGLytics CEO discussed the increase in activist investor activity with CNBC Street Signs. New research from CGLytics reveals that activist investors are broadening their focus.

Can Tesco Escape a Revolt on their Remuneration Report?

Will Tesco be confronted with shareholder revolt after its remuneration committee decided to remove Ocado from its custom peer index? Only time will tell with the Annual General Meeting scheduled for June 26, 2020.

Tesco PLC is currently confronted with a shareholder revolt after the Company’s remuneration committee inflated executive bonuses by removing Ocado from the peer group used to estimate its performance. The Annual General Meeting (AGM) of Tesco is scheduled for June 26, 2020, and is set to expect a higher percentage of negative votes against the directors’ remuneration report, particularly following Glass Lewis’ advice to investors to vote against Tesco’s remuneration report.

The removal of Ocado from Tesco’s peer index

Tesco’s remuneration committee decided to remove Ocado from the custom peer index[1] used to measure its relative Total Shareholder Return (TSR) for the 2017 Performance Share Plan (PSP) after May 16, 2018. The argument behind this action, according to Tesco’s report:

“Ocado has experienced significant share price growth which analysis shows is directly correlated to the sales of its technology platform as opposed to its food business. This was when Ocado signed its third major technology deal, establishing a clear pattern of pursuing a technology strategy. As a result of Ocado’s divergence from the retail market (and hence as a direct comparator for Tesco)[2]”.

As a result, the impact of the removal of Ocado from the peer group contributed to changing the actual performance from underperforming the custom index by 4.2% to over-perform the custom index by 3.3%. If Tesco’s TSR was below the custom index as it was before removing Ocado, the TSR metric, which is weighted at 0.5 of the PSP, would have been zero.

However, omitting Ocado resulted to a share vesting equal to 33.4% of the maximum PSP. The long-term incentive payments to the CEO and CFO were approximately boosted by GBP 1.6 million and GBP 0.87 million, respectively.

Historical remuneration report outcome

Figure 1 below illustrates the outcomes of voting of historical director remuneration reports at the AGMs of Tesco between 2010-2019. The three largest negative outcomes against the directors’ remuneration report took place in 2010, 2015 and 2017.

In 2010, the remuneration report received the most negative votes with more than one-third of the total votes against. The cause which led to this shareholder revolt against the directors’ remuneration report in 2010 was the director’s excessive pay in relation to poor company performance in the US.

Sir Terry Leahy, the CEO at the time, received GBP 10 million and Tim Mason, who was responsible for the US market, received about GBP 7 million.

Five years later, in 2015, almost 11% failed to back Tesco’s remuneration report. This was due to a huge payment of GBP 4.13 million to the newly arrived CEO for just six months’ work at Tesco and a slightly more that GBP 1 million to the former CEO, who oversaw negative sales and profits.

Finally, in 2017, 9.4% voted against the directors’ remuneration report due to excessive relocation costs to the current CEO, which is not considered appropriate.

Fast-forwarding to 2020 and the upcoming AGM, it is expected that another big shareholder revolt will be recorded after the company’s remuneration committee inflated executive bonuses by approximately GBP 1.6 million by removing Ocado from the peer group. According to the Sunday Times, Glass Lewis, the proxy advisor, expressed their “severe reservations” with regards to the exclusion of the online grocer from its calculations. Moreover, Glass Lewis advised investors to vote against Tesco’s remuneration report at Tescos’ upcoming 2020 AGM, arguing that such “discretionary” actions “undermined the idea of transparent, target-based pay”.

Figure 1

Source: CGLytics Data and Analytics

Tesco’s descriptive statistic of 2019 compared to the past 10 years

The table below (Table 1) presents the average remuneration of Tesco’s CEO and performance measures from 2010-2019. The average realized pay to Tesco’s CEO is slightly more than GBP 6 million, of which 21% is base salary, 39% STI and 55% LTI. The average Return on Assets (ROA) and the average Return on Equity (ROE) have positive results over time. However, the average three-year TSR is negative. Tesco’s CEO total realized pay in 2019 is GBP 6.8 million, which is 11.6% higher than the average total realized pay over the past 10 years. Comparing the performance measures in 2019 to the past 10 years combined, ROA (2.8%) underperform the average values and ROE (10.4%) and TSR (3Y) (29.7%) overperform the average.

Table 1. Average remuneration of Tesco’s CEO and performance measures (2010-2019)

Tesco’s CEO compensations against its peer group (including Ocado)

Figure 2 shows Tesco’s CEO total realized pay and Tesco’s change in TSR (3Y) [3] against its peer group[4]. Between 2010-2019, Tesco overpaid its CEO compared to its industry peers, particularly in 2010 and 2019 when Tesco awarded the highest total realized pay to its CEO. Moreover, the first five years it is observed that the peer group has higher change in TSR (3Y) when compared to Tesco. However from 2015 Tesco overperformed the peer group until 2018. Again, in 2019, the change in TSR (3Y) of Tesco’s peer group is higher. Therefore, Tesco’s higher payments to its CEO did not guaranty better performance.

Figure 2

Source: CGLytics Data and Analytics

Comparing Tesco’s CEO pay and change in TSR (3Y) against peer group with and without Ocado

This section describes the impact of omitting Ocado from Tesco’s peer group. Figure 3 illustrates Tesco’s CEO total realized pay and Tesco’s change TSR (3Y) against its peer group with and without Ocado. It is clear from the figure that the change in TSR (3Y) is higher in the peer group that includes Ocado, compared to the peer group without Ocado, with a difference of 4.3%.

Therefore, the omission of Ocado from the peer group provides lower change TSR (3Y) value, which in its turn lowers the threshold. Thus, as a result of this omission, Tesco’s executive payments based on TSR – a total payment of approximately GBP 2.47 million – could be justified, whilst otherwise would have ended up with zero.

Figure 3

Source: CGLytics Data and Analytics

Where does Tesco’s CEO Pay for Performance rank?

The Long-Term Incentive Plan of Tesco in 2017 was weighted as TSR equal to 0.5, cumulative cash generation equal to 0.3, and key stakeholder measures equal to 0.2 over a three-year performance period. Comparing Tesco’s CEO pay practice in relation to its peer group (including Ocado) using CGLytics’ Pay for Performance model, we observe a misalignment between the CEO’s total realized pay and TSR (3Y).

Hence, Tesco’s CEO 2019 total realized pay ranks slightly lower than the upper quartile at the 73rd percentile, while its TSR (3Y) ranks slightly higher than the median at the 55th percentile. Thus, the results of the test we conducted, using CGLytics Pay for Performance modeler, in Figure 4 suggest that Tesco is over-paying its CEO relative to its peer group.

Three-year Pay for Performance of Tesco PLC (2019)

Source: CGLytics Data and Analytics

Upcoming Tesco AGM

Looking back at Tesco’s history, shareholder revolts may not be a new incident and they may also be expected during the upcoming AGM, especially given the observations that Ocado’s omission from the peer group led to an inflation of the executive payments. The real question now is to see whether the shareholders will consider Ocado as a direct competitor or not, and as to whether they will follow Glass Lewis’ advice to vote against Tesco’s remuneration report. Moreover, this analysis brings to the front that Tesco’s pay practices were much higher over the recent years compared to its peer group, recording its 2nd highest payment in 2019, when looking at the period between 2010 and 2019. Evidently, this may be a signal that Tesco’s remuneration policy must be reviewed, re-evaluated and perhaps change soon.

Would you like to see how your executive compensation is viewed by leading independent proxy advisor Glass Lewis?

Click here to learn more about the Glass Lewis CEO compensation analysis and peer group modeling for Say on Pay engagement, available exclusively via CGLytics. Make data-driven decisions this proxy season with CGLytics.

 

References

[1] “Benchmark index made up of FTSE 350 Food and Drug Retailers and FTSE 350 General Retailers weighted 85% and 15%, respectively”. Tesco’s Annual Report 2019 [https://www.tescoplc.com/media/755761/tes006_ar2020_web_updated_200505.pdf].

[2] Reference: Tesco’s Annual Report 2019 [https://www.tescoplc.com/media/755761/tes006_ar2020_web_updated_200505.pdf].

[3] Change TSR (3Y) refers to one-year growth of the three-year TSR.

[4] This analysis attempts to simulate Tesco’s custom peer group, which includes 34 UK companies in the same industry as Tesco from the FTSE-100 and FTSE-250.

Latest Industry News, Views & Information

Ubisoft’s sexual misconduct scandal reveals governance gaps

CGLytics reviews Ubisoft’s board and corporate governance practices after accusations of widespread, systemic sexual misconduct. How does Ubisoft’s board diversity, board effectiveness and director expertise measure up?

Ontex Group’s remuneration report voted down for the fourth consecutive year

With shareholders voting against the Ontex Group’s remuneration report for four consecutive years, CGLytics has conducted a review of the company’s CEO pay for performance against peers.

CNBC Report: More activist investors to focus on corporate governance and executive pay

This week CGLytics CEO discussed the increase in activist investor activity with CNBC Street Signs. New research from CGLytics reveals that activist investors are broadening their focus.

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

Ubisoft’s sexual misconduct scandal reveals governance gaps

CGLytics reviews Ubisoft’s board and corporate governance practices after accusations of widespread, systemic sexual misconduct. How does Ubisoft’s board diversity, board effectiveness and director expertise measure up?

Ontex Group’s remuneration report voted down for the fourth consecutive year

With shareholders voting against the Ontex Group’s remuneration report for four consecutive years, CGLytics has conducted a review of the company’s CEO pay for performance against peers.

CNBC Report: More activist investors to focus on corporate governance and executive pay

This week CGLytics CEO discussed the increase in activist investor activity with CNBC Street Signs. New research from CGLytics reveals that activist investors are broadening their focus.

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

Ubisoft’s sexual misconduct scandal reveals governance gaps

CGLytics reviews Ubisoft’s board and corporate governance practices after accusations of widespread, systemic sexual misconduct. How does Ubisoft’s board diversity, board effectiveness and director expertise measure up?

Ontex Group’s remuneration report voted down for the fourth consecutive year

With shareholders voting against the Ontex Group’s remuneration report for four consecutive years, CGLytics has conducted a review of the company’s CEO pay for performance against peers.

CNBC Report: More activist investors to focus on corporate governance and executive pay

This week CGLytics CEO discussed the increase in activist investor activity with CNBC Street Signs. New research from CGLytics reveals that activist investors are broadening their focus.

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

Ubisoft’s sexual misconduct scandal reveals governance gaps

CGLytics reviews Ubisoft’s board and corporate governance practices after accusations of widespread, systemic sexual misconduct. How does Ubisoft’s board diversity, board effectiveness and director expertise measure up?

Ontex Group’s remuneration report voted down for the fourth consecutive year

With shareholders voting against the Ontex Group’s remuneration report for four consecutive years, CGLytics has conducted a review of the company’s CEO pay for performance against peers.

CNBC Report: More activist investors to focus on corporate governance and executive pay

This week CGLytics CEO discussed the increase in activist investor activity with CNBC Street Signs. New research from CGLytics reveals that activist investors are broadening their focus.

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

Ubisoft’s sexual misconduct scandal reveals governance gaps

CGLytics reviews Ubisoft’s board and corporate governance practices after accusations of widespread, systemic sexual misconduct. How does Ubisoft’s board diversity, board effectiveness and director expertise measure up?

Ontex Group’s remuneration report voted down for the fourth consecutive year

With shareholders voting against the Ontex Group’s remuneration report for four consecutive years, CGLytics has conducted a review of the company’s CEO pay for performance against peers.

CNBC Report: More activist investors to focus on corporate governance and executive pay

This week CGLytics CEO discussed the increase in activist investor activity with CNBC Street Signs. New research from CGLytics reveals that activist investors are broadening their focus.

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

    Ubisoft’s sexual misconduct scandal reveals governance gaps

    CGLytics reviews Ubisoft’s board and corporate governance practices after accusations of widespread, systemic sexual misconduct. How does Ubisoft’s board diversity, board effectiveness and director expertise measure up?

    Ontex Group’s remuneration report voted down for the fourth consecutive year

    With shareholders voting against the Ontex Group’s remuneration report for four consecutive years, CGLytics has conducted a review of the company’s CEO pay for performance against peers.

    CNBC Report: More activist investors to focus on corporate governance and executive pay

    This week CGLytics CEO discussed the increase in activist investor activity with CNBC Street Signs. New research from CGLytics reveals that activist investors are broadening their focus.

    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

    Ubisoft’s sexual misconduct scandal reveals governance gaps

    CGLytics reviews Ubisoft’s board and corporate governance practices after accusations of widespread, systemic sexual misconduct. How does Ubisoft’s board diversity, board effectiveness and director expertise measure up?

    Ontex Group’s remuneration report voted down for the fourth consecutive year

    With shareholders voting against the Ontex Group’s remuneration report for four consecutive years, CGLytics has conducted a review of the company’s CEO pay for performance against peers.

    CNBC Report: More activist investors to focus on corporate governance and executive pay

    This week CGLytics CEO discussed the increase in activist investor activity with CNBC Street Signs. New research from CGLytics reveals that activist investors are broadening their focus.

    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

    Ubisoft’s sexual misconduct scandal reveals governance gaps

    CGLytics reviews Ubisoft’s board and corporate governance practices after accusations of widespread, systemic sexual misconduct. How does Ubisoft’s board diversity, board effectiveness and director expertise measure up?

    Ontex Group’s remuneration report voted down for the fourth consecutive year

    With shareholders voting against the Ontex Group’s remuneration report for four consecutive years, CGLytics has conducted a review of the company’s CEO pay for performance against peers.

    CNBC Report: More activist investors to focus on corporate governance and executive pay

    This week CGLytics CEO discussed the increase in activist investor activity with CNBC Street Signs. New research from CGLytics reveals that activist investors are broadening their focus.