Nov
13
2009

Executive Compensation Task Force Job Not Done Yet

When The Conference Board Task Force on Executive Compensation first met back in March, Co-Chair Robert Denham said task force members agreed there are two primary questions boards need to answer when considering executive pay: What are they paying for? How much are they paying?

Five months after the task force’s first meeting, those two questions led to a 40-page report on executive compensation that includes a list of five guiding principles. By no means does the report complete the group’s mission, according to a RiskMetrics Webcast Thursday where Denham, Co-Chair Raj Gupta and task force member Lynn Paine announced the group’s next steps. (For a copy of slides from the Webcast, e-mail governanceexchange@riskmetrics.com.)

The task force, which includes 13 directors, is actively seeking endorsements from major U.S. public companies. In a Webcast moderated by Stephen Deane, a team leader ofprinciples2 RiskMetrics’ online Governance Exchange, Denham, Gupta and Paine made a point of saying the group’s work is not done.

“The principles are getting a lot of traction now but more needs to be done as companies decide if their compensation systems [performance vs. compensation] are already aligned,” Denham said. He pointed out how important it is for boards to realize that “what” they are paying for in terms of performance is just as important as “how much” they are paying executives.

The task force also plans on contributing to the public dialogue on executive compensation by taking part in similar events as the RiskMetrics Governance Exchange Webcast and being interviewed by business news outlets. There are also plans for a director education program.

Paine, who served on The Conference Board’s Commission on Public Trust and Private Enterprise in 2003, sees some similarities in the calls to action in this year’s executive compensation task force. But the difference with the task force is its involvement in garnering support.

“This is different than the 2003 Commission on Public Trust and Private Enterprise report because there is a movement to get a broad level of support and adoption of the principles,” Paine said. “This is not a static effort; it is ongoing. It is at the very beginning of an ongoing effort.”

She recalled how executive compensation was a big issue following the accounting scandals at Enron and WorldCom in the early 2000s. “At the time, we all thought that executive pay was a huge deal. But if you look at it now, that [Enron and WorldCom] was child’s play.”

So, why has executive pay continued to be a problem in the United States despite past reforms at the start of this decade? It’s really a matter of “follow the leader,” as is in the leaders in executive pay, Paine said. “The reason a lot of these controversial pay practices got embedded at companies is because of the negotiations of executive contracts over the years,” she said. “I think there are a lot of reasons these practices exist, but that is a main one.”

Of the five guiding principles, Paine said Principle Three on avoiding controversial pay practices was the most difficult for the group to reach a consensus. The sticking point was that many of the members didn’t think it made sense to make a blanket condemnation of such practices (i.e. golden parachutes, severance agreements, tax gross-ups). “We talked about cases where some of these practices made sense,” she said.

So in the end, the task force decided to take a “comply or explain” approach with the adoption of such controversial pay practices.

For any companies interested in learning more about the task force principles, click on this link. To find out more about endorsing the principles, send an e-mail to me at gary.larkin@conference-board.org.

- Gary Larkin


Nov
10
2009

Worth Reading…Separation of CEO and Chair

The issue of whether or not to separate the roles of CEO and Chair has certainly stirred lots of conversation in board rooms across the United States, especially as shareholders and Congressmen have called for it in proxies and federal legislation.

The argument made by proponents is that having two separate leadership positions, where chair is independent, is that such a transition is evolutionary for U.S. companies and a best practice around the world. Those opposed argue that there are no proven studies that show separating the two leadership positions leads to better shareholder performance.

The Conference Board Governance Center last week released its first in a series of research digests called Board Book. The first issue’s focus is Board Leadership and CEO/Chair Separation. The publication cites a handful of papers, articles, speeches and research that analyze CEO duality. If you are a Governance Center member, you can access Board Book here (username and password needed).

In addition to the Board Book, I have compiled some more research on the subject:

  • The Value of Independent Directors: Evidence from Sudden Deaths, Bang Dang Nguyen and Kaspar Meisner Nielsen, Chinese University of Hong Kong, May 19, 2009, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1484707. Key findings: A look at the contributions of U.S. independent directors to shareholder value from 1994-2007. Overall, authors found that independent directors provide a valuable service to shareholders.
  • 2009 Proxy Season Highlights No. 5: Companies With Combined CEO and Chair of the Board Positions, Annalisa Barrett, The Corporate Library, March 23, 2009, www.thecorporatelibrary.com/news_docs/932032509splitceochair.pdf (There may be a fee to download this paper.) Key findings: In a study of more than 3,000 North American companies, TCL found 52 percent combined both positions, 21 percent were led by an independent director and 12 percent have boards led by a former CEO. Companies with dual roles have “troubling” governance characteristics.
  • 2009 Spencer Stuart Board Index, Oct. 26, 2009, http://content.spencerstuart.com/sswebsite/pdf/lib/SSBI2009.pdf . Key findings: Half of all boards have only one insider, the CEO, up from 44 percent last year. And 37 percent split the chairman and CEO roles, versus 20 percent a decade ago. Of the 184 companies that split the roles, 81 have an independent chair (versus 75 last year) and 91 have a non-independent chair (down from 105 last year).
  • 2009 Postseason Report: A New Voice in Governance: Global Policymakers Shape the Road to Reform, RiskMetrics, Oct. 16, 2009. http://www.riskmetrics.com/docs/2009-postseason-report.
  • Corporate Governance Commentary: Proxy Access Commentary No. 1, The Battle for Shareholder Access — The Current State of Play, Latham & Watkins, May 19, 2009. http://www.lw.com/upload/pubContent/_pdf/pub2633_1.pdf. Key findings: Sen. Charles Schumer of New York proposed a bill that in addition to issuing a shareholder proxy access rule and Say on Pay would call for independent board chairs. At last check, that bill had been referred to the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs.

- Gary Larkin


Oct
20
2009

Directors Get It: Shareholders Want Independent Board Chair

Like it or not, the wave of corporate governance reform is coming to the U.S. boardrooms quicker than some might like either in the form of successful shareholder proposals, SEC disclosure regulations or federal legislation. And the one getting the most traction lately is mandating an independent board chair.

Nearly one year after the financial crisis flashpoint (the Lehman Brothers failure), shareholders are seeking their pound of flesh by targeting the top executives of public companies. Other than raising their ire over the executive compensation packages (including bonuses), some are looking to change the company governance guidelines regarding company leadership.

RiskMetrics Group’s 2009 Postseason Report: A New Voice in Governance: Global Policymakers Shape the Road to Reform, which was released Oct. 16, found that investors have become more aggressive in seeking governance changes. During the 2009 proxy season, there were 31 proposals calling for an independent board chair vs. 28 in 2008. Also, the amount of support increased 7 percentage points to 36.3 percent from 29.3 percent. Looking back to 2007, that figure was only 25 percent.

On Oct. 9, Norges Investment Bank (registration required) of Norway successfully persuaded Sara Lee Corp.’s board to split the role of chair and CEO once its current chief executive Brenda Barnes’ tenure ends. The company amended its governance rules immediately ahead of its Oct. 29 annual meeting. You can read the amended Sara Lee governance guidelines here. Norges Bank also submitted similar independent chair proxy proposals to the boards of Harris Corp., Clorox Co., Cardinal Health and Parker Hannifin.

And the resolutions kept coming. On Oct. 14, the Nathan Cummings Foundation and the Benedictine Sisters of Mt. Angel, Oregon, announced they filed a shareholder resolution with Goldman Sachs board “urging the board to review pay disparity at the company and analyze the appropriateness of its spiraling pay packages.” In a statement, both investors said other investors would file resolutions for “say on pay” or separation of chair and CEO positions. This all took place as the investment bank announced its annual bonuses would reach a record level in 2009.

And let’s not forget back in March when a UK pension fund asset manager Railpen Investments sought a similar shareholder proposal from Texas Instruments board before its annual meeting.

When you consider that New York Congressman Charles Schumer’s Shareholder Bill of Rights (which is still in committee) has a provision that calls for an independent chair and the SEC has a proposed rule that would seek company disclosure on CEO duality, you can see what I mean by traction. For the first time in years, shareholder groups are working in tandem with government to change company governance rules.

“Shareholders are actually looking for an independent chair, not just separating the Chair and CEO roles,” Catherine Bromilow, partner in PWC’s Corporate Governance Group, said during an Oct. 1 Corporate Board Member Boardroom Channel Webcast. “If we look back about 10 years ago, roughly 80 percent had the two positions combined. Now that figure is about 61 percent. It’s clear companies are considering this issue more.”

After exchanging e-mails with one director this week, I realized that what TK Kerstetter, president and CEO of Board Member, said during his Webcast resonates with the director community: “It’s not about titles, it’s about leadership.”

“I believe that a regulation requiring separation of the CEO and Chair does not fit every board,” C. Warren Neel, executive director of the University of Tennessee’s Corporate Governance Center (he’s also director with Healthways and Saks Inc.), wrote me. “There are a host of differences, one being if the company is run by its founder that will make splitting the roles very difficult. The alternative of a lead director then is what some companies choose for a reason, and find very effective. The right lead director can accomplish the same outcome as splitting the roles of CEO and Chair.”

What TK and Warren said reflects what The Conference Board Governance Center advocates in its just released Corporate Governance Handbook: Legal Standards and Board Practices (Third Edition). “Boards should adopt a structure providing outside directors with the leadership necessary to act independently and perform effectively their oversight role. This structure could include separating the positions of chairman and CEO, creating a lead independent director, or, in the case of a former employee acting as chairman, appointing a presiding director from among the independent directors.”

The Commission on Public Trust and Private Enterprise (See Corporate Governance Handbook, page 36) in 2003 stated that “where companies have a nonindependent chairman, the lead independent director or the presiding director should have ultimate approval over information flow to the board, meeting agendas and meeting schedules…”

It’s funny how the UK and a good part of Europe are at least a decade ahead of U.S. companies on this issue. Instead of regulations and best practices, they call them Codes.

- Gary Larkin


Oct
15
2009

Directors May Want to Look at That CEO Succession Plan

As investors continue to take aim at public companies and the federal government is ready to ratchet up regulation in the aftermath of the financial crisis, some directors are wondering about their executive team’s future. And that inevitably leads to the question, “How good is our CEO succession plan?”

In the last two weeks alone, there have been at least three high profile “emergency” cases of CEO transitions. Based on the swift action of one of the companies, it seemed that the other two companies did not have an affirmative answer to the above question. Other than internal politics or unique circumstances, it seems one reason for companies lacking good succession plans in today’s environment is that there is no definitive rule by regulators and only one exchange addresses it.

The New York Stock Exchange listing standards require members to have guidelines for the selection of the CEO, the performance review of the executive and the description of a general roadmap to follow in the event of an emergency (including a sudden departure or need for dismissal and the unexpected death, disability or impediment). NASDAQ does not have any rules regarding succession planning.

When Bruce Wasserstein, chair and CEO of venerable financial advisor and asset manager Lazard Ltd., died Wednesday unexpectedly at age 61, the Board of Directors named Vice Chair Steven J. Golub as interim CEO effective immediately. Golub, 63, has been with the firm since 1984 in various senior leadership positions, including CFO and chair of the company’s financial advisory business. As required by NYSE, Lazard has listed its succession plan in its governance guidelines.

In the other two cases (Bank of America and CIT Group), the circumstances involve resignations: Bank of America’s CEO Ken Lewis on Sept. 30 and CIT Group’s Chair and CEO Jeffrey Peek on Tuesday. Both boards weren’t totally surprised considering that Lewis had already been stripped of his chairmanship five months earlier and large number of directors had already been replaced following a divisive annual meeting and Peek is facing the prospect of seeking bankruptcy court protection. Both boards were given a much shorter timeframe to complete the succession plan than most corporate governance experts advise.

Both are prime examples of how two well-known companies, in this case banks, run by CEOs with visions of staying in their positions for the long-term were caught off-guard because they seem to have no discernible succession plan. Both banks failed to name interim replacements as the sitting CEO helps in the search process.

The Conference Board Governance Center’s Executive Action Report The Role of the Board in Turbulent Times CEO Succession Planning (Aug. 2009), points out the importance of directors immersing themselves in the leadership makeup of their company. “… directors should acquire their own personal knowledge of the talent pool available at various levels within the organization and feel confident about the effectiveness of the leadership development program. Considering that the final decision on issues of succession resides with the board as a whole, each director should be able to contribute to the debate his or her informed opinion about the preparedness of internal candidates.”

As for the Bank of America, not only does the board of the country’s largest bank have to name a successor by Dec. 31 (the date Lewis will officially step down), it faces a jury trial with the SEC over an investigation into the nondisclosure of bonuses paid to Merrill Lynch employees prior to the bank’s purchase of Merrill. In addition, the bank faces a separate probe by New York State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo and a House subcommittee.

At the same time, the investor backlash continues as evidenced by this Oct. 6 post by Beth Young, a senior research associate at The Corporate Library. More and more shareholders have been putting forth proposals that address CEO succession plans and even call for management preparing an annual report on such plans. (See Whole Foods Market no-action letter request to the SEC, Oct. 5, 2009.)

The Bank of America board’s six-person search committee headed by Chair Walter Massey now faces the dilemma of elevating insiders such as Chief Risk Officer Greg Curl or Brian Moynihan or going outside the organization and face the possibility of other executives leaving, according to TheStreet.com.. Massey, who faces a mandatory retirement next year, had been “cooking up” succession plans for himself and Lewis back in April, according to TheDeal.com’s Dealscape column in May.

TheStreet.com reports that in August Lewis placed “a number” of key executives in a position “to compete to succeed me at the appropriate time.”

The bank addresses its succession plan policy in its Corporate Governance Guidelines. Its most recent proxy statement (March 2009) lists “creating a succession plan for the position of Chief Executive Officer and reviewing succession plans for other executive officers and senior management” as the board’s third top responsibility.  Additionally, the proxy states that the lead director has the responsibility of discussing succession planning with the CEO. But, unfortunately the lead director resigned in May following a shareholder campaign to remove him.

At the CIT Group, in a prepared statement Tuesday, the company said it is forming a search committee to oversee the recruitment process and ensure a smooth leadership transition at the company.

“Now is the appropriate time to focus on a transition of leadership, and I look forward to working closely with our board during that process,” Peek said.

Most corporate governance experts would beg to differ. They believe succession planning is not meant to be a one-time “emergency-only” task. It should be part of a company’s strategic plan. In The Role of the Board in Turbulent Times, The Conference Board recommends that corporate directors dedicate full attention to their succession planning duties and use the challenges posed by the economic crisis as an opportunity to improve their companies’ leadership development programs.

The report spells out five steps boards should take as a roadmap to help directors organize succession planning, integrate it with existing board responsibilities, make it transparent both within and outside the company and ultimately define it as an ongoing element of business strategy. Those steps are: assign responsibility to a standing board committee of independent directors, make succession planning continuous and integral to business strategy, integrate succession planning into top-executive compensation policy, integrate succession planning into risk management and make succession planning   transparent and describe it the company’s annual disclosure.

Beverly Behan, principal of Board Advisor LLC, believes Bank of America’s board (which had a huge turnover following the annual meeting in May) should have made succession planning a priority over the past four months. “Any succession conversation in the BofA boardroom should have involved a discussion of an interim replacement in a crisis – and an agreement on who that should be,” Behan wrote in her Oct. 6 column The Boardroom on Businessweek.com.

Instead, what she saw there is what she has seen at many public companies. “When I work with boards on CEO succession planning, I am shocked at how often I find that their emergency plan consists of little more than a list of high-potential internal candidates and a telephone tree of “who calls who” if a crisis breaks,” she wrote.

For what it’s worth, I did find a recent example of one company that completed a planned top executive transition that was not precipitated by an emergency. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina announced it has elevated its COO J. Bradley Wilson to be president while its CEO Bob Greczyn stays on eyeing a possible retirement in 2010. The insurer stated the decision was the result of a year-long succession plan carried out by its board.

- Gary Larkin


Oct
09
2009

Institutional Investment Report Finds Investors Want Better Risk Management

The big news coming out of Tuesday’s release of The Conference Board Governance Center’s 2009 Institutional Investment Report: Trends in Asset Allocation and Portfolio Composition was that all major categories of institutional investors have remained fundamentally committed to the same investment policies they adopted prior to the credit crunch. But a key finding under a section on hedge funds and alternative instruments may be prescient for the coming year: investors demand stronger risk management and transparency.

2009 Institutional Investment Report

2009 Institutional Investment Report

As large asset managers were faced with the prospect of dwindling returns in the mainstream equity and bond markets, many turned to alternative investments like hedge funds, according to the report. Additionally, asset managers cited a need to diversify their portfolio and a growing familiarity with such investments.

In a year that saw the largest 200 defined benefit plans total assets decrease substantially to $4.71 trillion in 2008 from $5.60 trillion in 2007, those same plans increased hedge fund investments to $80.6 billion, or 1.7 percent of total assets, from $76.3 billion, or 1.4 percent of total assets, the report says. That section of the report makes a point to state “industry underperformance, coupled with some highly publicized hedge fund debacles, have prompted many boards of trustees to call for more stringent oversight of allocation decisions as well as rigorous due-diligence standards for the screening and selection of alternative investment vehicles.”

The report, which was co-authored by Matteo Tonello, associate director of corporate governance research at The Conference Board, and Stephan Rabimov, economist at the World Lung Foundation as part of the Bloomberg Global Initiative to Reduce Tobacco Use, goes on to state that boards are also calling for robust risk management programs and adherence to additional voluntary reporting.

That’s not to say hedge funds are the only investments that need better oversight. There’s enough blame to go around throughout the whole investment community. That is why organizations like the Investment Company Institute (ICI) is beating the drum for real risk management now. Case in point was ICI President and CEO Paul Schott Stevens’ Sept. 24 speech at the ICI Capital Markets Conference in New York City.

“Clearly, we need to create structures that look across borders, across business lines, and across jurisdictional fiefdoms to anticipate and address serious threats to the stability of the financial system,” Schott said. “No existing regulator has the breadth of vision or detailed knowledge to cope with these complex and multi-faceted risks.” ICI has lobbied Congress to establish a Systemic Risk Council, which would include the SEC, FDIC, Treasury and the Federal Reserve. That council would be responsible for identifying risks and directing regulatory actions. That idea has the endorsement of SEC Chair Mary Schapiro and FDIC Chair Linda Bair, who is credited with coming up with the idea.

The need for risk management information and analytics as it pertains to the investment process is a top priority for institutional investors, according to a survey completed by Northern Trust in July. Ninety percent of respondents rated risk as an “important” or “primary” consideration in their investment decision making. Additionally, many believe they need more skills and experience to effectively model, interpret and utilize the results of sophisticated risk models.

The Conference Board’s Institutional Investment Report documents the presence of different types of institutional investors in single asset classes, such as equity, debt securities, alternative instruments (including hedge funds) and foreign securities. The 2009 edition includes definitive data for 2008 and discusses trends that have emerged in the most recent months.

- Gary Larkin