Governance Center Blog

Oct
04
2011

NACD Conference: Directors All a Twitter Over Lead Director Role

Among U.S. public companies, the role of lead director is being taken seriously enough that is the subject of a blue ribbon commission report by the National Association of Corporate Directors (NACD) that was unveiled at that organization’s annual Board Leadership Conference. But U.S. companies have a long way to go to catch up to their brethren in the UK, where a senior independent director role has been in place at companies there for the past decade.

At this week’s NACD Board Leadership Conference in Washington, D.C., the Blue Ribbon Commission Report on the Effective Lead Director was the focus of a panel moderated by NACD COO Peter Gleason. That panel, which also included BRC members Barbara Hackman Franklin, Irv Hockaday, Karen Horn and Ted Dysart, discussed the major points of the report on Monday.

Although I did not attend the conference, I have captured some of that particular panel discussion in the following Twitter discussions under the hashtag #nacdblc11 (Editor’s note: I couldn’t help but clean up some of the tweets which used uncommon abbreviations due to the 140-character limit.): Read the rest of this entry »

Sep
23
2011

From UK to the U.S., Talent in Pipeline Keeping Women in Boardroom Numbers Down

Whether it’s at conferences, in new studies or on the blogosphere, the issue of whether or not there are enough women in the boardroom has begun to pick up steam globally.  The issue has been the topic of a recent forum in New York City, a recent global study on differences between male and female directors and the focus of a task force and report headed up by the former United Kingdom trade minister.

In an interview with former UK minister of trade, investment and small business Lord Mervyn Davies of Abersoch, CBE, The Conference Board President and CEO Jonathan Spector got to the bottom of an independent review of women on boards completed by Lord Davies and a steering board in February. The interview, which you can see in its entirety here, took place during the Second Annual Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) at Johns Hopkins University on Sept. 9. During the interview Lord Davies mentioned that his committee would meet again in October and report on what is being done in the UK. Read the rest of this entry »

Jul
14
2011

Say on Pay Review: More Shareholder Engagement, but Pay for Performance ‘Disconnect’

The early word on what U.S. public companies should do following the first mandatory year of Say on Pay is to review the level of engagement with shareholders vs. the level of support the company received on the advisory vote.

Depending on what you read or who you talk to, the word is that companies and their boards should ascertain the power of proxy advisory firms recommendations and whether or not there is a “disconnect” on pay for performance. Those are two issues that have come up in at least two post-proxy season reports and a Webcast. Read the rest of this entry »

Jun
06
2011

Q&A With Charles Elson — Bridging Board Gaps

Of the many reports that are out there on corporate governance, there is one that should be included in your “must read” pile this summer. Bridging Board Gaps is a 60-page report produced by a group of directors, business leaders, academics and former government officials that attempts to address board governance challenges following the 2008-2009 financial crisis.

Charles Elson, Chair of John L. Weinberg Center for Corporate Governance

Charles Elson, Chair of John L. Weinberg Center for Corporate Governance

Produced in the same vein as the National Association of Corporate Directors’ many Blue Ribbon task forces, the Study Group on Corporate Boards was chaired by Charles Elson, the chair of the John L. Weinberg Center for Corporate Governance at the University of Delaware; Glenn Hubbard, dean and professor of finance and economics at Columbia University’s Business School; and Frank Zarb, senior advisor of Hellman and Friedman and non-executive chair of Promontory Financial Group and former chair of the National Association of Securities Dealers. Elson also sits on The Conference Board Governance Center Advisory Board and sat on the Advisory Group for the Center’s Task Force on Executive Compensation in 2009.

The report, which was sponsored by the Columbia Business School and the University of Delaware’s Alfred Lerner College of Business and Economics and funded with a grant from The Rockefeller Foundation, was designed to “show how boards can fulfill their potential in various critical areas.” The report goes on to state, “After discussing dozens of general governance topics, we identified seven core problems. Then we drew solutions from the laboratory of real life, based on our own experience.” Read the rest of this entry »

Nov
19
2010

Worth Reading … SEC Comment Letters on Proxy Plumbing

When the SEC issued its concept release on the U.S. proxy system, also known as proxy plumbing, in July, it was praised by many corporate secretaries as a way to update the archaic process used to elect directors and vote on proxy proposals. It was also seen by some shareholders as a way to take the mystery out of the proxy voting process. But it was also seen as opportunity by those sitting in the C-suite and boardrooms to rein in the powerful proxy advisors.

Of the nearly 250 comment letters listed on the SEC Web site for the proxy plumbing release as of Nov. 16, (the comment deadline was Oct. 20) many focus on the following issues: Read the rest of this entry »

Oct
21
2010

Report: Say on Pay Picking up Steam at Financials

On the same day the SEC issued its long-awaited proposed rules on advisory votes for executive compensation and “golden parachutes,” The Conference Board Governance Center announced in its 2010 U.S. Directors’ Compensation and Board Practices Report that Say on Pay is gaining some traction among financial service companies but almost no companies surveyed have adopted such a policy for golden parachutes.

The Oct. 18 report, [Read it here.] which was conducted in collaboration with the Society of Corporate Secretaries and Governance Professionals and was sponsored by the Deloitte Center for Corporate Governance, found that 22 percent of financial services companies surveyed have adopted Say on Pay compared to just 3.8 percent in manufacturing and 2.8 percent in non-financial services. Among financial companies, the advisory vote has been introduced by 42.9 percent of those with assets valued at $100 billion or higher. The report states that is mostly due to the large banks that participated in the Troubled Asset Recovery Program (TARP). Overall, 93 percent of all respondents don’t have Say on Pay policy.

The report is based on a survey of 279 corporate secretaries that took place in May and June 2010. [Download report here. (Free to members.)] It was written by Matteo Tonello, director of corporate governance research for The Conference Board, and Judit Torok, senior research analyst in The Conference Board’s human capital department.

Other major findings from the report include:

  • The largest companies (by revenue) predominantly elect directors via majority voting. More than three-quarters of companies in the largest revenue group utilize some form of majority voting, and 95.1 percent also include a mandatory resignation policy.
  • Boards increasingly focus on risk oversight. Almost all financial companies with asset value equal to $10 billion or more have a designated chief risk officer. Nearly half of all non-financial companies and 46.2 percent of manufacturing companies have an enterprise risk management committee at the management level.
  • Large companies, in particular, utilize clawback provisions. At least 40 percent of companies in the manufacturing and non-financial services industries have adopted clawback provisions to recoup executive compensation in the case of a restatement or fraud.

The proposed SEC rules, which are due to take effect for proxy season 2011 following the Nov. 18 public comment period deadline [See Say on Pay and golden parachute proposed rule and institutional investment manager proxy voting disclosure proposed rule.], would require public companies to do the following:

  • Shareholder approval of executive compensation (Say on Pay): Section 14A (a) of the Exchange Act would require such votes to take place at least once every three years beginning with the first shareholders’ meetings taking place on or after Jan. 21, 2011. Such a vote would have to be disclosed in the annual proxy statement and the Compensation Discussion & Analysis would have to include whether a company considered the results of the non-binding vote.
  • Shareholder approval of the frequency of shareholder votes on executive compensation: Starting with Jan. 21, 2011, at least once every six years companies would have to allow shareholders to vote on how often they would hold Say on Pay votes.
  • Shareholder approval and disclosure of golden parachute arrangements: Companies would have to disclose compensation arrangements for executive officers in connection with mergers, going private transactions and third party tender offers. Also, companies would have to provide a shareholder advisory vote to approve such golden parachute arrangements in merger proxy statements.
  • Institutional investment manager reporting of votes: Such managers would have to file annual statements with the SEC disclosing their votes on Say on Pay, frequency of Say on Pay, and golden parachute arrangements. The rule would apply to every institutional investment manager who manages certain equity securities with an aggregate fair market value of at least $100 million.

A separate survey of more than 700 private and public company directors released by the National Association of Corporate Directors (NACD) on Tuesday found there is urgency for risk and crisis oversight and a better feeling about the alignment of CEO pay to performance. Corporate board directors rank risk and crisis oversight among the top three priorities compared to 16th in 2007.  A total of 78 percent of directors believe their CEO’s executive compensation program improved corporate performance and 75 percent believe their CEO’s pay matches their performance. This compares to a 2007 NACD survey that found 77 percent of directors thought CEO pay was excessive.

May
27
2010

Q&A With Ken Daly — Risk and Red Flags

Ken Daly

Ken Daly, President and CEO of NACD

Public company boards have taken a bigger interest in risk governance as they try and get their businesses back to somewhat normal levels following the financial crissis. This focus on risk led the National Association of Corporate Directors (NACD) last fall to issue a Report of the NACD Blue Ribbon Commission – Risk Governance: Balancing Risk and Reward.

That October 2009 report lists 10 principles of effective risk oversight, which the risk and business consultant Protiviti recently provided an analysis of in its Board Perspectives: Risk Oversight that was published this spring. The top three principles are:

  • Understand the company’s key drivers of success.
  • Assess the risk in the company’s strategy.
  • Define the role of the full board and its standing committees with regard to risk oversight. Read the rest of this entry »
May
26
2010

Financial Regulatory Reform Signaling Move Toward Strategic Governance?

As Congressional leaders prepare to start a three-week process to reconcile the two versions of the financial regulatory reform bills, it dawned on me the gravity of what is about to take place just prior to Independence Day.

The governance of U.S. public companies as we know it will start a drastic transition from compliance governance to strategic governance. What that means is that by this time next year most public companies (there may be some exemptions for small businesses) will have to integrate governance issues into business strategy decisions, putting an end to the ineffective compliance exercise that corporate governance oversight had become. Read the rest of this entry »

Dec
21
2009

Worth Reading … Good Corporate Governance

A recent online discussion on good corporate governance I had with members of Dan Swanson’s Yahoo corporate governance discussion group I belong to got me thinking. It’s a good time to start looking at what thought leadership there is on corporate governance principles.

There is quite a lot of good white papers, articles and online discussion e-mail threads. While I won’t share the e-mail threads for obvious reasons, I would suggest joining some of the groups out there. Now is the time for people in the corporate governance space to talk to each other and share ideas.

I must admit that as I started reading material for this post, I noticed most of what is out there on corporate governance principles is from overseas (namely the United Kingdom, other European countries and Australia). As for what I am going to share with you this week, here it is:

•    Some Thoughts for Boards of Directors in 2010, Martin Lipton, partner; Steven A. Rosenblum, partner; and Karessa L. Cain, associate, Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz. Nov. 30, 2009. http://www.directorship.com/media/2009/12/Some-Thoughts-for-Boards-of-Directors-in-2010-1.pdf. Key findings: This annual outlook is a 32-page report that stresses there is no one-size-fits-all approach to crafting a successful board. It also offers recommendations for key areas of concentration including CEO Succession Planning, Long-Term Strategy and Monitoring Performance and Compliance. “Some are perennial themes that remain relevant and deserve to be re-emphasized from year to year, whereas others have recently come into particular focus,” the authors say. Read the rest of this entry »

Sep
28
2009

Note to Directors: Risk Management Not Optional

It may have taken a financial crisis the likes of which we have not seen since the Great Depression and the election of a liberal president to get the federal government to see what corporate governance experts for years have seen. Risk really does matter.

Sure, some companies – especially those in financial services – have had a chief risk officer or the equivalent for years and COSO (Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission) issued an integrated framework for enterprise risk management back in 2004. (And those actions came after monumental accounting fraud perpetrated at Enron and WorldCom.) The difference now is that risk management is no longer an issue that just concerns CROs, CFOs and the internal audit team. It has reached the CEO’s office and the boardroom.

Aon, the Chicago-based insurance brokerage and management consultant, in its April Global Risk Management Survey found that while most organizations increased their overall risk preparedness since 2007, less than half of the respondents are tracking and managing all components of their total cost of insurable risk. And less than two-thirds of respondents had formally reviewed or have a plan in place to review three of the top 10 risks of 2009: economic slowdown (1), regulatory/legislative changes (2), and damage to reputation (6).

When the SEC and the U.S. Treasury Department (see Sept. 24 speech by Deputy Treasury Secretary Neal S. Wolin) are focusing on risk management for public companies, then you know it is no longer a secondary task, but rather a primary one for all boards and management. If auditors and audit committees felt burdened with conducting risk-based integrated audits of internal control over financial reporting, wait to see what the new administration has in store for the coming year.

For starters, the SEC under new Chairman Mary L. Schapiro has created the Division of Risk, Strategy and Financial Innovation, combining the Office of Economic Analysis, Office of Risk Assessment and other functions. It marks the first time one division, which will be headed by University of Texas School of Law Professor Henry T. C. Hu, will oversee risk and economic analysis, strategic research and financial innovation. Hu’s statement in the Sept. 16 release announcing his appointment is quite telling: “I look forward to working with the Commission and to using an interdisciplinary approach that is informed by law and modern finance and economics, as well as developments in real world products and practices on Wall Street and Main Street.”

In other words, it won’t be business as usual at the SEC as fewer political appointees and more academic and hands-on people join the regulator. It also means that all the work of organizations like COSO, the Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA), the National Association of Corporate Directors (NACD) and The Conference Board, will become more relevant. It is the research and thought leadership produced by such organizations that both regulators, lawmakers and executives will need to address current and future risk management issues.

Earlier this month, COSO issued Effective Enterprise Risk Oversight: The Role of the Board of Directors, a four-page paper that reiterates how crucial risk management is for today’s companies. “In the aftermath of the financial crisis, executives and their boards realize that ad hoc risk management is no longer tolerable and the current processes may be inadequate in today’s rapidly evolving business world,” the paper says.

The IIA has recently published 2010-2: Using the Risk Management Process in Internal Audit Planning (membership required), which is a practice advisory for internal auditors, and in May its Tone at the Top monthly e-newsletter focused on global risk. In addition, the NACD’s President and CEO Ken Daly told a KPMG Audit Committee Insights Webcast Sept. 21 that his organization is working on a Blue Ribbon Commission on Risk that is due out shortly.

Corporate Governance Handbook: Legal Standards and Board Practices (Third Edition)

Corporate Governance Handbook: Legal Standards and Board Practices (Third Edition)

The Conference Board Governance Center just last week released Corporate Governance Handbook: Legal Standards and Board Practices (Third Edition), which includes a separate chapter on risk oversight. “Corporate boards should give thoughtful consideration to the benefits of implementing a comprehensive risk management infrastructure and enhancing the organization’s ability to respond effectively to risk events and capture new strategic opportunities,” according to the handbook, which was authored by Matteo Tonello, associate director of corporate governance at The Conference Board. The Board is also working, in collaboration with its Directors’ Institute, on a special Risk Oversight Handbook for board members.  The new Handbook will be a compilation of emerging practices in this area, expanding on the findings of the 2006 Working Group on Risk Oversight and will be released in the summer of 2010. (See Emerging Governance Practices in Enterprise Risk Management for those Working Group findings and recommendations.) Until then, The Conference Board will release a series of short-papers on the subject, for which it will avail itself of the contribution of leading legal and financial experts.

Governance Center Blog