<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd"
xmlns:rawvoice="http://www.rawvoice.com/rawvoiceRssModule/"
>

<channel>
	<title>Governance Center Blog &#187; RiskMetrics</title>
	<atom:link href="http://tcbblogs.org/governance/tag/riskmetrics/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://tcbblogs.org/governance</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 17 May 2012 14:22:57 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
<!-- podcast_generator="Blubrry PowerPress/2.0.4" -->
	<itunes:summary></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:author>Governance Center Blog</itunes:author>
	<itunes:explicit>no</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:image href="http://tcbblogs.org/governance/wp-content/plugins/powerpress/itunes_default.jpg" />
	<itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
	
		<item>
		<title>Say on Pay Review: More Shareholder Engagement, but Pay for Performance ‘Disconnect’</title>
		<link>http://tcbblogs.org/governance/2011/07/14/say-on-pay-review-more-shareholder-engagement-but-pay-for-performance-%e2%80%98disconnect%e2%80%99/</link>
		<comments>http://tcbblogs.org/governance/2011/07/14/say-on-pay-review-more-shareholder-engagement-but-pay-for-performance-%e2%80%98disconnect%e2%80%99/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 Jul 2011 18:18:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Gary Larkin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[corporate governance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Executive compensation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[shareholders]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[#corpgov]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2011 U.S. Season Review: Say on Pay]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Alice M. Chung]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[corporate goveranance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[institutional shareholder services]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[iss]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[James D.C. Barrall]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Latham & Watkins]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NACD]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pay for performance disconnect]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[PWC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[RiskMetrics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[say on pay]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Scott Olsen]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[shareholder dialogue]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ted Allen]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The Conference Board Governance Center]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tcbblogs.org/governance/?p=1233</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[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 [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://tcbblogs.org/governance/2011/07/14/say-on-pay-review-more-shareholder-engagement-but-pay-for-performance-%e2%80%98disconnect%e2%80%99/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Do New Proposed SEC Compensation Committee/Consultant Rules Go Far Enough?</title>
		<link>http://tcbblogs.org/governance/2011/03/31/does-new-proposed-sec-compensation-committeeconsultant-rules-go-far-enough/</link>
		<comments>http://tcbblogs.org/governance/2011/03/31/does-new-proposed-sec-compensation-committeeconsultant-rules-go-far-enough/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 31 Mar 2011 22:43:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Gary Larkin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[corporate governance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[disclosure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Executive compensation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[board independence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[compensation committees]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[compensation consultants]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[corporate governance issues]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dodd-Frank Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[listing standards]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nasdaq]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NYSE]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[RiskMetrics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sarbanes-Oxley Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sec]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ted Allen]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tcbblogs.org/governance/?p=1066</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[After listening to SEC Commissioner Luis A. Aguilar speak during Wednesday’s open meeting where the commission in a 5-0 vote approved proposed rules for exchange listing standards related to compensation committees and compensation consultants as well as new disclosures, I was left wondering whether or not such rules will be effective. I’m not saying the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://tcbblogs.org/governance/2011/03/31/does-new-proposed-sec-compensation-committeeconsultant-rules-go-far-enough/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Looks Like 2012 for Proxy Access …Maybe</title>
		<link>http://tcbblogs.org/governance/2010/10/05/looks-like-2012-for-proxy-access-%e2%80%a6maybe/</link>
		<comments>http://tcbblogs.org/governance/2010/10/05/looks-like-2012-for-proxy-access-%e2%80%a6maybe/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 Oct 2010 22:01:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Gary Larkin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[corporate governance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[shareholders]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Amy Borrus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Business Roundtable]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Council of Institutional Investors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[David Hirschmann]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[David McHugh]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[director election]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Glass Lewis]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Larry Burton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[RiskMetrics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Robert McCormick]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sec]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[shareholder proxy access]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ted Allen]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. Chamber of Commerce]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wachtell Lipton Rosen & Katz]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tcbblogs.org/governance/?p=780</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Looks like the implementation of shareholder proxy access rules will have to wait until the 2012 proxy season, but that isn’t stopping some law firms and shareholder groups from preparing for the inevitable transition to a new way of electing directors. Monday’s decision by the SEC to grant a stay on the new proxy access [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://tcbblogs.org/governance/2010/10/05/looks-like-2012-for-proxy-access-%e2%80%a6maybe/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Governance Ratings Firm Mergers Put New Light on ISS</title>
		<link>http://tcbblogs.org/governance/2010/08/18/governance-ratings-firm-mergers-put-new-light-on-iss/</link>
		<comments>http://tcbblogs.org/governance/2010/08/18/governance-ratings-firm-mergers-put-new-light-on-iss/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Aug 2010 18:56:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Gary Larkin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[corporate governance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[disclosure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[shareholders]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[corporate governance ratings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Glass Lewis]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[GMI]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[GovernanceMetrics International]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[iss]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[MSCI]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[proxy advisory services]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Proxy Governance Inc.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[RiskMetrics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[TCL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The Corporate Library]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tcbblogs.org/governance/?p=667</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[If you were on vacation late last month, you may have missed one of the biggest corporate governance news stories of the summer, if not the year. No, it had nothing to do with financial regulatory reform, the BP mess or another fraud unearthed by the SEC. It was the announcement of a merger between [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://tcbblogs.org/governance/2010/08/18/governance-ratings-firm-mergers-put-new-light-on-iss/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Climate Change Disclosure Start of Long Standard-Setting Process</title>
		<link>http://tcbblogs.org/governance/2010/05/06/climate-change-disclosure-start-of-long-standard-setting-process/</link>
		<comments>http://tcbblogs.org/governance/2010/05/06/climate-change-disclosure-start-of-long-standard-setting-process/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 May 2010 21:09:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Gary Larkin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[corporate governance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[disclosure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Adam Kanzer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[climate change]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[david vidal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Domini Social Investments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Doug Cogan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Global Corporate Citizenship]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[James Budge]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mary Schapiro]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[RiskMetrics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sec]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sustainability]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the conference board]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tcbblogs.org/governance/?p=489</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[When SEC Chair Mary Schapiro and the rest of the commission issued interpretative guidance on climate change disclosure back in February, they said they were merely just “providing clarity and enhancing consistency” for rules that have existed for decades. Intended or not, the consequence of the guidance has put public companies one step closer to [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://tcbblogs.org/governance/2010/05/06/climate-change-disclosure-start-of-long-standard-setting-process/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Political Spending Accountability Index Planned for Fall</title>
		<link>http://tcbblogs.org/governance/2010/04/22/political-spending-accountability-index-planned-for-fall/</link>
		<comments>http://tcbblogs.org/governance/2010/04/22/political-spending-accountability-index-planned-for-fall/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 22 Apr 2010 20:42:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Gary Larkin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[corporate governance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[disclosure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bruce Freed]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Center for Political Accountability]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Charles Grezlak]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[corporate political spending]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CPA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Merck]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[RiskMetrics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tcbblogs.org/governance/?p=474</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[With the corporate governance community still trying to ascertain the fallout from the Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission Supreme Court decision and the revelation [See Reuters blog here.] this week that the embattled Goldman Sachs doubled what it spent on Washington lobbyists this year, corporate political spending continues to be a worry for boards. [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://tcbblogs.org/governance/2010/04/22/political-spending-accountability-index-planned-for-fall/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Handbook, Roundtable, Webcasts Focus on Political Spending</title>
		<link>http://tcbblogs.org/governance/2010/04/16/handbook-roundtable-webcasts-focus-on-political-spending/</link>
		<comments>http://tcbblogs.org/governance/2010/04/16/handbook-roundtable-webcasts-focus-on-political-spending/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 17 Apr 2010 00:48:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Gary Larkin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[corporate governance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[disclosure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bruce Freed]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Center for Political Accountability]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[corporate political spending]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Covington & Burling]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Karl Sandstrom]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Paul DeNicola]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[RiskMetrics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Robert Kelner]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the conference board]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. Supreme Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tcbblogs.org/governance/?p=465</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The campaigns leading up to the federal midterm and state general elections may have a big impact on public companies as they try to make heads or tails over the Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission [See my Feb. 24 post.] Supreme Court decision and how it affects their corporate political contributions policies. The 5-4 [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://tcbblogs.org/governance/2010/04/16/handbook-roundtable-webcasts-focus-on-political-spending/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Busy Proxy Season Spawns Innovative Shareholder Services</title>
		<link>http://tcbblogs.org/governance/2010/04/08/busy-proxy-season-spawns-innovative-shareholder-services/</link>
		<comments>http://tcbblogs.org/governance/2010/04/08/busy-proxy-season-spawns-innovative-shareholder-services/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Apr 2010 20:09:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Gary Larkin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[corporate governance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Executive compensation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[shareholders]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Damien Park]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[governance risk indicators]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[GRID]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[matteo tonello]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[proxy season]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[RiskMetrics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[SEC Office of Investor Education and Advocacy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Shareholder Activism Report: Best Practices and Engagement Tools for Public Companies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Shareholder Bill of Rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the conference board]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tcbblogs.org/governance/?p=449</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In what is starting to shape up as one of the busiest and corporate governance-changing proxy seasons in some time, shareholder proposals picking up the most steam early on have more to do with shareholder rights, such as .advisory vote on compensation, independent board chair, right to call special meeting and review/report on political spending. [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://tcbblogs.org/governance/2010/04/08/busy-proxy-season-spawns-innovative-shareholder-services/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Say on Pay Takes Early Lead in Proxy Season Shareholder Proposal Race</title>
		<link>http://tcbblogs.org/governance/2010/03/12/say-on-pay-takes-early-lead-in-proxy-season-shareholder-proposal-race/</link>
		<comments>http://tcbblogs.org/governance/2010/03/12/say-on-pay-takes-early-lead-in-proxy-season-shareholder-proposal-race/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Mar 2010 23:56:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Gary Larkin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[corporate governance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Executive compensation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[shareholders]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CEOs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[compensation committees]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[financial reform]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[financial regulatory reform]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[proxy season]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[RiskMetrics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[say on pay]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The Conference Board Governance Center]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tcbblogs.org/governance/?p=400</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Executive compensation continues to be a hot topic in the board room and among shareholders. In the beginning of the 2010 proxy season RiskMetrics reports that four of the Top 10 governance shareholder proposals are compensation-related with advisory vote on compensation, or Say on Pay, ranked first with 46 proposals on the ballot. The other [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://tcbblogs.org/governance/2010/03/12/say-on-pay-takes-early-lead-in-proxy-season-shareholder-proposal-race/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Life with Director Education Sans Accreditation</title>
		<link>http://tcbblogs.org/governance/2010/03/03/life-with-director-education-sans-accreditation/</link>
		<comments>http://tcbblogs.org/governance/2010/03/03/life-with-director-education-sans-accreditation/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Mar 2010 16:28:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Gary Larkin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[corporate governance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[directors' education]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[governance risk indicators]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[institutional shareholder services]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[iss]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[msci inc.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NACD Corporate Directors Institute]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patrick mcgurn]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[RiskMetrics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The Conference Board Governance Center]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the director network]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[TK Kerstetter]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tcbblogs.org/governance/?p=381</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[As I write this, we are in now officially in a post-accreditation era for director education. While it may not feel that much different than the past nine years, it means that organizations like The Conference Board Governance Center, The Director Network and the National Association of Corporate Directors are suddenly more accountable for the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://tcbblogs.org/governance/2010/03/03/life-with-director-education-sans-accreditation/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

