A lengthy but good article on the pay for performance 2012….. as adoption, controversy and other factors emerge in this proxy 2012 season, I guarantee we will hear more ….what is your opinion?
Excerpt……..In view of the growing importance of P4P, boards and compensation committees ought to consider the following steps to help support their P4P stories and garner support for their say–on-pay votes:
Read full article…….via Proxy Season 2012: The Year of Pay for Performance — The Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation.
We have addressed most of the list in prior articles ….here is a recap and perhaps more information than was available in other articles.
Excerpt……Companies looking ahead to the 2012 proxy season should be aware of the recently updated corporate governance policies of Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS).  While maintaining its formal policy of issuing “case-by-case” evaluations in many areas, ISS has issued numerous revisions of prior policies as well as new policies on certain types of shareholder proposals that had not been previously addressed. The key areas of interest for companies preparing for 2012 are likely to be proxy access, say-on-pay, pay-for-performance, and risk oversight.
Read full article……via The ISS 2012 Policy Updates: Another View of the Cathedral — The Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation.
As this and other recent articles, we are now into research on what has happened with the new say on pay and pay for performance regulations… I think it is in everyone’s best interest to stay up to date om the latest …… Small business and leadership need-to-know….board of directors
Excerpt……..Escalating CEO pay packages in the last few decades have stirred much debate, culminating in mandated advisory shareholder votes on executive compensation under the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010. The first year of widespread “say-on-pay” votes in the U.S. suggests that investors are taking a conservative approach – about 40 proposals at Russell 3000 index companies received less than majority support from votes cast for and against, and fewer than 200 received support from less than 70 percent. The advent of say on pay in the U.S. has highlighted pay-for-performance as the most significant factor driving investors’ voting decisions on the issue, however.
Doubts about the strength of pay and performance alignment arise from perceptions of “agency problem” conflicts of interest, weak board oversight and aggressive pay benchmarking; from demonstrated abuses such as options backdating; and most recently, from concern that pay practices at some firms likely contributed to the financial meltdown that triggered the latest economic and market malaise
Read full article…via ISS’ New Pay-for-Performance Evaluation Methodology — The Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation.