actualités internationales

Bonjour à toutes et à tous, article intéressant de Les Échos.fr « Les assemblées générales à huis clos ont porté atteinte aux droits des actionnaires » (24 novembre 2020).

Extrait :

Les assemblées générales (AG) 2021 se passeront-elles dans les mêmes conditions que les précédentes ? Les actionnaires qui n’ont cessé de déplorer depuis septembre d’avoir été privés de leurs droits fondamentaux (comme de révoquer ou de nommer un administrateur en séance) aux dernières AG attendent avec impatience l’ordonnance que doit publier le gouvernement . Ce qui ne devrait plus tarder car l’effet du précédent texte prend fin le 30 novembre. Or, une AG est prévue dès le 3 décembre – celle de Bonduelle.

Dans ce contexte, les actionnaires guettaient donc la publication du rapport de l’AMF (Autorité des Marchés Financiers) sur le gouvernement d’entreprise. Car ce rapport revient en détail sur la tenue des AG 2020. Le régulateur en tire « un bilan contrasté. »

À la prochaine…

Dans un article du Financial Times (« European companies were more keen to cut divis than executive pay », 9 septembre 2020), il est observé que les assemblées annuelles de grandes entreprises européennes montrent des disparités concernant la protection des salariés et la réduction des dividendes.

Extrait :

Businesses in Spain, Italy, the Netherlands and the UK were more likely to cut dividends than executive pay this year, despite calls from shareholders for bosses to share the financial pain caused by the pandemic.

More than half of Spanish businesses examined by Georgeson, a corporate governance consultancy, cancelled, postponed or reduced dividends in 2020. Only 29 per cent introduced a temporary reduction in executive pay. In Italy, 44 per cent of companies changed their dividend policies because of Covid-19, but just 29 per cent cut pay for bosses, according to the review of the annual meeting season in Europe.

This disparity between protection of salaries and bonuses at the top while shareholders have been hit with widespread dividend cuts is emerging as a flashpoint for investors. Asset managers such as Schroders and M&G have spoken out about the need for companies to show restraint on pay if they are cutting dividends or receiving government support. “Executive remuneration remains a key focal point for investors and was amongst the most contested resolutions in the majority of the markets,” said Georgeson’s Domenic Brancati.

But he added that despite this focus, shareholder revolts over executive pay had fallen slightly across Europe compared with 2019 — suggesting that investors were giving companies some leeway on how they dealt with the pandemic. Investors could become more vocal about this issue next year, he said.

One UK-based asset manager said it was “still having lots of conversations with companies around pay” but for this year had decided not to vote against companies on the issue. But it added the business would watch remuneration and dividends closely next year.

Companies around the world have cut or cancelled dividends in response to the crisis, hitting income streams for many investors. According to Janus Henderson, global dividends had their biggest quarterly fall in a decade during the second quarter, with more than $100bn wiped off their value. The Georgeson data shows that almost half of UK companies changed their dividend payout, while less than 45 per cent altered executive remuneration. In the Netherlands, executive pay took a hit at 29 per cent of companies, while 34 per cent adjusted dividends. In contrast, a quarter of Swiss executives were hit with a pay cut but only a fifth of companies cut or cancelled their dividend.

The Georgeson research also found that the pandemic had a significant impact on the AGM process across Europe, with many companies postponing their annual meetings or stopping shareholders from voting during the event.

À la prochaine…

Le High Pay Centre anglais vient de publier son rapport 2019 sur la rémunération des hauts dirigeants : « HPC/CIPD Annual FTSE 100 CEO Pay Review – CEO pay flat in 2019 ». Je vous laisse découvrir les chiffres, mais j’attire votre attention sur les conséquences de la COVID-19.

Extrait :

Covid-19 pay cuts

• 36 FTSE 100 companies have announced cuts to executive pay in response to the COVID-19 crisis and economic downturn. 
• While most of the 36 companies have used a combination of measures to cut pay, the report suggests these are mainly superficial or short-term. The most common measure, taken by 14 companies, has been to cut salaries at the top by 20%. However, salaries typically only make up a small part of a FTSE 100 CEO’s total pay package.
• 11 companies have cancelled Short-Term Incentive Plans (STIPs) for their CEOs while two other firms have deferred salary increases for their CEOs. None of the 36 companies have chosen to reduce their CEO’s Long-Term Incentive Plan (LTIP), which typically makes up half of a CEO’s total pay package.

À la prochaine…

La gouvernance des banques est souvent dans l’ombre de la gouvernance des entreprises. Pourtant, en cette période post COVID-19, il sa passe des choses intéressantes comme en témoigne cet article : « Ni dividendes, ni rachats d’actions, préconise la BCE » (Thierry Labro, PaperJam).

Extrait :

La Banque centrale européenne (BCE) a étendu, mardi, sa recommandation aux banques sur les distributions de dividendes et les rachats d’actions jusqu’au 1^er janvier 2021 et demandé aux banques d’être extrêmement modérées en matière de rémunération variable. Dans un communiqué , elle a également précisé que «cela donnerait suffisamment de temps aux banques pour reconstituer leurs coussins de fonds propres et de liquidités afin de ne pas agir de manière procyclique».

Un nouvel examen de la situation sera fait au quatrième trimestre, et, si tout va «bien», les banques dont les fonds propres sont suffisants pourront reprendre le paiement des dividendes, dit-elle.

Elle appelle aussi les dirigeants à revoir la rémunération variable et à préférer les paiements en actions propres, par exemple.

À la prochaine…

Dans Les Échos.fr, la journaliste Sophie Rolland fait un suivi intéressant su comportement des entreprises dans le contexte de la COVID-19 : « Coronavirus : les trois quarts des géants du CAC 40 ont annulé ou réduit leurs dividendes » (19 juin 2020).

La puissante Association française des entreprises privées (Afep), qui représente les 113 plus grands groupes français avait demandé à ses membres de se montrer exemplaires s’ils devaient avoir recours au chômage partiel ou aux prêts garantis par l’État. L’effort demandé était à hauteur dune réduction de 20 %.

Appelées à renoncer à leurs dividendes et à modérer les rémunérations en contrepartie du recours aux dispositifs d’aide de l’Etat, les entreprises du CAC 40 ont opté pour des stratégies variables. Les trois quarts ont annulé (35 %) ou diminué (40 %) les dividendes prévus en début d’année et 17 % les ont maintenus. Certaines ont décidé de les réduire alors même qu’elles n’avaient pas besoin du soutien de l’Etat.

Pas un mauvais résultat en termes de RSE !

À la prochain…

L’Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance publie un bel article sur les conséquences de la COVID-19 sur la rémunération des hauts dirigeants des entreprises américaines : « COVID-19 and Executive Pay: Initial Reactions and Responses«  (de Stephen Charlebois, Phillip Pennell, and Rachel Ki).

Extrait :

Though businesses have managed executive pay programs through tough economic conditions before, they now must do so under an unprecedented confluence of external expectations and scrutiny, from the advent of Say on Pay to increased shareholder engagement to the beginning of an era of stakeholder primacy.

While results vary across industries, findings indicate that a majority of U.S. corporations have not yet formulated a response to COVID-19 on executive pay but anticipate taking some form of action later in 2020.

What should you take away from the results of this survey?

• There is no universal response. Findings indicate a variety of approaches influenced by company outlook, industry dynamics and broader context
• That said, most companies are delaying action until there is greater clarity. Companies that already made pay decisions are generally waiting until payout determinations to see if adjustments are necessary, and those that have not yet made decisions in 2020 are delaying until the impact of COVID-19 is better understood
• Companies acting now are doing so out of necessity and are primarily in the hardest-hit industries where immediate cash preservation is a key priority

What are key considerations going forward?

• Timely, effective communication is key. Shareholders, employees and customers are all closely monitoring the actions companies are taking in response to the crisis; if decisions are made, transparent and honest communication can build positive alignment and strengthen relationships with key stakeholders
• Align executive pay with the stakeholder experience. Company actions are being closely monitored and the expectation is that shareholder experience should be reflected in compensation decisions (i.e., significant shareholder value losses or headcount reductions are accompanied by lower pay outcomes for executives)
• Establish objective principles for using discretion. While quantitative metrics may be difficult to rely on at this time, establishing a list of factors for Committees to consider if they decide to apply discretion at the end of the year will allow companies to demonstrate that decisions were made in ways that demonstrably tie back to business context.

À la prochaine…

David Larcker, Bradford Lynch, Brian Tayan et Daniel Taylor publient un texte qui revient sur la transparence des ghrandes entreprises américaines en matière de COVID-19 « The Spread of Covid-19 Disclosure » (29 juin 2020). Un document plein de statistiques et de tendances sur la transparence… vraiment intéressant sachant que l’enjeu de la question n’est pas à négliger.

Extrait :

The COVID-19 pandemic presents an interesting scenario whereby an unexpected shock to the economic system led to a rapid deterioration in the economic landscape, causing sharp changes in performance relative to expectations just a few months prior. For most companies, the pandemic has been detrimental. For a few, it brought unexpected demand. In many cases, supply chains have been strained, causing ripple effects that extend well beyond any one company.

How do companies respond to such a situation? What choices do they make, and how much transparency do they offer? How does disclosure vary in a setting where the potential impact is so widely uncertain? The COVID-19 pandemic provides a unique setting to examine disclosure choices in a situation of extreme uncertainty that extends across all companies in the public market. This devastating outlier event provides a rare glimpse into disclosure behavior by managers and boards.

Why This Matters

1. The COVID-19 pandemic provides a unique opportunity to examine disclosure practices of companies relative to peers in real time about a somewhat unprecedented shock that impacted practically every publicly listed company in the U.S. We see that decisions varied considerably about whether to make disclosure and, if so, what and how much to say about the pandemic’s impact on operations, finances, and future. What motivates some companies to be forthcoming about what they are experiencing, while others remain silent? Does this reflect different degrees of certitude about how the virus would impact their businesses, or differences in managements’ perception of their “obligations” to be transparent with the public? What does this say about a company’s view of its relation and duty to shareholders?
2. In one example, we saw a consumer beverage company make zero references to COVID-19 in its SEC filings and website, despite the virus plausibly having at least some impact on its business. In another example, we saw a company claim no material changes to its previously reported risk factors when managers almost certainly had relevant information about the virus and the likely impact on sales and operations. What discussion among the senior managers, board members, external auditor, and general counsel leads to a decision to make no disclosures? What should shareholders glean from this decision, particularly in light of peer disclosure?
3. The COVID-19 pandemic represents a so-called “black swan” event that inflicted severe and unexpected damage to wide swaths of the economy. What strategic insights will companies learn from this event? Can boards use these insights to prepare for other possible outlier events, such as climate events, terrorism, cyber-attacks, pandemics, and other emergencies? Should these insights be disclosed to shareholders?

À la prochaine…