Gouvernance | Page 10

Excellent texte auquel je viens d’accéder rédigé par Yvon Allaire et François Dauphin daté du 11 août 2016 et intitulé : “Making Say-on-Pay Vote Binding: a Good Idea?” (IGOPP).

Petit extrait :

The challenge of reading and understanding the particulars of executive compensation has become far more daunting. Indeed, for the 50 largest (by market cap) companies on the TSX in 2015 that were also listed back in 2000, the median number of pages to describe their compensation went from 6 in 2000 to 34 pages in 2015, ranging all the way up to 66 pages. Investors with holdings in dozens or hundreds of stocks face a formidable task. The simplest way out is either to vote per the stock’s performance or, more likely, rely on the recommendation of proxy advisory firms (which also base their “advice” on relative stock market performance. (…)

Boards of directors, compensation committees and their consultants have come to realize that it is wiser and safer to toe the line and put forth pay packages that will pass muster with proxy advisory firms. The result has been a remarkable standardization of compensation, a sort of “copy and paste” across publicly listed companies. Thus, most CEO pay packages are linked to the same metrics, whether they operate in manufacturing, retailing, banking, mining, energy, pharmaceuticals or services. For the companies on the S&P/TSX 60 index, the so-called long term compensation for their CEO in 2015 was based on total shareholder return (TSR) or the earnings per share growth (EPS) in 85% of cases. The proxy advisory firm ISS has been promoting these measures as the best way to connect compensation to performance. (…)

At a more fundamental level, the setting of pay policies should be the preserve of the board, as Canadian corporate law clearly states. When egregious pay packages are given to executives, a say-on-pay vote, compulsory or not, binding or not, will always be much less effective than a majority of votes against the election of members of the compensation committee. But that calls upon large investment funds to show fortitude and cohesiveness in the few instances of unwarranted compensation which occur every year.

À la prochaine…

Ivan Tchotourian

Le High Pay Centre du Royaume-Uni a récemment publié sa réponse à la consultation de l’Investment Association « Executive Remuneration Working Group ». Au travers de cette réponse, le High Pay Center demande une remise en question fondamentale des principes d’attribution de la rémunération des hauts-dirigeants.

Voici une synthèse des propositions faites :

• Fix the flaws in the 2013 UK pay regulations
• Return to the principle that reward follows performance
• Realign the governance of remuneration with the legal financial governance framework.
• Stop accepting discounting as an appropriate basis for pay negotiations
• Remove all formal obstacles to the use of retrospective discretion by remuneration committees
• Require the involvement of representatives of the genuine long term economic interest in a company in the process for determining executive pay

The Executive Remuneration Working Group was set up by the Investment Association in late 2015 and is currently consulting on its interim report looking at the problems with executive pay in the UK.

The High Pay centre’s response to the Working Group’s interim report is available here in its entirety and represents a fundamental rethink of some of the principles which underpin the current system.

Our submission takes as its starting point the statement by Nigel Wilson, Chairman of the working group that « the current approach to executive pay in UK listed companies is not fit for purpose ».

À la prochaine…

Ivan Tchotourian

Sous la plume de Gérard Bérubé, Le Devoir offre une belle photographie du débat que soulève en Grande-Bretagne la rémunération des hauts-dirigeants : « Vers un vote britannique contraignant sur la rémunération des grands patrons ». Les choses vont-elles changer ? Rien n’est moins sûr…

La progression de la rémunération des hauts dirigeants s’est accélérée au Royaume-Uni en 2015. Le gouvernement britannique pourrait récupérer la balle au bond pour modifier le paysage du « say on pay », avec l’imposition d’un vote contraignant pouvant servir de référence dans l’univers boursier.

L’agence Reuters indiquait lundi que la rémunération moyenne des hauts dirigeants britanniques avait augmenté de plus de 10 % en 2015, à 5,5 millions de livres. Selon l’étude du High Pay Centre, elle a atteint 5,48 millions de livres (9,4 millions $CAN) en 2015, contre 4,96 millions l’année précédente, pour les patrons des entreprises composant le FTSE 100, indice de référence de la Bourse de Londres. Ces émoluments équivalent à 140 fois le salaire moyen de leurs employés, ajoute l’étude, qui parle d’un bond de 33 % de la rémunération de ces grands patrons depuis 2010.

Reuters rappelle que la nouvelle première ministre britannique, Theresa May, s’est élevée contre le phénomène pour critiquer publiquement ces écarts croissants de salaires qui s’éloignent des intérêts à long terme des entreprises. « Avant de prendre la tête du gouvernement en juillet, Theresa May a proposé de rendre contraignant le vote des actionnaires sur la rémunération des dirigeants [qui est purement consultatif et sans effet direct]. Elle a aussi prôné davantage de transparence dans la définition des objectifs qui déclenchent le versement de primes et souhaité rendre public dans chacune de ces grandes entreprises le ratio entre le salaire du patron et celui du salarié moyen », peut-on lire.

À la prochaine…

Ivan Tchotourian

Pour Paul Hodgson, il est temps de changer la done dans le domaine de la gouvernance d’entreprise : « Change to U.K. CEO pay or regulation seen as inevitable » (Compliance Week, 20 juillet 2016).

Voici un extrait :

wC’s latest report, called Time to Listen, is subtitled, “We need to find a way to respond to public concern about executive pay, or matters will be taken out of our hands.”

The report draws its conclusions on the need to address income inequality from both its own research and the British Social Attitudes 32 survey, published in 2015, which showed strong agreement, even among those voting conservative, to some stark statements:

• There is one law for the rich and another for the poor
• Ordinary people do not get their fair share of the nation’s wealth
• Management will always try to get the better of employees if it gets the chance
• Big business benefits owners at the expense of workers

(…) The paper concludes that CEO pay in listed companies is probably the result of market forces operating in imperfectly. It says that the current system of shareholder votes is working but has not been given time to “bed down” and that further regulation may do more harm than good. Finally, it says: “We should in any case be more concerned about pay structures than pay levels.” But the report says that action is not simply required at the top but also at the bottom; addressing stagnating pay and employment uncertainty for ordinary workers. Especially in a period of uncertainty caused by Brexit, “companies will be judged by how they treat the most vulnerable in their workforce.”

À la prochaine…

Ivan Tchotourian