The Shareholder ForumTM

reconsidering

"Say on Pay" Proposals

Forum Home Page

"Say on Pay" Home Page

Program Reference

 

For the subsequently released publication reported in the article below, see

For background information on the sources of the report, see

 

Financial Times, April 6, 2009 article

 

FT Home

 

Mutual fund votes helped to boost pay

By Francesco Guerrera and Deborah Brewster in New York

Published: April 6 2009 03:00 | Last updated: April 6 2009 03:00

 

Mutual funds have contributed to corporate America's excessive pay by voting in favour of companies' compensation plans, research by corporate governance experts will reveal today.

AllianceBernstein, Barclays Global Investors, Ameriprise and Bank of America's Columbia Management were the most consistent backers of management proposals to increase executive pay, according to the study. The Corporate Library and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, one of the largest trade unions in the US, analysed mutual funds' votes in 2008 annual shareholder proposals.

Executive pay has risen sharply in the past decade, with chief executives' pay rising 24 per cent in 2007 alone to a median of $8.8m, according to the Corporate Library. In the past year, it has fallen slightly as a result of the financial crisis.

"Unfortunately, our report finds that mutual funds are increasingly supportive, as a group, of management positions on proposals dealing with executive pay, despite the current outrage over CEO pay amounts and disconnection from company performance," the study said.

In 2008, the 26 mutual fund groups included in the study voted in favour of management compensation proposals 84 per cent of the time, compared with 82 per cent in 2007 and 76 per cent in 2006.

Some mutual fund companies acted as "pay constrainers", consistently voting against pay rises. T Rowe Price, Templeton (part of Franklin Resources) and Charles Schwab were at the top of the rankings of those voting to constrain pay, the study found.

AllianceBernstein said: "We vote shares in a manner consistent with our fiduciary duty, which is in the best interests of our clients."

BGI said it voted in the best interests of its shareholders.

 

Copyright The Financial Times Ltd 2009.

 

 

 

This Forum program is open, free of charge, to anyone concerned with investor interests relating to shareholder advisory voting on executive compensation, referred to by activists as "Say on Pay." As stated in the posted Conditions of Participation, the Forum's purpose is to provide decision-makers with access to information and a free exchange of views on the issues presented in the program's Forum Summary. Each participant is expected to make independent use of information obtained through the Forum, subject to the privacy rights of other participants.  It is a Forum rule that participants will not be identified or quoted without their explicit permission.

The organization of this Forum program was supported by Sibson Consulting to address issues relevant to broad public interests in marketplace practices, rather than investor decisions relating to only a single company. The Forum may therefore invite program support of several companies that can provide both expertise and examples of performance leadership relating to the issues being addressed.

Inquiries about this Forum program and requests to be included in its distribution list may be addressed to sop@shareholderforum.com.

The information provided to Forum participants is intended for their private reference, and permission has not been granted for the republishing of any copyrighted material. The material presented on this web site is the responsibility of Gary Lutin, as chairman of the Shareholder Forum.