50 likes | 167 Views
bcIMC’s Approach to Compensation Jennifer Coulson Manager, Shareholder Engagement. The Numbers. Based on voting in all markets at meetings held between Jan – June 2013. Where do we Stand?. Based on 1,594 ballot items voted internationally between Jan – June 2013.
E N D
bcIMC’s Approach to Compensation • Jennifer Coulson • Manager, Shareholder Engagement
The Numbers Based on voting in all markets at meetings held between Jan – June 2013
Where do we Stand? Based on 1,594 ballot items voted internationally between Jan – June 2013
Most Common Reasons for ‘No’ Votes • pay for performance disconnect (Talisman) • Talisman • poor disclosure (Agnico-Eagle) • excessive pay levels or contractual arrangements (Starbucks, Coca-Cola) • targeting above median (Barrick) • narrow or duplicative metrics • discretionary or retention awards (Google) • excessive reliance on stock options (TransCanada) • environmental & social targets (CP Rail)
Encouraging Signs of Investor Influence • Glencore/Xstrata merger compensation arrangements rejected and delayed the merger itself • companies significantly increasing outreach efforts either proactively or after low support levels • focus on compensation issues in proxy battles such as Agrium and Hess Corp. • “shareholder spring” of 2012 • Barrick Gold pay revolt with 85% of shareholders saying ‘nay’ on pay