Ironfire Capital Letter to the SEC on why Proxy Access Needs to be Passed Now

I applaud that the SEC has taken quick steps to empower shareholders in the wake of the economic meltdown over the last 18 months. One issue still to be decided on is the issue of facilitating shareholders to nominate individuals to serve on a company's board. The issue will be voted on soon -- and hopefully won't be delayed (although the Business Roundtable has recently asked for one).

I recently submitted a letter to the SEC outlining why I think it's critical that the proposed amendments be passed. Here it is:

Ironfire Proxy Access Comment

Sphere: Related Content

Best in Class: America's Top Boards

07/07/09 - 09:11 AM EDT

AMZN , JNJ , BRK-A , C , GE , IBM , GIS

Eric Jackson

It seemed an easy-enough question last week when someone asked me: What's the company in America with the best corporate governance? Yet, in trying to answer it, I was sent on a frustrating journey and a disappointing conclusion that there's no obvious winner. However, I'll name three good companies and look to address why it's so tough to answer the question.

In preparing this article, I reached out to some of the people I most respect in the world of corporate governance today: consultants, writers, bloggers, corporate secretaries and academics. Most of them were stumped by the question of what company is the best when it comes to corporate governance. It's certainly much easier to list 20 companies with bad governance for every company with good governance, which says a lot.

But three really good ones are Berkshire Hathaway(BRK.A Quote), Amazon.com (AMZN Quote) and Johnson & Johnson(JNJ Quote).

I'll revisit them later after I explain how I arrived at my conclusion.

To help spark my thinking, I searched the Web for recent corporate rankings of the best boards in corporate America. I came across a list from BusinessWeek from 2000. The top board on the list was General Electric (GE Quote), which unseated Campbell Soup(CPB Quote). Others near the top were IBM(IBM Quote), Home Depot(HD Quote), Intel (INTC Quote) and Cisco(CSCO Quote).

Since this ranking was issued, the combined stock returns of this group has been down 60% vs. negative 37% for the S&P 500. Three of the worst boards in 2000 in the rankings -- Walt Disney(DIS Quote), Rite Aid (RAD Quote) and Waste Management (WMI Quote) -- actually have slightly outperformed the best boards in the nine years since, but still returning on average negative 54% .

Ten years ago, GE's board was lauded for having a high number of outside directors who owned large amounts of stock in the company, which is worth 77% less today than it was back then. The board's largest move since 2000 was appointing Jeff Immelt as Jack Welch's successor rather than Bob Nardelli. It's hard to fault the board for that pick, given Nardelli's travails since then, but GE's shareholder base was frustrated with the stock's flat performance for the majority of this decade -- and that was before the wheels fell off last year with the concerns about GE Finance and its commercial real estate holdings.

Campbell Soup, the No. 1 corporate board of 1999 according to BusinessWeek, has lagged its peers like General Mills (GIS Quote) and Heinz(HNZ Quote) for a decade and barely treaded water with the S&P 500 over that time. Its stock is down 30% from 1999.

Finding the link between governance and performance has often vexed academics researching the link. At larger firms, with so many moving parts, it's often difficult to find the long-term performance effects of, say, separating the chairman and CEO roles.

''You are never going to be guaranteed total success,'' says Charles Elson, head of the Weinberg Governance Center at the University of Delaware. ''But good governance gives you protection when things go wrong. In the long run, that will play out.''

I spoke to Elson last week about the problem which many governance ratings have had in subsequently predicting company performance. He told me, in his view, that there were two critical governance factors which clearly showed a relationship to performance: (1) equity ownership of directors and (2) independence of directors.

I think he's right. Back in 2000, I was involved in a major research project which sought to link governance-related factors to subsequent company performance. The one factor which stood head-and-shoulders above any other was director stock ownership. And, by the way, owning stock through stock options or stock grants (the equivalent of "found money") didn't predict future company performance compared to when directors actually dug into their own pockets and purchased stock.

Board "independence" has been talked about often since the Enron and Worldcom scandals. We take it for granted that having a board stacked with family members or lawyers, accountants, and consultants who are paid by the company as directors is likely to produce more rubber-stamping boards than ones with more independent-minded people. However, there's still a lot of work to do in linking specific types of independent directors and company performance.

For example, I strongly believe having an independent director with industry experience is going to be more valuable in the long run compared with an independent director without that experience who doesn't want to speak up for fear of looking like a fool in front of the group. I also think too many boards lack diversity, in terms or ages, backgrounds or tenure on the board, which makes them collectively less independent thinkers than boards with such diversity. (However, adding a director for diversity's sake, without required business or industry experience, won't result in any new benefits for the group because such directors, again, will likely be too afraid to speak up.)

There's one more dimension I would add to the mix as being critical to finding a clear link between board governance and future company performance, and that's time to serve. If you go back and review the boards of the big failures from last year -- Lehman, AIG(AIG Quote) and Citigroup(C Quote) - all had a large number of directors who were too busy with other commitments to effectively serve as directors.

You had people like Anne Mulcahy and Andrew Liveris (CEOs of Xerox(XRX Quote) and Dow Chemical(DOW Quote), respectively) on Citi's board, who also served on Citi's audit committee, which is the most time-intensive of any board committee). When their own companies were seeing their stocks drop like stones last year, both Mulcahy and Liveris participated in 25 Citi board meetings and 12 audit committee meetings. In my view, they were stretched too thin from their day jobs to flag Citi's problems early enough.

Directors also can serve on too many other boards. Roland Hernandez who, in addition to serving on the board of Lehman and its "risk" committee (which failed if ever a board committee did), also served on the boards of MGM Mirage(MGM Quote), Ryland(RYL Quote), Vail Resorts (MTN Quote)and Wal-Mart(WMT Quote). Maybe if Hernandez hadn't been so over-committed he might have asked more questions about Dick Fuld's assumptions about Lehman's real estate

So, if equity ownership, independence, and time are the criteria for "good governance," along with evidence of sustained outperformance relative to peers, what are America's best boards? Like I mentioned earlier, the standouts are Berkshire Hathaway, Amazon.com and Johnson & Johnson.

Even as Berkshire Hathaway has taken its hits from the fall in financials and insurance companies, the stock still has beaten the S&P 500 in the last one, five and 10 years by a greater margin as you go back further in time. Investments made in Goldman Sachs(GS Quote), GE, and Harley-Davidson (HOG Quote) in the dark days of six months ago, look shrewd today. From a governance perspective, Berkshire is the gold standard for shareholder openness through its two to three-hour question-and-answer sessions at the annual stockholders' meeting and in its annual letter to shareholders. In terms of stock ownership, with the exception of Sue Decker who joined the board last year, each director owns at least $6 million in stock, with the median holding being $106 million. I also smile every year when I read how much Berkshire directors are paid to serve on the board. The majority of them get $2,700 a year, with a couple of special folks taking home $6,700, which is far less than the $300,000 to $400,000 a year some bank and tech directors take home.

The biggest problem I have with the Berkshire board is its average age. A third of the board is above the age of 80. These directors will have to face board succession issues, as well as CEO succession issues, over the next few years. They seem to recognize that they could benefit from some new perspectives on the board, judging from the most recent appointment of Sue Decker, formerly president of Yahoo!(YHOO Quote) and in her 40s.

Amazon.com also has been a standout performer for the last one, five and 10 years. Although consistently criticized by some for its sky-high valuation, it continues to succeed operationally and in its moves into new categories (most recently with the introduction of the Kindle electronic book reader). CEO Jeff Bezos gets the lion's share of the credit, but the company's board also is deserving. The stock ownership among the directors is high, with the median around $4 million.
But what I love most about this board is that every director has relevant tech or consumer experience which they bring to the group. Bezos didn't waste a seat around the table with the former ambassador to Ireland, buddies from the Seattle business community with no consumer background, former bosses, or the general manager of the Oakland A's baseball team. There's also a good range of ages and length of time served on the board across its eight members. A couple of the directors serve on two other boards besides Amazon's, and three have been on the board more than 13 years, which is getting a little long in the tooth, but these are very minor infractions when compared with most boards.

Johnson & Johnson's long-term corporate performance also has stood out compared with other "Big Pharma" players, and its governance has stood out as well. Unlike many New York-area boards of S&P 500-listed companies, J&J doesn't boast a board replete with active CEOs. In fact, it doesn't have any current CEOs (although disgraced former Citi CEO Chuck Prince was appointed to the board before he was ousted).

The board is a blend of retired CEOs and people from academia or with a specific health care background. The median stockholdings of directors is good at just under $900,000. My concerns with this board are that a few of the ex-CEO directors hold several other directorships -- including chair of JNJ's audit committee, James Cullen, who serves on four other boards. It's also odd that the finance committee didn't hold any meetings in 2008.

If I had to pick one of these as the best corporate board, I would say it's the board of Amazon.com. It's done things right on the most important governance factors of equity ownership, independence and time. Given this, I expect the company's positive stock performance to continue in the next 10 years. More importantly, Amazon's good governance means it's far less likely to suffer a Lehman-like shock that could destabilize or kill the company.

At the time of publication, Jackson had no positions in the companies mentioned.

Eric Jackson is founder and president of Ironfire Capital and the general partner and investment manager of Ironfire Capital US Fund LP and Ironfire Capital International Fund, Ltd.

Sphere: Related Content

How to Fix Corporate Boards

From TheStreet.com

By Eric Jackson

02/24/09 - 12:01 AM EST

C , BAC , GE (Cramer's Pick) , HD

A couple of weeks ago, I co-authored an op-ed on Forbes.com about the problem of bad corporate boards in America.

In it, Sydney Finkelstein and I laid the primary blame for the wheels coming off our economy in the past year at the feet of our corporate boards. There is no question that others, like politicians, CEOs, banks and consumers all had a hand in this mess.

We don't absolve anyone of their justifiable blame. But ultimately, it was the corporate boards of Citigroup(C Quote - Cramer on C - Stock Picks) , Lehman Brothers, Bank of America(BAC Quote - Cramer on BAC - Stock Picks) and others who gave the green light for excessive risk-taking based on assumptions that housing prices would always rise.

Boards are usually an afterthought for most in the media and public. When asked to explain the problems of the past year, there has been a lot of focus on CEO pay and "Wall Street greed." Most people view boards as nothing more than "window dressing" for a company. They are seen as a group of mostly retired execs, bankers, lawyers and accountants who get together once a quarter and rubber-stamp the desired corporate actions of the CEO.

It's certainly true that these groups have been too friendly over the years in allowing CEOs to run businesses as they saw fit. Quite often, directors feel beholden to the CEOs who appoint them and are well paid for serving as a director, so they do not push back on issues when the CEO is a firm believer. Of course, there's also always a friendly consultant that a CEO can trot out to give some third-party support for whatever the initiative is.

Yet it doesn't have to be this way. Boards are responsible at every company for hiring and firing the CEO. They are also the only interface the shareholders have with the running of a business. Every year (except in the case of staggered boards), shareholders have the ability to vote "for" or "against" each director being re-elected to the job. Sadly, many shareholders don't even bother to vote during these elections. For those who do, they overwhelmingly support the incumbent board, as re-election percentages are usually on the order of 90% to 95%.

If shareholders truly were to become engaged with the voting process, the result would be a much more responsive board of directors on their toes to represent their constituents and not just be in the back pocket of the CEO who appointed them.

Tougher questions would be asked at board meetings, and potential excessive risk-taking would be challenged earlier on. If only boards had been doing their jobs over the last six years instead of cheerleading and rubber-stamping, our economy wouldn't be facing such dire circumstances.
Sarbanes-Oxley Not the Answer

After the last bubble, when formerly billion dollar entities such as Enron, World Com, and Adelphi were shown to be shams, the U.S. government swooped in to improve corporate governance and overall financial and operational fiduciary oversight. The result was the Sarbanes-Oxley law, which required CEOs and CFOs to personally attest to the veracity of financial statements, prevented auditors from also consulting with businesses and supposedly improved the quality of boards of directors.

To have better boards, SarbOx suggested that the roles of chairman and CEO be split, that there be more "independent" directors on every board, and that boards avoid becoming too large so that meetings resembled something more like a United Nations get-together. Of course, none of those changes, even if they were followed (which wasn't required), seemingly did anything to make Lehman's board any better.

Let's consider the Lehman board in detail. About half of the 11-member board had an average age of 77. Seven of the 11 had been on the Lehman board an average of 15 years -- not exactly fresh eyes. Nine of the 11 directors were effectively retired -- many for several years. One director (Roger Berlind) was a former Broadway producer. Another director (Marsha Johnson Evans) was the former head of the American Red Cross and, before that, Girl Scouts of the USA.

There are many types of backgrounds, tenures and ages that make for an effective director. Yet, in looking at this makeup of the Lehman board, you have to ask yourself: Were these people who were going to (or even had the knowledge and experience to) challenge Dick Fuld about the firm's aggressive risk-taking and scenario-planning in the event of a major housing slowdown?

Of course, CEOs, pro-business leaders and their lobbying groups, such as the Business Roundtable and Conference Board, have complained that SarbOx did nothing to stop the breakdown of 2008. Just last week, Ken Langone, supreme capitalist and compensation committee member of the NYSE for Grasso, Home Depot(HD Quote - Cramer on HD - Stock Picks) for Nardelli, and GE(GE Quote - Cramer on GE - Stock Picks) for Welch, made the case on CNBC that the breakdown proved that CEOs should be less fettered by legislation like SarbOx rather than more.

I would agree with critics that SarbOx and other laws that seek to improve the quality of boards and board governance are ineffective. If you switch over a board so that it is 100% independent, how is it going to be knowledgeable enough about the business to challenge the CEO? So, if things like SarbOx aren't the answer, what is a solution for better boards?

The Solution for Better Boards

There are two ways to improve the quality of boards in corporate America today. The first is self-improvement: Boards need to fix themselves. The Securities and Exchange Commission or members of Congress can't be a fly on the wall to all boards to tell them whether they are debating issues enough. Therefore, boards must do it themselves. The massive value destruction in real capital and reputational capital that we've witnessed in the last year in firms like Citi, Bank of America and Lehman should send shivers up the spine of every public company director.

We hope that this spurs them to action and to seek out advice from other directors or consultants who have seen these changes successfully put in practice.

It would be nice if boards actually did take it on themselves to improve the quality of their governance. However, I am cynical enough not to expect that Vikram Pandit and Ken Lewis are putting such an effort at the top of their corporate to-do list. This brings us to a second solution, which does have some teeth to it.

The second solution is called "proxy access." The SEC has kicked the can on doing something on this for mor than a decade now. After 2008, there's no excuse for Mary Schapiro not moving ahead on it now.

Today, if any public company shareholder wants to nominate any one or more candidates to be elected by all shareholders to a company's board of directors, that shareholder must foot the bill and jump over an extraordinary number of hurdles to do so. The out-of-pocket costs are at minimum a million dollars (for lawyers, mailing, and proxy solicitors). They must run against an incumbent board's campaign paid for entirely by shareholders.

"Proxy access" would allow shareholders, if they were able to demonstrate that they held shares in a company for a certain period of time, to nominate one or more individuals to be elected to the board on the company's own proxy (so the challengers wouldn't have to pay the freight costs of mailing out the proxies). If the challengers make their case on why they should get a seat at the table as opposed to an incumbent, they should have a seat at the table. May the best directors -- not only the friends of the CEO -- serve.

Shareholder activist Carl Icahn supports this initiative but wants to limit the right to nominate a director to shareholders holding a 5% stake in the company. That's not a problem for him of course, but it defeats the whole notion of "proxy access," which is that if you hold one share in a company, you have a right to air your views and suggest a legitimate candidate to run.

Opponents of proxy access basically make the case that shareholders aren't smart enough as management to nominate people to serve on the board. They say groups such as the AFL-CIO and Teamsters will "hijack" the process and seek to use it to further their "extremist" views. They also like to criticize shareholders calling for change as not having the "long-term interests" of other shareholders in mind.

Citi was criticized for having an obfuscated corporate structure and lack of corporate strategy years ago. The company responded by saying critics were being short-sighted when the stock was in the $50s. "Let our vision for a financial supermarket play out," they said. They repeated the same thing when the stock was in the $40s, $30s, and $20s. Last Friday, the stock dipped below $2. Are shareholders supposed to still shut up and sit on their hands waiting patiently for the all-seeing and all-knowing Citi managers to dig themselves out of this mess? Of course not.

These criticisms have no merit. Any potential director up for re-election to a board of directors -- incumbent or challenger -- should make his or her case on why they deserve the seat. Shareholders can judge for themselves. Large shareholders like Capital Research, Legg Mason(LM Quote - Cramer on LM - Stock Picks) and Vanguard regularly spend a lot of time and effort studying how to vote. Other large shareholders aren't as fastidious, but hopefully that will improve over time. Shareholders can tell if a potential director is a crackpot, an extremist or simply a pawn of the CEO who will do nothing more than rubber-stamp decisions.

When the SEC allows "proxy access," my prediction is that it won't result in a huge number of shareholders rushing to use the power they've been given. Inevitably, some will, and they'll be successful. These few litmus-case examples will do more for improving corporate governance in America than any SarbOx-like legislation could.

There are other changes the SEC could make to improve corporate governance. For example, any director on a board for a company that goes bankrupt or sees its stock price drop by more than 90% in 12 months (like the aforementioned Lehman directors) should have to resign any other corporate boards he/she sits on and not be able to take any future directorships on a public company for the next 10 years.

The risk of being fired by shareholders through proxy access will always be in the back of the minds of corporate directors. This will indirectly lead to incumbent directors asking tougher questions and better corporate governance. And that will benefit all shareholders in the long-term.

At the time of publication, Jackson had no positions in stocks mentioned.

Eric Jackson is founder and president of Ironfire Capital and the general partner and investment manager of Ironfire Capital US Fund LP and Ironfire Capital International Fund, Ltd.

Sphere: Related Content

Boards Caused This Mess. Here's How To Fix Them

From Forbes.com

By Eric Jackson and Sydney Finkelstein

02.18.09, 11:25 AM EST

A simple two-step program for greatly improved governance.

Who's responsible for the swift and severe downturn in the economy over the last 18 months? Many groups deserve blame, but the most culpable group of all is boards of directors. They let their organizations leverage up enormously without fully understanding the risks or seriously considering the possibility that housing prices could level off or decline.

The last six years have proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that a tick-the-box legislated attempt to improve corporate governance, like the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, is just not sufficient; secondly, business leaders don't deserve a free pass to police themselves. We propose a two-part carrot-and-stick process, for both fixing boards and reducing the odds that such a calamitous breakdown in capital markets would happen again.

Politicians have a way of showing up at a crime after the fact (as long as it's serious enough to register with public opinion, that is) to produce legislation they hope will make people think they've done something to prevent the same problem from occurring in the future. Before September 2008, when Washington was forced to come to grips with the vastness of the downturn, politicians hadn't been so interested in business since the dot-com bubble burst eight years ago.

Back then, the drop in stock prices that savaged Americans' 401(k) portfolios was accompanied by revelations of egregious corporate wrongdoing at companies including Enron, WorldCom and Adelphia. Sarbanes-Oxley was the politicians' answer to that bad corporate behavior. It was supposed to make boards more vigilant and accountable for their companies' results. But it was utterly ineffective in preventing this biggest market breakdown since the Great Depression.

We know, from years of research and empirical evidence, that good governance does improve corporate performance and prevent corporate breakdowns. We also know that what makes governance "good" vs. "bad" has nothing to do with most of the "best practice" that finds its way into legislation. A board can be made up mostly of "independent" directors (however you define that); it can have some less tenured members and a chairman who is not also the chief executive officer, but all that has little to do with actual financial results.

The factors that most correlate with better governance and performance, it turns out, are things such as the quality of debate in board meetings, the open-mindedness of the CEO and the directors, whether the board does extensive scenario planning and whether it engages in playing devil's advocate when discussing possible courses of action. None of that is easily measured, so it can't easily be introduced into legislation. Yet it is absolutely critical to good governance.

Business leaders and their apologists at the Business Roundtable and Conference Board criticized Sarbanes-Oxley for years after it passed. They said it was too expensive, bureaucratic and good only for auditors, who got to raise their fees astronomically. They argued that Washington should take a much more hands-off approach. Businesses could police themselves, thank you very much. That point of view has been thoroughly discredited by the econolypse of the last year and a half.

In the two-part carrot-and-stick strategy we propose for improving the functioning of our country's boards, the carrot is better self-governance. Boards need to regulate themselves more effectively. The Securities and Exchange Commission can't be a fly on the wall to every board to tell it whether it's debating issues enough; boards must do that themselves.

The past year's massive destruction of both real capital and reputational capital at firms like Citigroup (nyse: C - news - people ) and Lehman should send shivers up the spine of every public company director. They should be seeking advice from other directors or consultants who have been successful at improving governance.

We have been involved since 2004 in implementing corporate early-warning systems at the board level to help directors address potential problems in a much more rigorous and systematic way. One basic measure of how a board is doing is whether it has an early-warning system in place. Boards must do everything they can to insulate themselves against failure.

But hoping public companies' boards will self-regulate is hardly sufficient. In our opinion, there needs to be a stick in place, too. To create it, SEC chairman Mary Schapiro and her commissioners need to swiftly enact something called proxy access. Today, when any shareholder in a public company wants to nominate a candidate for the company's board of directors, that shareholder must foot the bill and jump over an extraordinary number of hurdles.
The cost is, at minimum, $1 million for lawyers, mailings and proxy solicitors. The candidate must run against the incumbent board member, whose campaign is paid for entirely by shareholders. Imagine the same kind of stacked deck in favor of a one-party system in a political context--we'd call it Venezuela.

Well, U.S. shareholders have been trying to run against Hugo Chavez for years here, with Chavez protected by Delaware court decisions and SEC rules that seek to maintain the status quo (and that also keep the state coffers of Delaware filled, by the way). Proxy access would allow a shareholder who had held shares in the company for some time to nominate one or more board candidates on the company's own proxy. The challengers wouldn't have to pay the costs of mailing out proxies. If a challenger can make the case that he or she should be on the board in place of an incumbent, it should happen. May the best directors--not only the friends of the CEO--serve.

Critics of proxy access argue that shareholders who seek to be elected this way will either have extremist views (i.e., groups such as the AFL-CIO or Teamsters may gain more influence than a true majority of shareholders would want, and hijack the process), or "short-termist" views (i.e., shareholders will demand quick fixes for company problems instead of trusting management to do what's best for the long term).

In our view, these criticisms have no merit. Any potential director up for election to a board of directors, incumbent or challenger, needs to make a case for deserving the seat. We trust shareholders to judge for themselves. We believe Capital Research, Legg Mason (nyse: LM - news - people ), Vanguard, and other big investors can tell if a potential director is a crackpot or an extremist--or, on the other hand, a pawn of the CEO who will do nothing more than rubber-stamp his decisions.

We don't believe proxy access, if passed, will cause a major increase in board challenges, but there will be a few, and those could result in a sea change in board effectiveness. If board members are more closely tied to the people they are supposed to represent--the shareholders--they are bound to ask tougher questions. And that will be in everyone's best interests.

Eric Jackson is founder and managing member of Ironfire Capital LLC and general partner and investment manager of Ironfire Capital US Fund LP and Ironfire Capital International Fund, Ltd. Sydney Finkelstein is professor of strategy and leadership at the Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth and is author of Think Again: Why Good Leaders Make Bad Decisions and How to Keep It From Happening to You (Harvard Business Press, 2009).

Sphere: Related Content

Financial Week: Boards on the Hot Seat

From Nov. 12/07 edition of Financial Week:

Nominating committees in the spotlight amid succession woes in corporate America; watch out for KB Home and Blockbuster

By Jeff Nash

November 12, 2007

Suddenly empty CEO seats at Merrill Lynch and Citigroup are turning up the pressure on boards to do a better job grooming talent from the corporate ranks.

For many companies, the difficult task of overseeing succession planning falls on the board's nominating and governance committee. Just as audit committees took the brunt of shareholder criticism following the Enron and WorldCom blowups, and compensation committees were on the firing line to comply with new Securities and Exchange Commission disclosure rules last year, nominating committees seem headed for the hot seat in 2008.

“Absolutely—the focus is shifting to the nominating committee,” said Richard Koppes, a lawyer at Jones Day and a director at Apria Healthcare Group and Valeant Pharmaceuticals International. “This is the committee that will have to reach out and engage with shareholders on some really tough issues in the coming year.”

Many boards admit they're struggling with succession planning. A study earlier this year by the National Association of Corporate Directors and Mercer Delta Consulting found that roughly half the directors surveyed from public, private and non-profit boards said their boards were “less than effective” at the task.

Such ineffectiveness can carry a high cost: CEOs recruited from the outside earned median pay of $13 million in 2005, compared with $5 million for those promoted from within, according to the Corporate Library, a governance research firm.

At Merrill Lynch, the price tag to replace former CEO E. Stanley O'Neal, whose exit pay was $161.5 million, will likely be much higher that that figure in the end.

“In the race for the CEO spot, often those executives who aren't elevated decide there's no future and leave for another company,” said Claudia Allen, chair of the corporate governance practice at law firm Neal Gerber & Eisenberg. “Some CEOs don't like a powerful No. 2 or No. 3 around and eliminate them. And then there are those companies that need to spend a lot more attention on bench strength.”

Along with succession planning, the nominating committee will have to spar with increasingly empowered shareholders on all things governance. According to governance research firm RiskMetrics, 656 shareholder proposals had appeared on 2007 corporate ballots through Sept. 15, up from 581 last year.

For example, the nominating committee at Axcelis Technologies will have to decide what to do after a shareholder proposal to repeal its classified board structure received 91.4% of the votes earlier this year, the highest support for a governance proposal this past proxy season. At KB Home, a proposal seeking a vote on golden parachute packages garnered 85.6% in favor. And at Blockbuster, 61.9% of shareholders voted in favor of eliminating the company's dual-class structure.

And now that a third of S&P 500 companies allow board nominations to be approved by simple majorities, a major challenge for nominating committees will be figuring out how to handle potential “no vote” campaigns, in which a shareholder asks other investors to vote against one or more directors.

While specifics vary from company to company, the general rule is that any director not receiving a majority of votes in favor of election should tender his or her resignation. The nominating committee then has to find a new candidate, shrink the board size or choose to disregard the resignation.

The New York Stock Exchange has even proposed leveling the playing field with Rule 452, which would bar brokers from voting shares held on behalf of investors, as brokers usually side with management and support its nominees. The SEC has yet to approve the rule, which was supposed to take effect Jan. 1, but will now not be considered until 2008.

“Boards will have a tough time justifying the continued service of a director who has been successfully targeted by such a campaign,” Mr. Koppes said.

Case in point: Many observers think the grass-roots campaign to oppose the re-election of seven of Yahoo's 10 directors—led by shareholder Eric Jackson, who owns just 96 shares—played a role in the board's removal of CEO Terry Semel in June.

Shareholders are also pushing for more access to the director nomination process.

While many directors oppose proxy access, Mr. Koppes said they should be proactive in gathering director nominee suggestions when meeting with key shareholders. A good dialogue between shareholders and the boards, he said, “goes a long way in making investors feel included and avoids confrontation. It's all about engagement.”

Perhaps the biggest challenge for the nominating and governance committee will be figuring out a way to meet with key shareholders to address their concerns. In the past, many directors argued that such meetings were solely the duty of management, but shareholders are increasingly demanding more direct contact with the board.

“Nominating committees will have to take the lead in reaching out to shareholders,” said Mr. Koppes. “Sure, you have to be careful about an individual director carrying out his or her own agenda, but this notion that only management represents the company no longer holds water. Shareholders' representatives are the board.”

Some companies may take the lead of Pfizer, whose board met with its largest institutional investors, representing 35% ownership of shares outstanding, in October. According to a company statement, the directors “participated in a listening role since their primary objective is to grasp what is on the minds of investors.” While Pfizer announced these meetings would be held regularly, company spokeswoman Shreya Prudlo said she couldn't comment on when the next one would take place. FW

Sphere: Related Content