Showing posts with label Broadridge. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Broadridge. Show all posts

Wednesday, October 20, 2010

Time to End Proxy Vote Monopoly: Opinion

By Eric Jackson, Senior Contributor10/20/10 - 06:10 AM EDT


The Securities and Exchange Commission has been very busy over the last few months with concept releases and new proposed rules. So, lost amidst this activity, you might not have realized that today is the deadline for comments about proposed changes to proxy system.

Before your eyes glaze over, let me say that it's actually a very good thing. And, unlike most situations, there is one proposed change under consideration on which both investors and public companies are in complete agreement: ending the monopoly enjoyed byBroadridge(BR_) for counting proxy votes.

Typically, shareholders and general counsels are at loggerheads on how best to reform the voting process for director elections each year. The lawyers protecting the interests of the managers who pay them seek to keep shareholders at bay as best they can. This is why the whole "proxy access" issue generated so much heat earlier this year.

In "proxy access," shareholders wanted to be able to nominate their own representatives to stand for election to a corporate board -- without paying millions of dollars to run a full-blown "proxy contest." The lawyers for management lashed out against "proxy access" stating that such a process would be "hijacked" by nefarious "special interest groups" who would dangerously promote non-business related ideas on corporate boards if elected.

Shareholders countered that director nominees wouldn't get elected without the majority consent of the company's owners, so why would they elect someone who wouldn't best represent their interests?

Even still, by the time the lawyers and corporate "special interests" got through lobbying politicians, the SEC's passed rule on proxy access stated that investors had to own 3% of a company for at least three years before they could even make the nomination. So much for PETA and Amnesty International being able to hijack the process.

But the corporate paid lobbyists didn't stop there. The US Chamber of Commerce and Business Roundtable have recently sued the SEC to stop the newly passed proxy access rule from being implemented.

So, how is it possible that investors and management can come together on the issue of Broadridge holding a monopoly on counting votes? Easy. Both companies and shareholders aren't being well-served by the status quo.

On the company side, they are held hostage to whatever prices Broadridge wants to charge for their services. As the Shareholder Communication Coalition recently argued to the SEC: "The prices for proxy distribution and communications services should be established by open competition among service providers handling these functions, based on value to end users, and not through a fee schedule established by regulators."

........

[** This post is an excerpt of the full article, which is available on TheStreet.com by clicking here. Free Site.**]




Sphere: Related Content

Wednesday, December 02, 2009

WSJ: Small Investor, Bigger Voice

Five ways the Internet is giving individual stakeholders more influence in the boardroom

DECEMBER 3, 2009

By ROB CURRAN

Technology keeps making it easier for the small investor to be heard.

Thanks to the Web, shareholders have not only more information, but more ways to share news, ideas and issues about the companies they invest in. Message boards, blogs and email have all amplified the voice of investors to the point where it's no longer necessary to be a mogul to get the company's ear. Technology, in the form of online shareholder voting, has even thrown open the doors to annual meetings.

Here are five ways the Internet gives small stakeholders a greater voice in the boardroom.

1. Participate in Annual Meetings and Conference Calls.

In May, Intel Corp. became the first major company to allow shareholders on the Web to vote and submit questions as if they were on the floor of the annual meeting. Moreover, a handful of small companies, including furniture seller Herman Miller Inc., have saved money by switching to "virtual" shareholder meetings instead of renting halls (although some critics have questioned the value of sacrificing personal interaction for the sake of increased participation).

Other companies, such as Wal-Mart Stores Inc., beam live video and Twitter updates from their meetings. As of late November, about 40,000 people had watched the video stream of Wal-Mart's June meeting, says Carol Schumacher, vice president for investor relations. Wal-mart says it hasn't allowed remote-participation in its annual meetings so far, saying it lacks the capacity to answer questions from online viewers in addition to those from attendees.

Quarterly earnings calls, a function once reserved for industry insiders, are showing signs of opening up as well. In March, digital-display maker Microvision Inc. began using its corporate blog to solicit questions from retail investors for its quarterly call, in effect opening the call up to any interested party with a computer. Matt Nichols, the director of communications for Microvision, says shareholders that frequented the company's investor-relations blog had asked for a way to participate in the calls.

"As technology improves…the opportunity for participation is there," says Brad Barber, a professor of finance at University of California Davis and the director of the Center for Shareholder Welfare and Corporate Responsibility. "I think what's missing is interest in participation." He adds: "Reducing the cost of participation is part of this, [but there's] also engaging the shareholder to show them they can have influence and power."

2. Don't Just Watch—Vote.

While it's nice to open up annual meetings to more people, it's the votes that count. Starting this year, the Securities and Exchange Commission required publicly traded companies to give investors the option of voting their proxy ballots online. In theory, this could be an easier way of voting than filling out the proxies and returning them in the mail. But online voters still have to punch in codes.

Employees of institutional money manager TFS Capital recently launched a side project, Moxy Vote, an independent venture that intends to mobilize retail investors by simplifying the voting process and providing information on the issues at stake. By visiting Moxy Vote, investors can see where advocates stand on corporate elections and also view a running tally of votes.

There are two ways to use the site for voting. Investors can visit Moxy Vote and punch in the code from the proxy they received in the mail. Or, if an investor registers and provides his or her brokerage account number, Moxy Vote officials say no more codes will be necessary. In this case, the member receives an e-mail notification of a coming ballot from a company in his or her portfolio, then clicks through to moxyvote.com. On the home page, the member will see short explanations of the issues at stake in every coming vote—whether it's a director election or a resolution on energy-efficiency standards.

The member will also see the recommendations of advocacy groups on the site. Once cast, the vote is processed by Moxy Vote partner Broadridge Financial Solutions Inc., which has long tabulated voting for many U.S. companies. The members can align themselves with one of the 14 advocacy groups that have signed up so far.

3. Use the Message Boards, but Be Skeptical.

One of the places where shareholders exchange information most freely is on the message boards, or chat rooms, for publicly traded companies on Web sites such as Yahoo Finance. Postings can include transcripts of revealing conference calls, links to news articles and even legal documents with an impact on a company's earnings.

Be aware that bulletin boards attract persons who are mainly trying to boost or deflate stocks, sometimes by using fraudulent information. Advice on penny stocks, those worth $5 or less, should be taken with an extra pinch of salt.

Users may do well to independently verify information they find on message boards. If a message refers to a damaging SEC filing, try to find that filing on the SEC Web site (sec.gov). If a news article is mentioned, look for the article on the Web site of the news provider. And don't be reluctant to ask questions of the companies themselves.

"The Internet is a wonderful tool for providing information, but the dark side of the Internet is it's a wonderful tool for providing misinformation," says Professor Barber at UC Davis.

One good information source that's not linked to a particular company is Shareowners.org, a nonprofit advocacy group for small shareholders. More than 400 activists regularly post updates on their causes on the site or through links, says the group's chairman, Richard Ferlauto. The site also allows users to petition Congress on financial-reform issues. An issue that's currently hot, Mr. Ferlauto says, is a proposal that would force companies to include dissident board candidates on proxy information sent through the mail. Currently, proxy materials only have to name a company's own candidates for board seats.

4. Keep Up With the Blogs. Or Start One.

Business and financial blogs have multiplied in recent years, providing platforms for shareholder activists, industry insiders and corporate officers alike.

Eric Jackson, a blogger, shareholder activist and managing partner of Naples, Fla.-based Ironfire Capital LLC, conducted an online campaign to reform Yahoo Inc. in 2007, a time when many shareholders were upset about the stock's performance and company business model.

Mr. Jackson, who says he had fewer than 100 Yahoo shares at the time, rallied support by listing "nine points" for Yahoo's improvement on his blog, posting video on YouTube.com, and creating a Facebook page. Eventually he won the public support of roughly 100 shareholders and spoke at the annual meeting, although Yahoo says his points were never part of the official agenda. Still, many shareholders voted against the board at that meeting, and a week later, Chief Executive Terry Semel quit.

Mr. Jackson and his supporters represented a tiny portion of the total votes, and weren't the only shareholders unhappy with the performance of the board—proxy advisory firms also advocated votes of no confidence. Still, Mr. Jackson believes that Internet campaigns like his do have an effect. To be successful, would-be campaigners need to target companies with a high profile and be prepared to invest a lot of sweat equity, he says.

Some corporations, such as Dell Inc., maintain investor-relations blogs, one of the few venues outside press releases where companies discuss financial information—while staying within the bounds of SEC fair-disclosure rules. Unlike press releases, the blog entries also give readers an opportunity to interact with the corporate officers.

Nell Minow is editor and cofounder of the Corporate Library, a nonprofit that campaigns for better corporate governance. The organization uses its blog (www.blog.thecorporatelibrary.com) to help push reforms through Congress and to awaken small shareholders to the dangers of apathy. The government, Ms. Minow wrote in July, should "remove obstacles that currently prevent oversight from those who are best qualified and motivated to manage risk—the shareholders."

5. You Can Always Try Email.

Ms. Schumacher, the Wal-Mart executive, estimates her department receives roughly 100 emails a week from shareholders and tries to answer as many as possible. Investors can try to reach top executives and directors directly as well, even if their email addresses aren't public. Use a search engine to find email addresses of employees at the company. Then use the same convention with the name of the executive. For example, if you see an example such as j.smith@company.net, try to reach the executive using their first initial and last name. Try different combinations until the message doesn't bounce back.

But sometimes old-fashioned ways are best. "When I want to get hold of a CEO, I send a certified letter," says Mr. Barber. "That way, I get something signed to say they got it."

— Mr. Curran is a writer in Texas. He can be reached at reports@wsj.com.

Sphere: Related Content

Wednesday, August 05, 2009

Letter to Senator Mel Martinez on Dismantling the Broadridge Monopoly

Last month, I wrote to Chairman Mary Schapiro of the SEC about dismantling the monopoly Broadridge enjoys counting electronic proxy votes for all US public companies.

Today, I wrote to Senator Mel Martinez (R-FL), who serves on the Senate Banking Committee, about the matter.

August 5, 2009

VIA FAX

The Honorable Mel Martinez
U.S. Senate
Room 356 – Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
202-224-3041
(Fax) 202-228-5171

Re: Encouraging the SEC to dismantle the Broadridge (BR) monopoly

Dear Senator Martinez:

I am an individual investor and hedge fund manager based in Naples, FL, who is concerned about shareholder voting and communications issues.

I would like to urge you to write to SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro and ask her and her fellow Commissioners to break up the monopoly currently enjoyed by Broadridge (ticker: BR) in overseeing electronic proxy voting for all public companies. I have also recently written to the Chairman on this matter (see the end of this letter).

The foundation of our capital markets is a “one shareholder, one vote” system for running our public companies. On an annual basis, shareholders get to voice their approval or disapproval about the way their representatives are running the company on the Board of Directors and in Senior Management. Broadridge is the company which is solely responsible for counting those votes. It has a monopoly.

Last August, after Broadridge released the results of the Yahoo! (YHOO) annual shareholders’ meeting vote, there was a large protest made by Gordy Crawford of Capital Research (one of the largest mutual funds in the country) who questioned the veracity of the results. Because of Mr. Crawford’s stature, the fact the Capital Research was one of the largest Yahoo! investors, and the intense media interest in the Yahoo! voting results, Broadridge was forced to verify the results. They later admitted their results had been far off the mark from the actual ones.

Although Broadridge said the problem was a simple “truncation error” made by a computer, it’s clear when you look at the actual results and the ones first reported that there was human error involved. What was shocking about the incident was that it likely would never have been reported had Gordy Crawford not spoken up. It makes me wonder how many other errors made by Broadridge are never reported or acknowledged.

I understand that the only check and balance over Broadridge’s monopoly is that they have to submit regular “updates” to the SEC. I don’t believe this is sufficient, given the importance of these voting results.

I also understand from those who work in Investor Relations at corporations using Broadridge that they are often frustrated by monopolistic pricing demands placed on them by Broadridge for using their services.

In my view, investors and public companies would be best served by allowing another company to compete with Broadridge. Let the best provider to companies and shareholders be successful. It’s that spirit of competition and innovation which has served our country so well.

I hope you will consider writing to Chairman Schapiro about this matter. Although the SEC has many issues it is tackling at the moment, breaking up the Broadridge monopoly will help make our companies more competitive and risk-conscious than they previously had been. This certainly would have served them and the whole American economy well in the past 5 years.

Thank you.

/Eric M. Jackson/

Eric M. Jackson, Ph.D.
Managing Member
Ironfire Capital LLC

The letter below was sent on July 16, 2009 and can be found at:

http://seekingalpha.com/article/149402-sec-should-break-up-broadridge-monopoly

From: Eric Jackson
Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2009 3:00 PM
To: 'chairmanoffice@sec.gov'
Subject: Breaking Up the Broadridge (BR) Monopoly

Dear Chairman Schapiro:

I would like to urge you to consider breaking Broadridge’s monopoly in overseeing electronic proxy voting for all public companies.

As you might recall, last year, after Broadridge released the results of the Yahoo! (YHOO) vote, there was a large protest made by Gordy Crawford of Capital Research who questioned the veracity of the results. Because of Mr. Crawford’s stature, the fact the Cap Re was one of the largest Yahoo! investors, and the intense media interest in the Yahoo! voting results, Broadridge was forced to verify the results and admitted their results had been far off the mark.

Although Broadridge said the problem was a simple “truncation error” made by a computer, it’s clear when you look at the actual results and the ones first reported that there was human error involved. What was shocking about the incident was that it likely would never have been reported had Gordy Crawford not spoken up. It makes me wonder how many other errors made by Broadridge are never reported or acknowledged.

I understand that the only check and balance over Broadridge’s monopoly is that they have to submit regular “updates” to the SEC. I don’t believe this is sufficient, given the importance of these voting results. What does it matter if the SEC allows proxy access or gets rid of broker votes, if investors can’t trust the final voting results because of future Broadridge “truncation errors”?

In my view, investors would be best served by allowing another company to compete with Broadridge. Let the best provider to companies and shareholders be successful.

I also note that Broadridge appears to be much more company-centric (i.e., management) than shareholder-centric.

I hope you will consider adding further examination of Broadridge to your already busy list of plans.

Sincerely,

Eric Jackson

Eric M. Jackson, Ph.D.
Managing Member
Ironfire Capital LLC

Sphere: Related Content

Thursday, July 16, 2009

Break-Up the Broadridge Monopoly on Counting Shareholder Votes

From: Eric Jackson
Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2009 3:00 PM
To: 'chairmanoffice@sec.gov'
Subject: Breaking Up the Broadridge Monopoly

Dear Chairman Schapiro:

I would like to urge you to consider breaking Broadridge’s monopoly in overseeing electronic proxy voting for all public companies.

As you might recall, last year, after Broardridge released the results of the Yahoo! vote, there was a large protest made by Gordy Crawford of Capital Research who questioned the veracity of the results. Because of Mr. Crawford’s stature, the fact the Cap Re was one of the largest Yahoo! investors, and the intense media interest in the Yahoo! voting results, Broadridge was forced to verify the results and admitted their results had been far off the mark.

Although Broadridge said the problem was a simple “truncation error” made by a computer, it’s clear when you look at the actual results and the ones first reported that there was human error involved. What was shocking about the incident was that it likely would never have been reported had Gordy Crawford not spoken up. It makes me wonder how many other errors made by Broadridge are never reported or acknowledged.

I understand that the only check and balance over Broadridge’s monopoly is that they have to submit regular “updates” to the SEC. I don’t believe this is sufficient, given the importance of these voting results. What does it matter if the SEC allows proxy access or get rid of broker votes, yet investors can’t trust the final voting results because of future Broadridge “truncation errors”?

In my view, investors would be best served by allowing another company to compete with Broadridge. Let the best provider to companies and shareholders be successful.

I also note that Broadridge appears to be much more company-centric (i.e., management) than shareholder-centric.

I hope you will consider adding further examination of Broadridge to your already busy list of plans.

Sincerely,

Eric Jackson

Eric M. Jackson, Ph.D.
Managing Member
Ironfire Capital LLC

Sphere: Related Content

Tuesday, August 12, 2008

RiskMetrics: Yahoo! Revised Vote Count Underscores Need for Reform of Proxy Voting Process

Submitted by: L. Reed Walton, Publications, and Ted Allen, Publications
August 12, 2008

Investors heard last week that votes against the re-election of Yahoo! board members were significantly higher than initially reported, due to an error.

Four directors -- Chairman Roy Bostock, CEO Jerry Yang, Ronald Burkle and Arthur Kern -- all received greater than 30 percent opposition at the company’s Aug. 1 annual meeting. The company had previously reported that no board member received more than 22 percent withhold votes. Another director, Gary Wilson, had just under 30 percent opposition, according to a company press release. The revised release, dated Aug. 5, notes that the error originated with Broadridge Financial Services, the firm that Yahoo uses to collect and tabulate shareholder votes.

No other directors received greater than 10 percent opposition. Incumbent director Robert Kotick is due to step down, as the board expands to accommodate billionaire investor Carl Icahn and two of his dissident nominees under an agreement that pulled the plug on Icahn’s bid to replace the entire board in a proxy contest. The three new Yahoo directors are likely to be appointed around Aug. 15, Dow Jones Newswires reported.

The company’s initial vote tally announcement, just after the meeting on Aug. 1, caught the attention of Yahoo critic Eric Jackson, founder of Ironfire Capital. Jackson leads a network of investors owning approximately 3.2 million Yahoo shares. He noted a discrepancy of about 200 million shares between the number of votes cast for directors last year and this year. After Jackson wrote about the error in his weblog, Capital Research Global Investors--which owns a 6.2 percent Yahoo stake--asked for a recount. According to the Associated Press, Capital opposed Yang and figured that he would have received more than the 14 percent opposition originally reported.

Broadridge said that a printing error was responsible for the incorrect results and re-issued the tallies, according to the AP. The revised results show that investors withheld 33.7 percent support from Yang, whereas opposition to his election was minimal last year. Bostock and Burkle had the most re-election opposition this year, with 39.6 and 37.9 percent withholds, respectively, versus dissent of 31.2 and 32.5 percent, respectively, in 2007.

The vote at Yahoo underscores the complexities of proxy voting in the U.S. market, where ownership is widely dispersed and about 85 percent of company shares are held in “street name” by brokers and other custodians. Edward Rock, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania who co-wrote a 2007 paper, “The Hanging Chads of Corporate Voting,” said the proxy voting process is “crude, imprecise, and fragile.”

“Broadridge delivers more than 1 billion communications to investors per year. . . . It is an accident waiting to happen,” Rock said, according to MarketWatch.

“When it comes to the tabulation of proxy votes, most investors don't even know what they don't know,” said Pat McGurn, special counsel at RiskMetrics Group. “The tabulation process is as airtight as a sieve. It is as transparent as a brick wall. Simply put, the proxy voting infrastructure has failed to keep pace with the complexity of the investment process. It is only a matter of time until there is a complete meltdown at a significant meeting. Officials from the SEC, the stock exchanges, and Delaware must come together with key market players to fix the system.”

Sphere: Related Content

Wednesday, August 06, 2008

After Vote-Gate, Heads Must Roll on Yahoo’s Board


By Eric Jackson
Managing Member, Ironfire Capital LLC
August 6, 2008


To anyone who says that it’s inconsequential that Yahoo understated the level of shareholder dissatisfaction by more than half thanks to a “tabulation error” by its proxy counter, Broadridge–I say: You couldn’t be more wrong. This incident will have ramifications in the coming weeks for the composition of Yahoo’s board. But here’s the shocking thing: This latest batch of numbers might still underrepresent the level of disdain shareholders have for this board.

Any corporate election that doesn’t receive 95 to 98 percent support from shareholders for the incumbent management and board is an anomaly. Yahoo’s first press release from last Friday suggested that, despite all the hubbub of the failed merger talks with Microsoft and public criticism from Carl Icahn and others, Yahoo shareholders had let the incumbents off the hook. Chairman Roy Bostock and CEO Jerry Yang were re-elected with 79.5 percent and 84 percent support respectively. These relatively benign results (compared to last year’s), combined with the fact that there were not more pointed questions at the meeting last week, led some observers to conclude that this board had “faced down” its critics.

Not quite. Gordy Crawford of Capital Research Global did all Yahoo shareholders a favor by demanding a recount. Yahoo and Broadridge complied. And results of that recount were alarmingly different from the first set of numbers. We’ve all heard of +/- 4 percent in polling, but when was the last time you heard of +/- 50 percent?

The recount might set a modern-day record among S&P 500 companies for the most “withhold” votes for a board in a corporate election. Only V.J. Joshi, head of HP’s Printer group, got off without a serious warning from shareholders (a 7 percent “withhold” vote). The “withhold” vote for Bostock was 39.6 percent, not 20.5 percent as originally reported. And 33.7 percent of Yahoo shareholders withheld their support from Yang, not 14 percent. Other Yahoo directors who fared poorly in the election were Gary Wilson (27.7 percent of votes withheld) and Compensation Committee membersRon Burkle (37.9 percent withheld) and Art Kern (31.1 percent withheld).

What would we all be doing today if Gordy Crawford had never called for a recount? If a “tabulation error” happens and no one is there to hear it, did it happen at all? We will never know.

And there will likely be more shoes to drop in this tragedy of errors. This “tabulation error” was only one of two major question marks surrounding last Friday’s initial voting results. Yahoo easily made Broadridge the fall guy for this first error. The second error–how few eligible shares were counted in the final tally–isn’t so easily eluded. And for that, Yahoo will be the fall guy.

Only 75.8 percent of the eligible shares as of the June 3 record date were voted in this election. After such intense media scrutiny in the past few months, it seems odd that so few investors participated.

Last weekend, I dove into the numbers in detail and reviewed them against numbers from the last two Yahoo elections. On Sunday night, I wrote about the most recent Yahoo shareholder vote, and verified that there were 200 million fewer votes cast this year compared to the average over the last two years. I called on Yahoo to appoint an independent third party to review and certify the voting process.

Yesterday, as news of the voting irregularities circulated, I received a number of complaints from frustrated shareholders. Some claimed they had received multiple proxies from Yahoo over the last month, with several arriving Aug. 4–the Monday after the election. Some said they had had trouble voting by phone. Others, who had initially voted for Icahn’s slate, said when they tried to re-vote against the Yahoo board, they weren’t able to do so. How many other shareholders encountered similar difficulties? Without a full inquiry, we’ll never know.

These missing votes could have had an even more significant impact on the overall results. For example, Chairman Roy Bostock received “for” votes from fewer than half of the total shares eligible to vote (only 45.8 percent of the 1.4 billion shares eligible to vote). He truly lacks the approval of the majority of the shareholders he is supposed to represent. With a 47 percent vote, director Ron Burkle also lacks majority support. And while CEO Jerry Yang won majority support, he did so by the skin of his teeth, with just a 50.2 percent vote.

Governance Matters

At Friday’s meeting, I asked Jerry Yang, Yahoo President Sue Decker and Roy Bostock about three issues that suggest to me that Yahoo’s governance oversight has been lax.

(1) Why did Yahoo sell Overture Japan (a $396 million-per-year business) to Yahoo Japan for $13 million last August? Did Yang, who sits on Yahoo Japan’s board, recuse himself from the negotiations? Who negotiated on behalf of Yahoo and why did they agree to such a low price when Yahoo has a habit of paying three-to-five times revenues for companies like Zimbra, Blue Lithium, and Right Media?

(2) Sue Decker serves on three Fortune 500 boards (Intel, Costco, and Berkshire Hathaway). Her duties to those companies required her to attend at least 22 meetings last year, according to proxy filings. And each meeting required significant preparation. As a Yahoo shareholder, I fail to see how outside commitments like these benefit Yahoo. Are they really necessary? Shouldn’t Decker drop a few of them until Yahoo finds solid footing again?

(3) About a third–31-36 percent–of Yahoo shareholders voted against the re-election of Roy Bostock and fellow Compensation Committee members Ron Burkle and Art Kern last year. Yet all three continue to sit on this committee (or the Board). Why? And why did they agree to pay outside directors average total compensation of $500,000 last year? Google’s outside directors were paid $250,000, on average, for their services last year. Sue Decker received $2,700 for sitting on the Berkshire Hathaway board (and $110,000 per year for serving on the Intel and Costco boards). Why is Yahoo paying its directors so much?

I found the trio’s answers to these questions unconvincing. Particularly surprising were Bostock’s comments on Compensation Committee member tenure and compensation.

In the first place, Bostock said while 32 percent of shareholders voted against his reelection last year, 68 percent voted for him. And that’s not bad, he said. This glass-half-full logic explains why he has never bothered to explain to shareholders why he, Burkle and Kern have remained on the Compensation Committee and the Yahoo Board.

Second, Bostock disputed my assertion that Yahoo’s outside directors were paid an average of $500,000 last year. When I asked him if he was definitively stating that he did not receive compensation of about $500,000 last year, he said “yes.” Yet, according to Yahoo’s own proxy statement, Bostock earned total compensation of $499,264 last year. 2007 compensation for Yahoo’s other board members was as follows:
  • Ron Burkle: $482,046
  • Eric Hippeau: $496,674
  • Vyomesh Joshi: $519,520
  • Art Kern: $496,990
  • Bobby Kotick: $492,774
  • Ed Kozel: $516,202
  • Mary Agnes Wilderotter: $205,832 (for five months of service; annualized $493,997)
  • Gary Wilson: $482,046

The average compensation for each Yahoo outside director in 2007: $497,531.

Third, Bostock also claimed that this year’s vote would be a far better indication of shareholder support for Yahoo’s Compensation Committee than last year.With 39.6 percent of shareholders withholding support from Bostock and 37.9 percent withholding it from Burkle, isn’t it time for them to step aside?

Fool Me Once, Shame on You; Fool Me Twice, Shame on Me

Given all this, I am deeply concerned that my interests and those of all Yahoo shareholders are not being protected by the company’s board. We need to know why 200 million shares were missing from this year’s vote as compared to the last two years’. We need to know why so many proxies were mailed late to shareholders (on our dime). We need to know why so many shareholders are questioning whether their votes were counted. Yahoo will try to sweep all these concerns under the rug, but we shouldn’t allow it. The company should immediately appoint an independent third party to address these questions and assure shareholders that their votes were properly counted.

Immediate Changes to the Board

Also, Yahoo needs to immediately make some changes to the composition of its board. Roy Bostock and Ron Burkle should do the honorable thing and step down from this board.

In truth, this should have happened a year ago. One wonders what might have happened in the last 12 months with Microsoft negotiations had Yahoo acted swiftly, following the 2007 annual meeting, to remove them.

Eric Jackson is the Founder and Managing Member of Ironfire Capital LLC, an activist hedge fund. In 2007, he founded the "Yahoo! Plan B" group, a web-based group of 150 Yahoo shareholders who own more than 3.2 million shares in a campaign to change the company’s direction.

Sphere: Related Content

Tuesday, August 05, 2008

Associated Press: Revised Yahoo vote reveals more disdain for board

By MICHAEL LIEDTKE – 1 hour ago

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — Yahoo Inc. has revised the results of a closely watched shareholder vote on its much-maligned board after discovering an error by a tabulation firm grossly exaggerated the number of ballots backing the directors.

The changes made Tuesday revealed that 200 million votes opposing the re-election of Yahoo Chief Executive Jerry Yang, Yahoo Chairman Roy Bostock and another director, Ron Burkle, were improperly registered as supportive at the company's annual meeting last week. The miscalculations also caused 100 million votes to be miscast in support of two other directors, Arthur Kern and Gary Wilson.

No mistakes were detected in the votes for Yahoo's four other incumbent directors — Eric Hippeau, Vyomesh Josh, Mary Agnes Wilderotter and Robert Kotick, who is about to give up his seat to make room for dissident investor Carl Icahn.

The recount didn't alter the outcome of last week's election, which retained Yahoo's directors despite shareholder anger about the board's handling of a now-withdrawn $47.5 billion takeover bid from Microsoft Corp.

But the change adds more punch to the protest against the Yahoo board.

"It's important for Yahoo's board to understand there is still pressure on them," said Eric Jackson, a hedge fund manager who represents a group of stockholders with about 3.2 million Yahoo shares. "I thought Yahoo's board was kind of let off the hook last week when they didn't really deserve to be."

Nearly 40 percent of Yahoo shareholders voted against Bostock under the revised results, an unusually harsh rebuke of a board chairman. The original results listed 20 percent of Yahoo's shareholders opposing Bostock.

Yahoo named Bostock chairman in January even though more than 30 percent of Yahoo shareholders wanted him off the board in a vote held last year.

Nearly 34 percent of Yahoo shareholders expressed their displeasure with Yang, according to the recount, up from 15 percent in the original results.

The dissent indicates more shareholders are likely to call upon Yahoo's board to replace Yang as CEO unless he can prove the Internet company he co-founded is worth more than Microsoft offered to pay three months ago. Yahoo's market value is nearly $20 billion below Microsoft's last offer, which translated into $33 per share.

Yahoo shares gained 44 cents to $19.82 Tuesday.

Icahn already has made it clear that he believes Yahoo needs a more experienced CEO than the 39-year-old Yang.

Burkle, who became a billionaire running supermarkets, proved to be nearly as unpopular as Bostock. He was opposed by nearly 38 percent of Yahoo's voting shareholders, up from 19 percent in last week's tabulation. Kern was opposed by nearly 32 percent, up from 22 percent under last week's tally.

Burkle, Kern and Bostock sit on a compensation committee that approved a wide-ranging employee severance plan in February shortly after Microsoft made its unsolicited takeover bid. The costs of the severance plan could hurt shareholders by making Yahoo less valuable to Microsoft or the potential acquirers.

The miscounted votes might not have been detected if not for an inquiry lodged Monday by Capital Research Global Investors, which owns a 6.2 percent stake in Yahoo.

Convinced that its opposition to Yahoo's board wasn't reflected in last week's vote, Capital Research demanded an audit from Broadridge Financial Solutions, the processing firm responsible for casting the ballots for a wide range of institutional investors.

Broadridge acknowledged Tuesday that a printing mix-up caused it to understate the number of shares that intended to vote against Yahoo directors. The firm didn't elaborate on how many shareholders besides Capital Research were affected.

Broadridge processes votes in about 14,000 annual meetings each year, but hasn't found any similar mistakes in a review covering the past 18 months, said Chuck Callan, the Lake Success, N.Y.-based company's senior vice president of regulatory affairs. "This was a unique, isolated incident," he said.

Capital Research spokesman Chuck Freadhoff declined comment Tuesday.

Capital Research's fund manager, Gordon Crawford, has ridiculed Yang and Bostock for their tactics in the Microsoft talks. Microsoft withdrew its takeover offer, valued at $33 per share, three months ago after Yang demanded $37 per share with Bostock's backing.

Yahoo's board is about to be expanded to 11 people to include Icahn and two of his allies. Icahn still hopes to revive talks with Microsoft.

Sphere: Related Content