As this season’s batch of proxy materials roll in, we highlight some of the notables as we always do. We often cover developments from General Electric (see this video about GE’s ’14 proxy, with 1400 views) – and this year is no exception. GE has simplified its glossy annual report. The first “Letter to Shareholders” from new CEO/Chair Larry Culp includes these refinements:
– The first “Letter to Shareholders” from new CEO/Chair Larry Culp is much more concise than in prior years, honing on GE’s two priorities
– The future focus continues with an infographic that presents innovations yielded from investments in the GE’s high-tech healthcare, power, renewable energy & aviation businesses
– On page 6, an infographic presents GE’s businesses and their leadership positions, and also presents the company’s “extended industries”
– On page 8, GE uses a single ‘easy-to-read’ page to highlight segment performance, alongside a brief description of each segment’s mission and business units
People seem to like it. This CNBC article contains a quote about “In our view, the filing marked another step forward in GE’s journey towards increased transparency, simplified reporting, and clearer communications to investors.” And here’s a WSJ article. Plus here’s an excerpt of a (poorly made) transcription of Jim Cramer’s comment about it:
General electric ceo annual letter came out last night, hopefully his first of many. it is honest it is straightforward. in short it’s the most un-ge piece of correspondence i have ever seen. you want to understand it was the most complex where you could never figure out how to do it. the numbers were borderline incomprehensible i had to search for a glossary it explained how many divisions were holding up.
How Do We Fix Congress’ Approach to Changing the Securities Laws?
I’m digging this blog by my friend Bob Lamm of Gunster about how Congress might be floating as many as 20 bills at a time in the securities law & governance area – and how this scattered approach might not be the best way to make applesauce…
Tune in tomorrow for the DealLawyers.com webcast – “Activist Profiles & Playbooks” – to hear Anne Chapman of Joele Frank, Bruce Goldfarb of Okapi Partners, Tom Johnson of Abernathy MacGregor and Damien Park of Spotlight Advisors identify who the activists are – and what makes them tick.
Over on the “Business Law Prof Blog,” Prof. Haskell Murray flagged this Fordham study on pre-Securities Act prospectuses. It’s interesting for a number of reasons – not the least of which is that it includes as an appendix a copy of a Coca-Cola prospectus from 1919. Check it out!
Exempting The Crypto? The “Token Taxonomy Act”
Last month, I blogged about Commissioner Peirce’s comments calling for a lighter touch when it comes to regulating “decentralized” tokens. She’s got company in Congress. Late last year, Reps. Warren Davidson (R-Ohio) & Darren Soto (D-Fla.) introduced the “Token Taxonomy Act” – which would exempt “digital tokens” from key provisions of the federal securities laws.
This CoinDesk article notes that the legislation would carve out an exemption for the kind of digital assets to which Peirce advocated applying the Howey test with a lighter touch:
According to the text, the bill – among other items – seeks to exclude “digital tokens” from being defined as securities, amending both the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
That definition has several components, all of which center around a degree of decentralization in which no one person or entity has control over an asset’s development or operation. This ostensibly would clear the way for cryptocurrencies that don’t have a central controller to be spared a securities designation.
The bill defines “digital tokens” as “digital units created… in response to the verification or collection of proposed transactions” (mining, basically) or “as an initial allocation of digital units that will otherwise be created” (as in a pre-mine). These tokens must be governed by “rules for the digital unit’s creation and supply that cannot be altered by a single person or group of persons under common control.”
Sorry if I come off like a digital Luddite – but is a broad statutory exemption from the securities laws really the best approach to an emerging asset category that few people understand, that’s been hyped relentlessly, and that’s rife with fraud?
IPOs: The Media Discovers “Cheap Stock” (Again)
Hey everybody – the media’s discovered “cheap stock” again. I know it’s been an issue in IPOs since Martin Van Buren was president, but for some reason it’s always huge news to the media when they stumble upon it. A couple of years ago, it was the NYT that breathlessly exposed the disparity between the valuation of equity awards made in advance of an IPO & the offering price. This time, it’s the WSJ that breaks the shocking news that private & public valuations are different:
A Wall Street Journal analysis of recent initial public offerings identified 68 companies that gave employees options to buy about $1.5 billion worth of shares in the 12-month run-up to their market debut. But the value of those shares was much higher based on a valuation model developed by academics—an estimated $2.2 billion, the equivalent of employees getting a 32% discount on the shares.
“The Journal’s findings show that the valuations being reported by companies are significantly below what the shares are really worth—the price that investors would pay for them,” said Will Gornall, an assistant finance professor at the University of British Columbia, in Vancouver.
What’s not clear from the WSJ’s article is whether it’s really comparing apples to apples in coming up with what the price “should” be for employee equity awards. The study seems to have just looked at the discount to the IPO price – the so-called “private company” discount. But pre-IPO equity awards usually have a lot of strings attached to them, such as vesting provisions and often onerous restrictions on transfer, and that affects their value too.
Here are the results of our recent survey on the use of board portals:
1. When it comes to board portals, our company:
– Doesn’t have one and isn’t considering using one in the near future – 3%
– Doesn’t have one but is considering whether to use one – 3%
– Adopted one within the past two years – 9%
– Adopted one more than two years ago – 84%
2. For those with board portals, our company:
– Licensed an off-the-shelf portal – 100%
– Built it in-house – 0%
– Hired a service provider to build a custom portal – 0%
3. For those with off-the-shelf board portals, we have:
– Asked whether our vendor has ever had a security breach – 24%
– Investigated our vendor’s security – 48%
– Plan to investigate our vendor’s security in the near future – 14%
– Not worried about our vendor’s security – 14%
Please take a moment to participate anonymously in these surveys:
Corporate Lonely Hearts: Public Shell Seeks Reverse Merger Partner
I think Jane Austen put it best when she said, “it is a truth universally acknowledged, that a private company in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a public shell to reverse merge with.” Well, she said something like that anyway. . .
However, finding your corporate soul mate isn’t always an easy process – and maybe that’s why one lonely public shell decided to take out a personals ad to let prospective suitors know it was available. The ad wasn’t shy about letting those suitors know that this shell had a lot to offer:
OTCQB Ready Fully Reporting Pink Trading Public Shell For Sale
– Selling control block (30,000,000 restricted shares)
– Has symbol, trading and quoted on the OTC Pink w/piggyback status OTCQB READY!
– FULLY REPORTING – FULLY AUDITED BY PCAOB ACCOUNTING FIRM
Other attributes included “DTC Eligible!” and “No regulatory issues.” Of course, as Madonna noted, “we are living in a material world,” so a suitor wasn’t going to get all this for free. So what was the price? “Cash & Carry – Ask $349,500.00.” The big question is – did true love prevail? Based on my sleuthing, it appears that the answer is yes. Our public shell – “China Grand Resorts” – seems to have found Jacksam Corporation, a maker of cannabis vaporizers for medical marijuana. The couple reverse merged last September & gave birth to a bouncing baby S-1 earlier this month.
Transcript: “Controlling Shareholders – The Latest Developments”
We have posted the transcript for the recent Deallawyers.com webcast: “Controlling Shareholders: The Latest Developments.”
In January, I blogged about the SEC’s enforcement proceedings against four companies that were unable to get their acts together when it came to ICFR. The SEC’s action was a shot across the bow of other companies that might have thought that full disclosure of a material weakness was sufficient. The SEC’s action delivered a clear message that when you’ve got an internal controls problem, you’ve got to fix it.
But at the same time, lots of companies have ICFR issues – and many material weaknesses can’t be fixed overnight. So which companies should be concerned that SEC Enforcement might soon be knocking at their doors? This ‘Audit Analytics’ blog may help companies assess their risk of being subject to an enforcement proceeding. It reviewed data on material weakness disclosures during the period from 2007-2017, and it concludes that the 4 companies targeted by the SEC in these proceedings all involved extreme cases of non-compliance:
When it comes to poor internal controls, these companies are some of the worst offenders, as the problems were allowed to linger for years. Looking at data from 2007 and 2018, 3.4% of registrants with any ineffective ICFR report had seven ineffective management ICFR reports, comparable to Digital Turbine. This percentage decreases to 1.9% for registrants such as LifeWay and CytoDyn that had nine ineffective ICFR reports. Overall, less than 10% of registrants with any ineffective ICFR management ICFR report had seven or more ineffective reports.
As the biggest of the four registrants, Grupo Simec is noteworthy, being one of only 72 companies traded on NYSE that had ineffective independent auditor’s reports on internal controls in 2017 and one of only two companies that has had ten ineffective audited reports since 2007.
While companies may take some solace in the fact that these 4 targets were outliers, the blog cautions that other firms with multiple ineffective ICFR reports but only minimal remedial actions could also be at risk.
Buffett to GAAP: “Get Off My Lawn!”
Last week, Warren Buffett’s annual letter to Berkshire-Hathaway shareholders landed – and while it had its usual on-brand mix of folksy humor and provocative statements (e.g., deals are too pricy & federal debt doesn’t matter), the Oracle of Omaha led off with a jeremiad against GAAP’s new “mark-to-market” requirement for unrealized securities gains & losses:
Berkshire earned $4.0 billion in 2018 utilizing generally accepted accounting principles (commonly called “GAAP”). The components of that figure are $24.8 billion in operating earnings, a $3.0 billion non-cash loss from an impairment of intangible assets (arising almost entirely from our equity interest in Kraft Heinz), $2.8 billion in realized capital gains from the sale of investment securities and a $20.6 billion loss from a reduction in the amount of unrealized capital gains that existed in our investment holdings.
A new GAAP rule requires us to include that last item in earnings. As I emphasized in the 2017 annual report, neither Berkshire’s Vice Chairman, Charlie Munger, nor I believe that rule to be sensible. Rather, both of us have consistently thought that at Berkshire this mark-to-market change would produce what I described as “wild and capricious swings in our bottom line.”
If Warren sounds grumpy, well, you would be too if you lost $25 billion in a single quarter, like Berkshire did due to Q4 mark-to-market adjustments. But he should take some consolation in the fact that Berkshire’s by no means alone in dealing with the increased volatility resulting from the new standard.
The mark-to-market requirement was expected to have a big impact on earnings for many companies, and it appears to be living up to its advance billing. For example, this recent Reuters article notes that the new standard’s effect on publicly traded PE funds such as Blackstone, Carlyle & KKR has been so significant that they’ve opted to deemphasize the traditional “economic net income” metric – which reflects mark-to-market adjustments – in favor of “distributable earnings,” which represents the actual cash available for paying dividends.
Delaware Chancery: Choosing Venezuela’s President Since 2019?
The Delaware Chancery Court has long played an outsized role in shaping the destiny of some of the world’s largest businesses. Now, this Bloomberg story says that the court may be called upon to weigh-in on the fate of a nation – because it may have to determine who is Venezuela’s lawful president as part of a battle for control over Citgo. Here’s an excerpt:
The leadership crisis in Venezuela could lead to an odd legal situation in the U.S. — a Delaware judge may be asked to decide who is the legitimate president of the South American country.
The issue could arise in the U.S. because of the power struggle over Citgo Petroleum Corp., the Houston-based refiner owned by Venezuela oil giant Petroleos de Venezuela SA. Last week, Juan Guaido, the U.S.-backed head of Venezuela’s National Assembly, named new directors to Citgo and PDVSA, a critical part of his strategy to seize oil assets and oust the regime headed by autocrat Nicolas Maduro, who remains in control of the military and other key parts of the government.
Venezuela’s president is the controlling shareholder of PDVSA, and the article speculates that lawyers for the U.S.-backed Guaido may set up a Chancery Court contest centering on who is Venezuela’s president by trying to remove Maduro’s directors and replacing them with his slate.
Big institutional holders seldom have trouble getting management’s ear – but traditionally, retail investors who weren’t willing to play the gadfly game could usually count on a polite brush-off from the IR department. Now, it looks like that situation may be changing. Broc recently blogged about SAY, a New York-based tech startup that provided a platform for retail investors to vote on questions to ask Elon Musk during a recent Tesla earnings call. But SAY’s not the only entity that’s trying to help retail investors be heard on matters that concern them. Check out ‘Stake’ – which aims to pair retail investors with a small group of socially responsible investment funds that will serve as “Champions” for their issues.
Stake provides a platform for retail shareholders to identify specific “Asks” that they want addressed by the companies in which they invest. Once an ‘Ask’ gets a critical mass of support, this excerpt from Stake’s website lays out what happens next:
When an Ask reaches its support goal, one of Stake’s Champions will take that Ask directly to company management, advocating on behalf of all those that supported the Ask. Our Champions are experts at persuading companies to improve their social and environmental impact, and they are already connected to the corporate decision-makers. Stake is a tool like none before. By connecting you with a professional Champion, your voice reaches the boardroom.
Investors who supported the specific “Ask” receive progress updates on the company’s response to it. Stake’s founders are themselves climate change activists & companies have implemented a number of the Asks that Stake’s allied funds championed.
I know it’s easy to be skeptical of efforts like these – and I have my doubts about how much traction Stake’s going to be able to get. But I’m also reminded that it only took David one stone to take down Goliath, & these folks have the potential to muster a lot more firepower than that.
Tomorrow’s Webcast: “Conduct of the Annual Meeting”
Tune in tomorrow for the webcast – “Conduct of the Annual Meeting” – to hear Nu Skin Enterprises’ Greg Belliston, The Brink Company’s Lindsay Blackwood, Foot Locker’s Sheilagh Clarke, Carl Hagberg of the “Shareholder Service Optimizer” and General Motors’ Rick Hansen talk about how to best prepare for your annual shareholders meeting.
Annual Reporting: Don’t Forget to Check On Your Filer Status!
This Akin Gump blog reminds companies to check on their filing status while they’re preparing to file their Form 10-K – many more companies may qualify as “smaller reporting companies” this year due to the SEC’s recent rule changes. Here’s an excerpt:
As public companies prepare to file their annual reports on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2018, they should consider whether they qualify for smaller reporting company status under the recently amended definition of smaller reporting company, which became effective on September 10, 2018, and the related CDIs updated by Staff of the Division of Corporation Finance on November 7, 2018.
The amended SRC definition raises the threshold to allow more companies to qualify as an SRC and benefit from the election to use the scaled disclosure accommodations available to SRCs. SRCs may choose compliance with either the SRC scaled disclosure requirements or the larger company disclosure requirements on an item-by-item or “a la carte” basis for each filing as long as disclosures are provided consistently and permit investors to make period-to-period comparisons.
The blog also reminds companies thinking about taking advantage of scaled disclosure that, to the extent an SRC scaled item requirement is more rigorous than the same larger company item requirement, SRCs are required to comply with the more rigorous disclosure.
Lyft finally dropped the Form S-1 for its much anticipated IPO on Friday. The filing fundamentally changed humanity forever – or at least that’s the impression you’d get from reading Lyft’s overheated nuclear jargon-bomb of a prospectus. If you think I’m being unfair, check out this lofty description of the culture & values of a company that owes a healthy chunk of its business to ferrying around drunk people:
Our core values are Be Yourself, Uplift Others and Make it Happen. Our team members, who uphold our values and live our mission every day, are at the forefront of cultivating and spreading this culture across the drivers, riders and communities we serve. This continuous interaction across the entire Lyft community creates a virtuous cycle which further reinforces our culture and fuels our growth.
Look, I worked on a lot of IPOs back in the day, and I plead guilty to helping draft a lot of meaningless gibberish about companies doing things like “proactively leveraging synergies” in prospectus summaries with silly captions like “Our Strategic Vision” & “Our Competitive Advantage.” But this thing reads like a parody of a tech company prospectus – starting with the pink cover page & culminating in a founders’ letter accompanied by an assortment of photos & quotes from photogenic millennials whose lives have been transformed by one-click access to an unlicensed cab. Toss in the nearly $1 billion loss for the most recent year, and you’ve got truly state of the art stuff.
And maybe the biggest inside joke is that many people – including EU regulators – think ride share businesses like Lyft aren’t tech companies at all. Instead, they essentially view them as ‘gypsy cab’ apps. What’s more, in reading Lyft’s filing, you get the impression that its biggest market opportunity lies in the rapidly growing demographic of people who are too poor to buy their own cars. How do you spin that positively? You do it like this:
We believe that the world is at the beginning of a shift away from car ownership to Transportation-as-a-Service, or TaaS. Lyft is at the forefront of this massive societal change. Our ridesharing marketplace connects drivers with riders and we estimate it is available to over 95% of the U.S. population, as well as in select cities in Canada. In 2018, almost half of our riders reported that they use their cars less because of Lyft, and 22% reported that owning a car has become less important. As this evolution continues, we believe there is a massive opportunity for us to improve the lives of our riders by connecting them to more affordable and convenient transportation options
Of course, since the Lyft folks are working 24/7 to bring humanity into “the broad, sunlit uplands” of TaaS (not to be confused with TASS), management can’t afford to be distracted by the demands of public shareholders. Perhaps that’s why Lyft not only has a dual class capital structure, but also a staggered board, blank check preferred, and a prohibition on shareholder written consent actions, just to name some of its antitakeover protections. The CII has already weighed-in with the customary objections.
Personally, I couldn’t care less if Lyft wants to offer the public low vote stock – if you don’t like it, don’t buy it. But I’m looking forward to the post-closing pearl clutching about these provisions by the governance side of the house of the same institutions whose portfolio managers would likely stampede over their own children to get shares allocated to them in the deal.
If you’re looking for more of a deep dive into Lyft’s proposed IPO, check out this MarketWatch.com article.
Dual Class Companies: Are “Coattails” the Answer?
Lyft’s just the latest high profile IPO to include a dual class capital structure. There’s been a lot of sound & fury about public companies with these structures – and we’ve blogged about quite a bit of it. But this recent study claims that our neighbors to the north are the source of an idea for moving forward on this issue. Here’s the abstract:
The debate over whether dual class of shares increases or decreases share value, should be prohibited or not, should be subjected to mandatory sunset provisions, and so on has been heating up over the last few years. This paper reviews the pros and cons of dual class of shares in light of more recent empirical results of (mostly) American studies. The paper surveys the evolution of dual-class companies in the Canadian context and makes a number of recommendations to enhance the usefulness of this type of capital structure and protect the rights of minority shareholders.
The paper comes out against time-based sunset clauses but supports the obligation for dual-class companies to adopt a “coattail” provision, as is the case in Canada, which provision ensures that all shareholders will have to be offered the same price and conditions should the controlling shareholder decide to sell its controlling stake in the company. The paper also recommends that separate tallies of vote results be made public for each class of shares and that a third of board members be elected by shareholders with “inferior” voting rights.
Now, I hate to disabuse North America’s designated driver of its notion that “coattails” are a Canadian invention, but the there’s lots of precedent for this south of the border as well – and it goes back decades. You need look no further than my all-time favorite deal for evidence of this.
In the Cleveland Indians’ 1998 initial public offering, the company’s charter included a provision that generally prohibited the transfer of the high-vote shares held by then-owner Dick Jacobs other than as part of a transaction in which the low vote shares received the same consideration as the high-vote shares. And you can take my word for it – we weren’t innovators. In fact, we shamelessly stole that language from charter documents filed in several precedent transactions.
The SEC’s limited track record in litigation involving whether tokens are securities has been pretty good – but there was one recent blemish. In December, a California federal court denied the SEC’s motion for a preliminary injunction against Blockvest’s proposed token offering, holding that the agency had not provided enough information to deem the token a security. Here’s an excerpt from John Reed Stark’s blog describing the court’s decision:
On February 14, 2019, in a stunning and extraordinary reversal from his November decision, Judge Curiel sent shockwaves through the ICO industry. Specifically, Judge Curiel granted the SEC’s bid for a preliminary injunction against Blockvest after the SEC asked him to reconsider, based upon, “a [now] prima facie showing of Blockvest’s past securities violation and newly developed evidence which supported the conclusion that there is a reasonable likelihood of future violations.”
I love that we have a lot of avid readers in our community. Here’s a “Best Books of 2018″ list from Bob Lamm. And when it comes to reading goals, Nina Flax of Mayer Brown has it covered with her latest “list” installment (here’s the last one):
Now that we’re well into the new year, I’m sure we are all making progress on our resolutions. Some of my lofty ideas include watching less mind-numbing TV, increasing my practice of “single-tasking”, actually exercising ever, eating more healthy food, etc. One also includes reading more books for pleasure.
This is actually a hard one for me, because it seems so accomplishable and yet… On the one hand, I love to read books. On the other hand, I read so much for work my eyes are tired. In between the two ends of my reading spectrum thoughts, if I find a book I like, I read and read and read – and will stay awake sometimes all night (literally), which leads to more tired eyes, not wanting to read… I completely appreciate this is a silly problem. And so, I am trying to break through the cycle and focus on reading in a more mindful way, by both picking up AND putting down a book more often. Plus, if I accomplish this goal, by sheer lack of time I will also likely accomplish my watching less mind-numbing TV goal. Yay for my one stone!
So, for my first list of the year, I have created simply a list of non-work books I would like to read in 2019.
Bad Blood
The Girl Who Smiled Beads: A Story of War and What Comes After
Here’s Looking at Euclid: From Counting Ants to Games of Chance – An Awe-Inspiring Journey Through the World of Numbers
Tubes: A Journey to the Center of the Internet
Ghost Fleet: A Novel of the Next World War
On Being Blue: A Philosophical Inquiry
What a Fish Knows: The Inner Lives of Our Underwater Cousins
Mapping the Heavens: The Radical Scientific Ideas That Reveal the Cosmos
The Path Between the Seas: The Creation of the Panama Canal, 1870-1914
Tigana
The Sword of Shannara (which will inevitably lead to the other two)
The Queen’s Poisoner (which will inevitably lead to the other five, but not the prequels)
I also have on my list re-reading a few books – Siddhartha, Peony and Animal Farm. I must admit that I purposely wrote this so that I will feel like you all are holding me accountable and I may actually accomplish this goal! To leave you all with a quote from someone I knew as a child, “Each year you should take a long walk, make a new friend and read a good book.” Here’s to 2019 being great.
Audits: Radical Change on the Horizon?
This article from a Harvard Law School Fellow analogizes problems with the “independent auditor” framework to climate change – there are issues that may well bring down the entire system, but we’re lacking a short-term incentive to fix them. Here’s what he identifies as destabilizing trends that audit committees need to watch:
1. Big 4 Breakup – The UK is continuing to discuss a breakup in light of the Enron-like failure of Carillion – and audit chairs may want to watch these developments carefully when they consider whether to retain or replace current auditors. Not surprisingly, auditors are opposed to spinning off non-audit services – but say they’re open to a market share cap. This blog argues that the break-up proposals are impractical.
2. Obsolete Measures – More stakeholders are asking whether boards in general, and audit committees in particular, are accessories to a process that is growing obsolete by looking at wrong or incomplete indicators – e.g. ignoring the value of intangible assets and metrics that measure long-term performance
3. Changes to Reporting – As enhanced audit reports (CAMs) and integrated reporting spread, board audit committees may find value in monitoring how pace-setting companies handle the new disclosure techniques. They may even urge their companies and auditors to run tests to see how they might be adapted. Advantages could come in the form of higher confidence among investors, with the prospect of a lower cost of capital, and better internal management of multiplying risks that fall outside the bounds of conventional accounting standards. See this 5-minute CAQ video on how audit chairs are approaching CAM disclosures…
Our March Eminders is Posted!
We have posted the March issue of our complimentary monthly email newsletter. Sign up today to receive it by simply inputting your email address!
Note from Broc: One last casualty of the shutdown: PLI’s “SEC Spleaks” got moved to April from its traditional February date because they were afraid of a possible second shutdown and they would have no speakers. The ASECA dinner was moved too.
In Morrow Sodali’s latest institutional investor survey, 85% of respondents said that climate change was their most important engagement topic (up 31% from last year) – although when it comes to disclosure, they’re more focused on getting human capital details. Maybe this result isn’t too surprising given that the 46 global survey participants are all signatories to the UN’s Principles for Responsible Investment – but their combined $33 trillion of assets under management is nothing to sneeze at (and yes, the “Big 4” US institutional investors – BlackRock, Vanguard, State Street & Fidelity – are all PRI signatories).
When it comes to voting, the survey says that governance policies & practices are by far the most important factor. Also, some investors are more willing these days to nuance their voting decisions based on information gained in engagements, but some continue to rigidly adhere to stated policies. So you just have to know who you’re dealing with. And be aware that the cost to nuanced decision-making is a greater demand for transparency and director involvement in engagements (87% said that director involvement helps their evaluation of a company’s culture, purpose & reputational risks). Here’s a few other hot topics that will continue to impact board meetings, engagements and disclosure (also see this “Harvard Law” blog):
– Board composition & competence – skills & qualifications are the most important factor in evaluating directors, with diversity lagging behind
– Executive pay – pay-for-performance, rigor of performance targets and the inclusion of long-term performance targets are all important, and investors are beginning to engage collectively on this topic
– Human capital management and corporate culture – including succession planning to prepare for the risk of abrupt executive departures that could result from a scandal
Audit Committees: Tech’s Impact on Financial Reporting
Tech disruption is coming to an audit near you. Whether it’s turning to tech firms for the “data gathering” phase of the audit, or ensuring that automated financial record-keeping and reporting is accurate – which are both increasingly common according to this WSJ article – audit committees need to oversee the related financial reporting risks. Fortunately, the “Center for Audit Quality” has released a tool for audit committees that explains the impact of emerging technologies on the oversight framework. In addition to identifying other helpful resources, the CAQ’s tool contains suggested questions for a number of key tasks.
Large-Cap Directors: Bad News for Small-Caps?
If the director recruitment industry is any indication, experienced large-cap directors are in high demand. And for good reason – they’ve likely had first-hand involvement with a variety of board, management & shareholder situations. But since small-caps tend to have more retail shareholders, fewer resources and different types of business issues, that large company experience could be a double-edged sword.
In this blog, Adam Epstein covers six potential “negatives” – and makes it clear that impressive credentials don’t negate the need to find the right fit and remain attuned to director & board performance. Here’s an excerpt:
– Form over substance: If a large-cap company is akin to an aircraft carrier, many small-caps are more like speedboats. The former takes dozens of people and extended periods of time to change speed or course, while the latter can take one or two people and happen in a matter of seconds. When you try and operate a speedboat the same way as an aircraft carrier, it’s pretty easy to hit other stuff… or sink. Every small-cap investor has a story about a portfolio company that sunk – or came needlessly close to it – because a newly-appointed board member from the large-cap world unconsciously redirected the board’s attention away from key existential threats to never-ending boardroom box-checking.
– Misplaced emphasis on proxy advisors: Large-cap companies are typically more than 80 percent owned by large institutional investors. Those investors, in turn, can place a high degree of emphasis upon third-party advisors that educate institutional investors how they should consider voting on various annual proxy proposals. These so-called proxy advisors (e.g., ISS, Glass Lewis, etc.), can be highly impactful on board appointments and director compensation, among other things, and large-cap board members can get transfixed upon remaining within the good graces of ISS, et al. Regrettably, many large-cap emigres assume that their small-cap colleagues should be equally concerned about proxy advisors, despite the fact that many small-caps are majority owned and traded by retail (i.e., nonprofessional) investors who don’t care one iota about what any proxy advisor says… about anything. The result isn’t pretty, because when small-cap boards lose primary focus on strategy, innovation, culture, and capital formation, and instead become enamored with proxy advisors, bad things tend to happen.
– Corporate finance disasters: Large-cap companies rarely need to access the equity capital markets, and when they do it’s almost always from a position of strength and leverage – strong balance sheets and extremely liquid stocks. On the other hand, many small-caps are serial capital raisers, and often transact financings from positions of weakness and vulnerability – everyone knows they are running out of money and their stock is illiquid. Here’s the rub: when I was an institutional investor, many of our portfolio companies either waited too long to raise “must have” capital, or they turned down “market terms” all because a large-cap board member noisily applied big company corporate finance sensibilities to a marketplace they didn’t understand – at all. This problem is exacerbated by the fact that “other” board members are often overly deferential to the new board member who operated, governed or advised famous companies. Just because someone works on an Indy 500 pit crew, doesn’t mean they are the best person to change the brakes on your Lexus.
Here are results from our recent survey on board fees for CEO searches (the sample size was small, FYI):
1. During our most recent CEO search, we paid a search-related fee to the directors who led the search:
– Yes – 7%
– No – 57%
– We haven’t conducted a CEO search – 36%
2. For those paid the search-related fee, the total amount paid to each director was:
– $25,000 or more – 0%
– $15,000-$25,000 – 50%
– $5,000-$15,000 – 0%
– Less than $5,000 – 50%
3. For those paid the search-related fee, the fee was structured as:
– Per-meeting & per-interview fee – 0%
– Periodic additional retainer – 0%
– Additional “committee” fee – 100%
4. For those paid the search-related fee, the fee was based on:
– Compensation consultant survey & recommendation – 50%
– Informal estimate of extra time commitment – 50%
Please take a moment to participate anonymously in these surveys:
This 28-page survey from Allen & Overy and Willis Towers Watson summarizes the most common D&O concerns – not too surprising that cyber threats now top the list, but less expected is the fact that health & safety is now in the top five – as well as the coverage issues that are most important to directors and officers. These are their top policy priorities:
1. D&O policy and/or company indemnification is able to respond to claims in all jurisdictions
2. How claims against D&Os will be controlled and settled
3. Broad definition of who is insured
4. Clear and easy-to-follow policy terms
5. Whether there is cover for the cost of advice at the early stages of an investigation
Cyber Insurance: Standalone Policies Gain Steam
This PartnerRe/Advisen survey of cyber insurance trends reports that for the last couple years, companies have been shifting from endorsements to standalone policies – in order to get higher dedicated limits and expanded business interruption coverage. In fact, as also noted in this Allianz survey, “BI” coverage was the most sought-after type of protection – displacing data breach from its long-standing spot at the top of cyber-protection priority lists. It’s also helpful to know that many more small- and mid-sized companies are hopping on the cyber insurance bandwagon.
Here we go again. Elon Musk can’t quit Twitter – which means the SEC can’t quit Elon. It was only last October that the Tesla CEO settled with the SEC on allegations of securities fraud, after a series of surprising “going private” tweets. Part of the settlement required Musk to get internal pre-approval of tweets that could contain material info about the company. But, as Broc and others predicted, it was a pretty tall order to think a mere mortal could stand between Elon and his social media.
Last week, Elon tweeted some production stats without getting that internal pre-approval. The SEC responded yesterday with this motion – asking the federal district court in Manhattan to hold Musk in contempt for violating the court-approved settlement. The motion is worth reading – it includes Tesla’s “Senior Executives Communications Policy” as well as a look into how the policy was being applied, and an excerpt from Musk’s December interview with “60 Minutes” Lesley Stahl in which Musk essentially thumbed his nose at the SEC.
It is not surprising that the SEC felt compelled to ask for Musk to be found in contempt, said Charles Elson of the University of Delaware. “They have to react. From an agency standpoint, if you show outright contempt towards the agency and they do nothing, how are they ever going to enforce the law?,” he said.
The SEC could ask the judge to increase the $20 million fine Musk has already paid or move to punish the company’s board if they don’t rein him in, said Adam Epstein, a corporate-governance advisor. But SEC is not likely to ask that Musk be removed from the company altogether, as it initially did last year, he said. “He has a pattern and practice of tweeting in an inflammatory fashion for years,” Epstein said. “He probably knows that the government is not going from Defcon 5 to Defcon 1 to remove him from the company, because that would be the worst possible outcome for investors. He’s clearly created more value than he’s hurt shareholders by his tweeting.”
As this ‘Journal of Accountancy’ article explains, Corp Fin clarified in 2016 that non-GAAP measures that substitute individually-tailored recognition & measurement methods for those of GAAP could violate Rule 100(b) of Regulation G (see CDI 100.04). Head scratching ensued – even at the Big 4 – because nobody knew the meaning of “individually tailored.” But the article reports that at the most recent AICPA conference, Patrick Gilmore (a Corp Fin Deputy Chief Accountant) provided these questions to guide the assessment:
– Does the adjustment shift GAAP from an accrual basis of accounting to a cash or modified basis of accounting? For example, Gilmore said using cash receipts or billings as a proxy for revenue for a subscription-based business that recognizes revenue over time would provide a profitability measure that would be determined on a mixed basis of accounting and would be an individually tailored accounting principle.
– Does the adjustment add in transactions that are also reportable in the company’s financial statements? As an example, Gilmore said adjusting from the guidance for determining whether a company is a principal or an agent could result in presenting transactions that don’t qualify as your own under GAAP and may be an individually tailored accounting principle.
– Does the adjustment reflect parts, but not all, of an accounting concept? For example, Gilmore said adjusting income tax effects for cash taxes but not for temporary or permanent differences may be an individually tailored accounting principle.
– Does the adjustment render the measure inconsistent with the economics of a transaction or an agreement? As an example, Gilmore cited some companies that earn revenue from operating leases, but also from sales-type leases or financing leases. “They will adjust revenue for the sales-type or financing leases as if they were operating leases, thus ignoring some of the economics of the lease agreements that they have,” he said.
Would Your Investors Support An Activist?
This recent “Trust Barometer” from the Edelman communications firm has lots of intel about what’s driving investment decisions – based on responses from 500 chief investment officers, PMs and buy-side analysts. This CFO.com article recaps the declining level of trust in business and suggests that companies with higher trust levels, gained via accurate & transparent reporting, experience steadier (and better) share prices.
But what most caught my eye were the investors’ views on activism – especially since this WSJ article reports that there were a record number of activist campaigns last year, and Broc recently blogged that mutual funds are increasingly willing to employ activist tactics:
– 87% of investors are more open to taking an activists approach to investing
– 92% will support a “reputable” activist if they believe change is necessary at the company
– 87% think companies are unprepared for activist campaigns
