![](/cdn/assets/images/search/clock.png)
We could not find any results for:
Make sure your spelling is correct or try broadening your search.
Name | Symbol | Market | Type |
---|---|---|---|
First Trust Merger Arbitrage ETF | AMEX:MARB | AMEX | Exchange Traded Fund |
Price Change | % Change | Price | High Price | Low Price | Open Price | Traded | Last Trade | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
0.0669 | 0.34% | 19.8519 | 20.01 | 19.82 | 19.86 | 3,008 | 21:15:00 |
File Pursuant to
497(c)
Registration Nos. 333-176976 and 811-22245
First Trust
Exchange-Traded Fund III |
Ticker Symbol: | HSMV |
Exchange: | NYSE Arca |
Maximum Sales Charge (Load) Imposed on Purchases (as a percentage of offering price) | None |
Management Fees | 0.80% |
Distribution and Service (12b-1) Fees | 0.00% |
Other Expenses(1) | 0.00% |
Total Annual Fund Operating Expenses | 0.80% |
(1) | “Other Expenses” is an estimate based on the expenses the Fund expects to incur for the current fiscal year. |
1 Year | 3 Years |
$82 | $255 |
• | Michael Dickson, PhD, Portfolio Manager of Horizon |
• | Scott Ladner, Portfolio Manager of Horizon |
• | Steven Clark, PhD, Portfolio Manager of Horizon |
• | Dr. Dickson serves as Director of Structured Financial Solutions for Horizon, which he joined in March 2015. He focuses on new product development and innovation, and supports Horizon’s investment process through the development of quantitative methods and strategies. Dr. Dickson received his Ph.D. in Finance from UNC Charlotte, specializing in the areas of return predictability, portfolio optimization and factor models. He received his BS in Chemistry from Winthrop University and his MS in Economics from UNC Charlotte. |
• | Mr. Ladner serves as Head of Risk for Horizon, where he provides trading, risk management and quantitative expertise to several of the firm’s strategies, with a particular emphasis on building Horizon’s Risk Management suite of products, as well as its capabilities within the alternative and absolute return investment space. Prior to Horizon, Mr. Ladner helped launch an equity index volatility and dispersion trading unit at PEΔK6 Investments in Chicago, a proprietary listed option trading firm. Previously at First Union/Wachovia, Mr. Ladner founded and ran the equity swap and forwards portfolio while also managing equity option and volatility portfolios. He also co-founded and managed the Risk Arbitrage and Special Situations portfolio. Mr. Ladner then managed the notional swaption and cap/floor portion of the bank’s interest rate derivatives portfolio. Mr. Ladner received his BA in Economics and Russian Language & Literature from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. |
• | Dr. Clark serves as Managing Director of Structured Financial Solutions for Horizon. He is also an Associate Professor of Finance at UNC Charlotte, where he conducts research in the areas of mathematical finance, derivative securities, asset pricing, and financial econometrics. His work at Horizon focuses on volatility forecasting models, dynamic factor models, and other quantitative methods. He has a Ph.D. in Mathematical Sciences (with a concentration in applied probability and stochastic modeling) and a Ph.D. in Applied Economics (with a concentration in financial economics), both from Clemson University. |
First Trust
Exchange-Traded Fund III |
FUND NAME | TICKER SYMBOL | EXCHANGE | ||
First Trust Horizon Managed Volatility Small/Mid ETF | HSMV | NYSE Arca |
(1) | The Fund may not issue senior securities, except as permitted under the 1940 Act. |
(2) | The Fund may not borrow money, except as permitted under the 1940 Act. |
(3) | The Fund will not underwrite the securities of other issuers except to the extent the Fund may be considered an underwriter under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "1933 Act"), in connection with the purchase and sale of portfolio securities. |
(4) | The Fund will not purchase or sell real estate or interests therein, unless acquired as a result of ownership of securities or other instruments (but this shall not prohibit the Fund from purchasing or selling securities or other instruments backed by real estate or of issuers engaged in real estate activities). |
(5) | The Fund may not make loans to other persons, except through (i) the purchase of debt securities permissible under the Fund's investment policies; (ii) repurchase agreements; or (iii) the lending of portfolio securities, provided that no such loan of portfolio securities may be made by the Fund if, as a result, the aggregate of such loans would exceed 33⅓% of the value of the Fund's total assets. |
(6) | The Fund may not purchase or sell physical commodities unless acquired as a result of ownership of securities or other instruments (but this shall not prevent the Fund from purchasing or selling options, futures contracts, forward contracts or other derivative instruments, or from investing in securities or other instruments backed by physical commodities). |
(7) | The Fund may not invest more than 25% of its assets in securities of issuers in any one industry or group of industries. This restriction does not apply to obligations issued or guaranteed by the U.S. government, its agencies or instrumentalities, or securities of other investment companies. |
(1) | The Fund may invest in U.S. government securities, including bills, notes and bonds differing as to maturity and rates of interest, which are either issued or guaranteed by the U.S. Treasury or by U.S. government agencies or instrumentalities. U.S. government securities include securities that are issued or guaranteed by the U.S. Treasury, by various agencies of the U.S. government, or by various instrumentalities that have been established or sponsored by the U.S. government. U.S. Treasury securities are backed by the “full faith and credit” of the United States. Securities issued or guaranteed by federal agencies and U.S. government-sponsored instrumentalities may or may not be backed by the full faith and credit of the United States. Some of the U.S. government agencies that issue or guarantee securities include the Export-Import Bank of the United States, the Farmers Home Administration, the Federal Housing Administration, the Maritime Administration, the Small Business Administration and The Tennessee Valley Authority. An instrumentality of the U.S. government is a government agency organized under federal charter with government supervision. Instrumentalities issuing or guaranteeing securities include, among others, the Federal Home Loan Banks, the Federal Land Banks, the Central Bank for Cooperatives, Federal Intermediate Credit Banks and the Federal National Mortgage Association (“Fannie Mae”). In the case of those U.S. government securities not backed by the full faith and credit of the United States, the investor must look principally to the agency or instrumentality issuing or guaranteeing the security for ultimate repayment and may not be able to assert a claim against the United States itself in the event that the agency or instrumentality does not meet its commitment. The U.S. government, its agencies and instrumentalities do not guarantee the market value of their securities; consequently, the value of such securities may fluctuate. In addition, the Fund may invest in sovereign debt obligations of non‑U.S. countries. A sovereign debtor’s willingness or ability to repay principal and interest in a timely manner may be affected by a number of factors, including its cash flow situation, the extent of its non‑U.S. reserves, the availability of sufficient non‑U.S. exchange on the date a payment is due, the relative size of the debt service burden to the economy as a whole, the sovereign debtor’s policy toward principal international lenders and the political constraints to which it may be subject. |
(2) | The Fund may invest in certificates of deposit issued against funds deposited in a bank or savings and loan association. Such certificates are for a definite period of time, earn a specified rate of return and are normally negotiable. If such certificates of deposit are non-negotiable, they will be considered illiquid securities and be subject to the Fund's 15% restriction on investments in illiquid securities. Pursuant to the certificate of deposit, the issuer agrees to pay the amount deposited plus interest to the bearer of the certificate on the date specified thereon. Under current FDIC regulations, the maximum insurance payable as to any one certificate of deposit is $250,000; therefore, certificates of deposit purchased by the Fund may not be fully insured. The Fund may only invest in certificates of deposit issued by U.S. banks with at least $1 billion in assets. |
(3) | The Fund may invest in bankers’ acceptances, which are short-term credit instruments used to finance commercial transactions. Generally, an acceptance is a time draft drawn on a bank by an exporter or an importer to obtain a stated amount of funds to pay for specific merchandise. The draft is then “accepted” by a bank that, in effect, unconditionally guarantees to pay the face value of the instrument on its maturity date. The acceptance may then be held by the accepting bank as an asset or it may be sold in the secondary market at the going rate of interest for a specific maturity. |
(4) | The Fund may invest in repurchase agreements, which involve purchases of debt securities with counterparties that are deemed by the Advisor to present acceptable credit risks. In such an action, at the time the Fund purchases the security, it simultaneously agrees to resell and redeliver the security to the seller, who also simultaneously agrees to buy back the security at a fixed price and time. This assures a predetermined yield for the Fund during its holding period since the resale price is always greater than the purchase price and reflects an agreed-upon market rate. Such actions afford an opportunity for the Fund to invest temporarily available cash. The Fund may enter into repurchase agreements only with respect to obligations of the U.S. government, its agencies or instrumentalities, certificates of deposit or bankers’ acceptances in which the Fund may invest. Repurchase agreements may be considered loans to the seller, collateralized by the underlying securities. The risk to the Fund is limited to the ability of the seller to pay the agreed-upon sum on the repurchase date; in the event of |
default, the repurchase agreement provides that the Fund is entitled to sell the underlying collateral. If the value of the collateral declines after the agreement is entered into, however, and if the seller defaults under a repurchase agreement when the value of the underlying collateral is less than the repurchase price, the Fund could incur a loss of both principal and interest. The portfolio managers monitor the value of the collateral at the time the action is entered into and at all times during the term of the repurchase agreement. The portfolio managers do so in an effort to determine that the value of the collateral always equals or exceeds the agreed-upon repurchase price to be paid to the Fund. If the seller were to be subject to a federal bankruptcy proceeding, the ability of the Fund to liquidate the collateral could be delayed or impaired because of certain provisions of the bankruptcy laws. | |
(5) | The Fund may invest in bank time deposits, which are monies kept on deposit with banks or savings and loan associations for a stated period of time at a fixed rate of interest. There may be penalties for the early withdrawal of such time deposits, in which case the yields of these investments will be reduced. |
(6) | The Fund may invest in commercial paper, which are short-term unsecured promissory notes, including variable rate master demand notes issued by corporations to finance their current operations. Master demand notes are direct lending arrangements between the Fund and a corporation. There is no secondary market for the notes. However, they are redeemable by the Fund at any time. The Fund's portfolio managers will consider the financial condition of the corporation (e.g., earning power, cash flow and other liquidity ratios) and will continuously monitor the corporation’s ability to meet all of its financial obligations, because the Fund's liquidity might be impaired if the corporation were unable to pay principal and interest on demand. The Fund may invest in commercial paper only if it has received the highest rating from at least one nationally recognized statistical rating organization or, if unrated, judged by First Trust to be of comparable quality. |
(7) | The Fund may invest in shares of money market funds, as consistent with its investment objective and policies. Shares of money market funds are subject to management fees and other expenses of those funds. Therefore, investments in money market funds will cause the Fund to bear proportionately the costs incurred by the money market funds’ operations. At the same time, the Fund will continue to pay its own management fees and expenses with respect to all of its assets, including any portion invested in the shares of other investment companies. It is possible for the Fund to lose money by investing in money market funds. |
(1) | Market Risk. Market risk is the risk that the value of the underlying assets may go up or down. Adverse movements in the value of an underlying asset can expose the Fund to losses. Derivative instruments may include elements of leverage and, accordingly, fluctuations in the value of the derivative instrument in relation to the underlying asset may be magnified. The successful use of derivative instruments depends upon a variety of factors, particularly the portfolio managers’ ability to predict movements of the securities, currencies and commodities markets, which may require different skills than predicting changes in the prices of individual securities. There can be no assurance that any particular strategy adopted will succeed. A decision to engage in a derivative transaction will reflect the portfolio managers’ judgment that the derivative transaction will provide value to the Fund and its shareholders and is consistent with the Fund's objective, investment limitations and operating policies. In making such a judgment, the portfolio managers will analyze the benefits and risks of the derivative transactions and weigh them in the context of the Fund's overall investments and investment objective. |
(2) | Credit Risk/Counterparty Risk. Credit risk is the risk that a loss may be sustained as a result of the failure of a counterparty to comply with the terms of a derivative instrument. The counterparty risk for exchange-traded derivatives is generally less than for privately negotiated or over-the-counter (“OTC”) derivatives, since generally a clearing agency, which is the issuer or counterparty to each exchange-traded instrument, provides a guarantee of performance. For privately negotiated instruments, there is no similar clearing agency guarantee. In all transactions, the Fund will bear the risk that the counterparty will default, and this could result in a loss of the expected benefit of the derivative transactions and possibly other losses to the the Fund. Such counterparty risk is accentuated in the case of contracts with longer maturities where there is a greater risk that a specific event may prevent or delay settlement, or where the Fund has concentrated its transactions with a single or small group of counterparties. The Fund is not restricted from dealing with any particular counterparty or |
from concentrating any or all of its transactions with one counterparty. The Fund will enter into transactions in derivative instruments only with counterparties that First Trust reasonably believes are capable of performing under the contract. | |
(3) | Correlation Risk. Correlation risk is the risk that there might be an imperfect correlation, or even no correlation, between price movements of a derivative instrument and price movements of investments being hedged. When a derivative transaction is used to completely hedge another position, changes in the market value of the combined position (the derivative instrument plus the position being hedged) result from an imperfect correlation between the price movements of the two instruments. With a perfect hedge, the value of the combined position remains unchanged with any change in the price of the underlying asset. With an imperfect hedge, the value of the derivative instrument and its hedge are not perfectly correlated. For example, if the value of a derivative instrument used in a short hedge (such as writing a call option, buying a put option or selling a futures contract) increased by less than the decline in value of the hedged investments, the hedge would not be perfectly correlated. This might occur due to factors unrelated to the value of the investments being hedged, such as speculative or other pressures on the markets in which these instruments are traded. In addition, the Fund’s success in using hedging instruments is subject to the ability of the portfolio managers to correctly predict changes in relationships of such hedge instruments to the Fund’s portfolio holdings, and there can be no assurance that the judgment of the portfolio managers in this respect will be accurate. An imperfect correlation may prevent the Fund from achieving the intended hedge or expose the Fund to a risk of loss. |
(4) | Liquidity Risk. Liquidity risk is the risk that a derivative instrument cannot be sold, closed out or replaced quickly at or very close to its fundamental value. Generally, exchange contracts are very liquid because the exchange clearinghouse is the counterparty of every contract. OTC transactions are less liquid than exchange-traded derivatives since they often can only be closed out with the other party to the transaction. The Fund might be required by applicable regulatory requirements to maintain assets as “cover,” maintain segregated accounts and/or make margin payments when taking positions in derivative instruments involving obligations to third parties (i.e., instruments other than purchase options). If the Funds are unable to close out its positions in such instruments, it might be required to continue to maintain such assets or accounts or make such payments until the position expires, matures or is closed out. These requirements might impair the Fund's ability to sell a security or make an investment at a time when it would otherwise be favorable to do so, or require that the Fund sell a portfolio security at a disadvantageous time. The Fund's ability to sell or close out a position in an instrument prior to expiration or maturity depends upon the existence of a liquid secondary market or, in the absence of such a market, the ability and willingness of the counterparty to enter into a transaction closing out the position. Due to liquidity risk, there is no assurance that any derivatives position can be sold or closed out at a time and price that is favorable to the Fund. |
(5) | Legal Risk. Legal risk is the risk of loss caused by the unenforceability of a party’s obligations under the derivative. While a party seeking price certainty agrees to surrender the potential upside in exchange for downside protection, the party taking the risk is looking for a positive payoff. Despite this voluntary assumption of risk, a counterparty that has lost money in a derivative transaction may try to avoid payment by exploiting various legal uncertainties about certain derivative products. |
(6) | Volatility. The prices of many derivative instruments are highly volatile. Price movements of such instruments may be influenced by, among other things, interest rates, changing supply and demand relationships, trade, fiscal, monetary and exchange control programs and policies of governments, and national and international political and economic events and policies. The value of such instruments also may depend upon the price of the securities or currencies underlying them. |
(7) | Systemic or “Interconnection” Risk. Systemic or “interconnection” risk is the risk that a disruption in the financial markets will cause difficulties for all market participants. In other words, a disruption in one market will spill over into other markets, perhaps creating a chain reaction. Much of the OTC derivatives market takes place among the OTC dealers themselves, thus creating a large interconnected web of financial obligations. This interconnectedness raises the possibility that a default by one large dealer could create losses for other dealers and destabilize the entire market for OTC derivative instruments. |
Name and
Year of Birth |
Position
and Offices with Trust |
Term of
Office and Year First Elected or Appointed |
Principal Occupations
During Past 5 Years |
Number of
Portfolios in the First Trust Fund Complex Overseen by Trustee |
Other
Trusteeships or Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years |
TRUSTEE WHO IS AN INTERESTED PERSON OF THE TRUST | |||||
James A. Bowen (1)
1955 |
Chairman of the Board and Trustee |
• Indefinite term
• Since inception |
Chief Executive Officer, First Trust Advisors L.P. and First Trust Portfolios L.P.; Chairman of the Board of Directors, BondWave LLC (Software Development Company) and Stonebridge Advisors LLC (Investment Advisor) | 173 Portfolios | None |
INDEPENDENT TRUSTEES | |||||
Richard E. Erickson
1951 |
Trustee |
• Indefinite term
• Since inception |
Physician; Officer, Wheaton Orthopedics; Limited Partner, Gundersen Real Estate Limited Partnership (June 1992 to December 2016); Member, Sportsmed LLC (April 2007 to November 2015) | 173 Portfolios | None |
Thomas R. Kadlec
1957 |
Trustee |
• Indefinite term
• Since inception |
President, ADM Investor Services, Inc. (Futures Commission Merchant) | 173 Portfolios | Director of ADM Investor Services, Inc., ADM Investor Services International, Futures Industry Association, and National Futures Association |
Robert F. Keith
1956 |
Trustee |
• Indefinite term
• Since inception |
President, Hibs Enterprises (Financial and Management Consulting) | 173 Portfolios | Director of Trust Company of Illinois |
Niel B. Nielson
1954 |
Trustee |
• Indefinite term
• Since inception |
Senior Advisor (August 2018 to present), Managing Director and Chief Operating Officer (January 2015 to August 2018), Pelita Harapan Educational Foundation (Educational Products and Services); President and Chief Executive Officer (June 2012 to September 2014), Servant Interactive LLC (Educational Products and Services); President and Chief Executive Officer (June 2012 to September 2014), Dew Learning LLC (Educational Products and Services) | 173 Portfolios |
None |
Name and
Year of Birth |
Position and
Offices with Trust |
Term of Office and
Length of Service |
Principal Occupations
During Past 5 Years |
OFFICERS OF THE TRUST | |||
James M. Dykas
1966 |
President and Chief Executive Officer |
• Indefinite term
• Since January 2016 |
Managing Director and Chief Financial Officer (January 2016 to present), Controller (January 2011 to January 2016), Senior Vice President (April 2007 to January 2016), First Trust Advisors L.P. and First Trust Portfolios L.P.; Chief Financial Officer (January 2016 to present), BondWave LLC (Software Development Company) and Stonebridge Advisors LLC (Investment Advisor) |
W. Scott Jardine
1960 |
Secretary and Chief Legal Officer |
• Indefinite term
• Since inception |
General Counsel, First Trust Advisors L.P. and First Trust Portfolios L.P.; Secretary and General Counsel, BondWave LLC; and Secretary, Stonebridge Advisors LLC |
Daniel J. Lindquist
1970 |
Vice President |
• Indefinite term
• Since inception |
Managing Director, First Trust Advisors L.P. and First Trust Portfolios L.P. |
Kristi A. Maher
1966 |
Chief Compliance Officer and Assistant Secretary |
• Indefinite term
• Since inception |
Deputy General Counsel, First Trust Advisors L.P. and First Trust Portfolios L.P. |
Donald P. Swade
1972 |
Treasurer, Chief Financial Officer and Chief Accounting Officer |
• Indefinite term
• Since January 2016 |
Senior Vice President (July 2016 to Present), Vice President (April 2012 to July 2016), First Trust Advisors L.P. and First Trust Portfolios L.P. |
Roger F. Testin
1966 |
Vice President |
• Indefinite term
• Since inception |
Senior Vice President, First Trust Advisors L.P. and First Trust Portfolios L.P. |
Name and
Year of Birth |
Position and
Offices with Trust |
Term of Office and
Length of Service |
Principal Occupations
During Past 5 Years |
Stan Ueland
1970 |
Vice President |
• Indefinite term
• Since inception |
Senior Vice President, First Trust Advisors L.P. and First Trust Portfolios L.P. |
(1) | Mr. Bowen is deemed an “interested person” of the Trust due to his position as Chief Executive Officer of First Trust, investment advisor of the Fund. |
Name of Trustee |
Estimated Compensation
from the Fund (1) |
Total Compensation from
the First Trust Fund Complex (2) |
Richard E. Erickson | $4,004 | $458,125 |
Thomas R. Kadlec | $4,004 | $451,450 |
Robert F. Keith | $3,993 | $454,098 |
Niel B. Nielson | $4,015 | $440,930 |
(1) | The estimated compensation to be paid by the Fund to the Independent Trustees for one fiscal year for services to the Fund. |
(2) | The total compensation paid to the Independent Trustees for the calendar year ended December 31, 2019 for services to the 171 portfolios, which consisted of 7 open-end mutual funds, 15 closed-end funds and 149 exchange-traded funds. |
Trustee |
Dollar Range of
Equity Securities in the Fund (Number of Shares Held) |
Aggregate Dollar Range of
Equity Securities in All Registered Investment Companies Overseen by Trustee in the First Trust Fund Complex |
Interested Trustee | ||
James A. Bowen | None | Over $100,000 |
Independent Trustees | ||
Richard E. Erickson | None | Over $100,000 |
Thomas R. Kadlec | None | Over $100,000 |
Robert F. Keith | None | Over $100,000 |
Niel B. Nielson | None | Over $100,000 |
• | Dr. Dickson serves as Director of Structured Financial Solutions for Horizon, which he joined in March 2015. He focuses on new product development and innovation, and supports Horizon’s investment process through the development of quantitative methods and strategies. Dr. Dickson received his Ph.D. in Finance from UNC Charlotte, specializing in the areas of return predictability, portfolio optimization and factor models. He received his BS in Chemistry from Winthrop University and his MS in Economics from UNC Charlotte. |
• | Mr. Ladner serves as Head of Risk for Horizon, where he provides trading, risk management and quantitative expertise to several of the firm’s strategies, with a particular emphasis on building Horizon’s Risk Management suite of products, as well as its capabilities within the alternative and absolute return investment space. Prior to Horizon, Mr. Ladner helped launch an equity index volatility and dispersion trading unit at PEΔK6 Investments in Chicago, a proprietary listed option trading firm. Previously at First Union/Wachovia, Mr. Ladner founded and ran the equity swap and forwards portfolio while also managing equity option and volatility portfolios. He also co-founded and managed the Risk Arbitrage and Special Situations portfolio. Mr. Ladner then managed the notional swaption and cap/floor portion of the bank’s interest rate derivatives portfolio. Mr. Ladner received his BA in Economics and Russian Language & Literature from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. |
• | Dr. Clark serves as Managing Director of Structured Financial Solutions for Horizon. He is also an Associate Professor of Finance at UNC Charlotte, where he conducts research in the areas of mathematical finance, derivative securities, asset pricing, and financial econometrics. His work at Horizon focuses on volatility forecasting models, dynamic factor models, and other quantitative methods. He has a Ph.D. in Mathematical Sciences (with a concentration in applied probability and stochastic modeling) and a Ph.D. in Applied Economics (with a concentration in financial economics), both from Clemson University. |
Portfolio Manager |
Registered
Investment Companies Number of Accounts ($ Assets) |
Other Pooled
Investment Vehicles Number of Accounts ($ Assets) |
Other Accounts
Number of Accounts ($ Assets) |
Michael Dickson | 10 ($2,640,000,000) | N/A | 39,900 ($3,020,000,000) |
Portfolio Manager |
Registered
Investment Companies Number of Accounts ($ Assets) |
Other Pooled
Investment Vehicles Number of Accounts ($ Assets) |
Other Accounts
Number of Accounts ($ Assets) |
Scott Ladner | 10 ($2,640,000,000) | N/A | 39,900 ($3,020,000,000) |
Steven Clark | 2 ($423,000,000) | N/A | 4,400 ($640,000,000) |
Argentina | Australia | Austria | Belgium | Brazil | Canada | Chile |
March 4
March 5 April 2 April 9 April 10 May 1 June 17 June 20 July 8 July 9 August 17 October 12 November 23 December 8 December 25 January 1 |
April 10
April 13 June 8 December 25 December 28 January 1 January 26 |
April 10
April 13 May 1 June 1 October 26 December 8 December 25 January 1 |
April 13
May 1 May 21 November 11 December 25 January 1 |
April 10
April 21 May 1 June 11 July 9 September 7 October 12 November 2 November 20 December 24 December 25 December 31 January 1 February 15 February 16 February 17 |
April 10
May 18 July 1 August 3 September 7 October 12 November 11 December 24 December 25 December 28 January 1 February 15 |
April 10
April 11 May 1 May 21 July 16 August 15 September 18 October 12 December 8 December 25 January 1 |
China | Denmark | Finland | France | Germany | Greece | Hong Kong |
May 1
April 6 June 25 October 1 October 2 October 5 October 6 October 7 January 1 February 11 February 12 February 15 February 16 February 17 |
April 9
April 10 April 13 May 8 May 21 May 22 June 1 June 5 December 24 December 25 December 31 January 1 |
April 10
April 13 May 1 May 21 June 19 December 24 December 25 December 31 January 1 |
April 10
April 22 May 1 December 24 December 25 December 31 January 1 |
April 10
April 13 May 1 May 8 May 21 June 1 December 24 December 25 December 31 January 1 |
March 2
March 25 April 10 April 13 April 17 April 20 May 1 June 8 October 28 December 24 December 25 December 31 January 1 January 6 |
April 5
April 19 April 22 May 1 May 13 June 7 July 1 October 1 October 7 December 25 December 26 January 1 February 12 February 15 |
India | Ireland | Israel | Italy | Japan | Malaysia | Mexico |
March 9
April 2 April 6 April 10 April 14 May 1 July 31 August 20 August 28 October 2 November 16 November 30 December 25 January 26 |
April 10
April 13 May 1 December 24 December 25 December 31 January 1 |
March 10
April 8 April 9 April 12 April 13 April 14 April 15 April 28 April 29 May 28 May 29 July 30 September 20 September 27 September 28 October 4 October 5 October 6 October 7 |
April 10
April 13 May 1 December 24 December 25 December 31 January 1 |
March 20
April 29 May 4 May 5 May 6 July 23 July 24 August 10 September 21 September 22 November 3 November 23 December 31 January 1 January 2 January 3 January 11 February 11 February 23 |
May 1
May 7 May 11 May 25 June 6 July 31 August 20 August 31 September 16 October 29 November 14 December 25 January 1 February 1 February 12 |
March 16
April 9 April 10 May 1 September 16 November 16 November 20 December 25 January 1 February 1 February 5 |
New Zealand | Netherlands | Norway | Portugal | Singapore | South Africa | South Korea |
April 10
April 13 April 27 June 1 October 26 December 24 December 25 December 28 December 31 January 1 January 4 February 8 |
April 10
April 13 May 1 May 21 June 1 August 3 December 24 December 25 December 31 January 1 |
April 9
April 10 April 13 May 1 May 21 June 1 June 17 August 3 December 24 December 25 December 31 January 1 |
April 10
April 13 May 1 December 24 December 25 December 31 January 1 |
April 10
May 1 May 7 May 25 July 31 August 10 November 14 December 25 January 1 |
March 21
April 10 April 13 April 27 May 1 June 16 August 9 September 24 December 16 December 25 December 26 January 1 |
April 30
May 1 May 5 June 6 September 30 October 1 October 2 October 9 December 25 December 31 January 1 |
Spain | Sweden | Switzerland | Taiwan | Thailand | United Kingdom | United States |
April 10
April 13 April 22 May 1 December 24 December 25 December 31 January 1 |
April 10
April 13 May 1 May 21 June 19 December 24 December 25 December 31 January 1 |
April 10
April 13 May 1 May 21 June 1 December 24 December 25 December 31 January 1 |
April 3
April 4 May 1 June 25 October 1 October 9 October 10 January 1 February 11 February 12 February 15 February 16 |
April 6
April 13 April 14 April 15 May 1 May 4 May 6 June 3 July 6 July 28 August 12 October 13 October 23 December 7 December 10 December 31 January 1 |
April 10
April 13 May 8 May 25 August 31 December 24 December 25 December 31 January 1 |
April 10
May 25 July 3 September 7 November 26 December 25 January 1 January 18 February 15 |
(1) | Common stocks and other equity securities listed on any national or foreign exchange other than The Nasdaq Stock Exchange LLC ("Nasdaq") and the London Stock Exchange Alternative Investment Market (“AIM”) will be valued at the last sale price on the exchange on which they are principally traded, or the official closing price for Nasdaq and AIM securities. Portfolio securities traded on more than one securities exchange are valued at the last sale price or official closing price, as applicable, on the Business Day as of which such value is being determined at the close of the exchange representing the principal market for such securities. |
(2) | Shares of open-end mutual funds are valued at fair value which is based on NAV per share. |
(3) | Securities traded in the OTC market are fair valued at the mean of their most recent bid and asked price, if available, and otherwise at their closing bid price. |
(4) | Exchange-traded options and futures contracts are valued at the closing price in the market where such contracts are principally traded. If no closing price is available, they will be fair valued at the mean of their most recent bid and asked price, if available, and otherwise at their closing bid price. OTC options and futures contracts are fair valued at the mean of their most recent bid and asked price, if available, and otherwise at their closing bid price. |
(5) | Forward foreign currency contracts are fair valued at the current day’s interpolated foreign exchange rate, as calculated using the current day’s spot rate, and the 30-, 60-, 90- and 180-day forward rates provided by an independent pricing service or by certain independent dealers in such contracts. |
(1) | Fixed-income securities, convertible securities, interest rate swaps, credit default swaps, total return swaps, currency swaps, currency-linked notes, credit-linked notes and other similar instruments will be fair valued using a pricing service. |
(2) | Fixed-income and other debt securities having a remaining maturity of 60 days or less when purchased are fair valued at cost adjusted for amortization of premiums and accretion of discounts (amortized cost), provided the Advisor’s Pricing Committee has determined that the use of amortized cost is an appropriate reflection of fair value given market and issuer specific conditions existing at the time of the determination. Factors that may be considered in determining the appropriateness of the use of amortized cost include, but are not limited to, the following: |
(i) | the credit conditions in the relevant market and changes thereto; |
(ii) | the liquidity conditions in the relevant market and changes thereto; |
(iii) | the interest rate conditions in the relevant market and changes thereto (such as significant changes in interest rates); |
(iv) | issuer-specific conditions (such as significant credit deterioration); and |
(v) | any other market-based data the Advisor’s Pricing Committee considers relevant. In this regard, the Advisor’s Pricing Committee may use last-obtained market-based data to assist it when valuing portfolio securities using amortized cost. |
(3) | Repurchase agreements will be valued as follows. Overnight repurchase agreements will be fair valued at amortized cost when it represents the best estimate of fair value. Term repurchase agreements (i.e., those whose maturity exceeds seven days) will be fair valued by the Advisor’s Pricing Committee at the average of the bid quotations obtained daily from at least two recognized dealers. |
➤ | General Recommendation: Generally vote for director nominees, except under the following circumstances (with new nominees1 considered on case-by-case basis): |
➤ | Independent directors comprise 50 percent or less of the board; |
➤ | The non-independent director serves on the audit, compensation, or nominating committee; |
➤ | The company lacks an audit, compensation, or nominating committee so that the full board functions as that committee; or |
➤ | The company lacks a formal nominating committee, even if the board attests that the independent directors fulfill the functions of such a committee. |
➤ | Medical issues/illness; |
➤ | Family emergencies; and |
➤ | Missing only one meeting (when the total of all meetings is three or fewer). |
1 | A "new nominee" is a director who is being presented for election by shareholders for the first time. Recommendations on new nominees who have served for less than one year are made on a case-by-case basis depending on the timing of their appointment and the problematic governance issue in question. |
2 | In general, companies with a plurality vote standard use “Withhold” as the contrary vote option in director elections; companies with a majority vote standard use “Against”. However, it will vary by company and the proxy must be checked to determine the valid contrary vote option for the particular company. |
3 | Nominees who served for only part of the fiscal year are generally exempted from the attendance policy. |
➤ | Sit on more than five public company boards; or |
➤ | Are CEOs of public companies who sit on the boards of more than two public companies besides their own— withhold only at their outside boards4. |
➤ | Until Feb. 1, 2021, a firm commitment, as stated in the proxy statement, to appoint at least one woman to the board within a year; |
➤ | The presence of a woman on the board at the preceding annual meeting and a firm commitment to appoint at least one woman to the board within a year; or |
➤ | Other relevant factors as applicable. |
➤ | The board failed to act on a shareholder proposal that received the support of a majority of the shares cast in the previous year or failed to act on a management proposal seeking to ratify an existing charter/bylaw provision that received opposition of a majority of the shares cast in the previous year. Factors that will be considered are: |
➤ | Disclosed outreach efforts by the board to shareholders in the wake of the vote; |
➤ | Rationale provided in the proxy statement for the level of implementation; |
➤ | The subject matter of the proposal; |
➤ | The level of support for and opposition to the resolution in past meetings; |
➤ | Actions taken by the board in response to the majority vote and its engagement with shareholders; |
➤ | The continuation of the underlying issue as a voting item on the ballot (as either shareholder or management proposals); and |
➤ | Other factors as appropriate. |
➤ | The board failed to act on takeover offers where the majority of shares are tendered; |
➤ | At the previous board election, any director received more than 50 percent withhold/against votes of the shares cast and the company has failed to address the issue(s) that caused the high withhold/against vote. |
➤ | The company’s previous say-on-pay received the support of less than 70 percent of votes cast. Factors that will be considered are: |
➤ | The company's response, including: |
➤ | Disclosure of engagement efforts with major institutional investors, including the frequency and timing of engagements and the company participants (including whether independent directors participated); |
➤ | Disclosure of the specific concerns voiced by dissenting shareholders that led to the say-on-pay opposition; |
➤ | Disclosure of specific and meaningful actions taken to address shareholders' concerns; |
➤ | Other recent compensation actions taken by the company; |
➤ | Whether the issues raised are recurring or isolated; |
4 | Although all of a CEO’s subsidiary boards with publicly-traded common stock will be counted as separate boards, ISS will not recommend a withhold vote for the CEO of a parent company board or any of the controlled (>50 percent ownership) subsidiaries of that parent but may do so at subsidiaries that are less than 50 percent controlled and boards outside the parent/subsidiary relationships. |
➤ | The company's ownership structure; and |
➤ | Whether the support level was less than 50 percent, which would warrant the highest degree of responsiveness. |
➤ | The board implements an advisory vote on executive compensation on a less frequent basis than the frequency that received the plurality of votes cast. |
➤ | The company has a poison pill that was not approved by shareholders5. However, vote case-by-case on nominees if the board adopts an initial pill with a term of one year or less, depending on the disclosed rationale for the adoption, and other factors as relevant (such as a commitment to put any renewal to a shareholder vote). |
➤ | The board makes a material adverse modification to an existing pill, including, but not limited to, extension, renewal, or lowering the trigger, without shareholder approval. |
➤ | A classified board structure; |
➤ | A supermajority vote requirement; |
➤ | Either a plurality vote standard in uncontested director elections, or a majority vote standard in contested elections; |
➤ | The inability of shareholders to call special meetings; |
➤ | The inability of shareholders to act by written consent; |
➤ | A multi-class capital structure; and/or |
➤ | A non-shareholder-approved poison pill. |
➤ | The board's rationale for adopting the bylaw/charter amendment without shareholder ratification; |
➤ | Disclosure by the company of any significant engagement with shareholders regarding the amendment; |
➤ | The level of impairment of shareholders' rights caused by the board's unilateral amendment to the bylaws/charter; |
➤ | The board's track record with regard to unilateral board action on bylaw/charter amendments or other entrenchment provisions; |
➤ | The company's ownership structure; |
5 | Public shareholders only, approval prior to a company’s becoming public is insufficient. |
➤ | The company's existing governance provisions; |
➤ | The timing of the board's amendment to the bylaws/charter in connection with a significant business development; and, |
➤ | Other factors, as deemed appropriate, that may be relevant to determine the impact of the amendment on shareholders. |
➤ | Classified the board; |
➤ | Adopted supermajority vote requirements to amend the bylaws or charter; or |
➤ | Eliminated shareholders' ability to amend bylaws. |
➤ | Supermajority vote requirements to amend the bylaws or charter; |
➤ | A classified board structure; or |
➤ | Other egregious provisions. |
➤ | The presence of a shareholder proposal addressing the same issue on the same ballot; |
➤ | The board's rationale for seeking ratification; |
➤ | Disclosure of actions to be taken by the board should the ratification proposal fail; |
➤ | Disclosure of shareholder engagement regarding the board’s ratification request; |
➤ | The level of impairment to shareholders' rights caused by the existing provision; |
➤ | The history of management and shareholder proposals on the provision at the company’s past meetings; |
➤ | Whether the current provision was adopted in response to the shareholder proposal; |
➤ | The company's ownership structure; and |
➤ | Previous use of ratification proposals to exclude shareholder proposals. |
➤ | The company’s governing documents impose undue restrictions on shareholders’ ability to amend the bylaws. Such restrictions include but are not limited to: outright prohibition on the submission of binding shareholder proposals or share ownership requirements, subject matter restrictions, or time holding requirements in excess of SEC Rule 14a-8. Vote against or withhold on an ongoing basis. |
➤ | The non-audit fees paid to the auditor are excessive; |
➤ | The company receives an adverse opinion on the company’s financial statements from its auditor; or |
➤ | There is persuasive evidence that the Audit Committee entered into an inappropriate indemnification agreement with its auditor that limits the ability of the company, or its shareholders, to pursue legitimate legal recourse against the audit firm. |
➤ | Poor accounting practices are identified that rise to a level of serious concern, such as: fraud; misapplication of GAAP; and material weaknesses identified in Section 404 disclosures. Examine the severity, breadth, chronological sequence, and duration, as well as the company’s efforts at remediation or corrective actions, in determining whether withhold/against votes are warranted. |
➤ | There is an unmitigated misalignment between CEO pay and company performance (pay for performance); |
➤ | The company maintains significant problematic pay practices; or |
➤ | The board exhibits a significant level of poor communication and responsiveness to shareholders. |
➤ | The company fails to include a Say on Pay ballot item when required under SEC provisions, or under the company’s declared frequency of say on pay; or |
➤ | The company fails to include a Frequency of Say on Pay ballot item when required under SEC provisions. |
➤ | The presence of an anti-pledging policy, disclosed in the proxy statement, that prohibits future pledging activity; |
➤ | The magnitude of aggregate pledged shares in terms of total common shares outstanding, market value, and trading volume; |
➤ | Disclosure of progress or lack thereof in reducing the magnitude of aggregate pledged shares over time; |
➤ | Disclosure in the proxy statement that shares subject to stock ownership and holding requirements do not include pledged company stock; and |
➤ | Any other relevant factors. |
➤ | Material failures of governance, stewardship, risk oversight7, or fiduciary responsibilities at the company; |
➤ | Failure to replace management as appropriate; or |
➤ | Egregious actions related to a director’s service on other boards that raise substantial doubt about his or her ability to effectively oversee management and serve the best interests of shareholders at any company. |
➤ | General Recommendation: In cases where companies are targeted in connection with public “vote-no” campaigns, evaluate director nominees under the existing governance policies for voting on director nominees in uncontested elections. Take into consideration the arguments submitted by shareholders and other publicly available information. |
➤ | General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on the election of directors in contested elections, considering the following factors: |
➤ | Long-term financial performance of the company relative to its industry; |
➤ | Management’s track record; |
➤ | Background to the contested election; |
➤ | Nominee qualifications and any compensatory arrangements; |
➤ | Strategic plan of dissident slate and quality of the critique against management; |
➤ | Likelihood that the proposed goals and objectives can be achieved (both slates); and |
➤ | Stock ownership positions. |
7 | Examples of failure of risk oversight include but are not limited to: bribery; large or serial fines or sanctions from regulatory bodies; significant adverse legal judgments or settlement; or hedging of company stock. |
➤ | General Recommendation: Generally vote for shareholder proposals requiring that the chair position be filled by an independent director, taking into consideration the following: |
➤ | The scope and rationale of the proposal; |
➤ | The company's current board leadership structure; |
➤ | The company's governance structure and practices; |
➤ | Company performance; and |
➤ | Any other relevant factors that may be applicable. |
➤ | A majority non-independent board and/or the presence of non-independent directors on key board committees; |
➤ | A weak or poorly-defined lead independent director role that fails to serve as an appropriate counterbalance to a combined CEO/chair role; |
➤ | The presence of an executive or non-independent chair in addition to the CEO, a recent recombination of the role of CEO and chair, and/or departure from a structure with an independent chair; |
➤ | Evidence that the board has failed to oversee and address material risks facing the company; |
➤ | A material governance failure, particularly if the board has failed to adequately respond to shareholder concerns or if the board has materially diminished shareholder rights; or |
➤ | Evidence that the board has failed to intervene when management’s interests are contrary to shareholders' interests. |
➤ | General Recommendation: Generally vote for management and shareholder proposals for proxy access with the following provisions: |
➤ | Ownership threshold: maximum requirement not more than three percent (3%) of the voting power; |
➤ | Ownership duration: maximum requirement not longer than three (3) years of continuous ownership for each member of the nominating group; |
➤ | Aggregation: minimal or no limits on the number of shareholders permitted to form a nominating group; |
➤ | Cap: cap on nominees of generally twenty-five percent (25%) of the board. |
➤ | General Recommendation: Generally vote against management proposals to ratify provisions of the company’s existing charter or bylaws, unless these governance provisions align with best practice. |
➤ | The presence of a shareholder proposal addressing the same issue on the same ballot; |
➤ | The board's rationale for seeking ratification; |
➤ | Disclosure of actions to be taken by the board should the ratification proposal fail; |
➤ | Disclosure of shareholder engagement regarding the board’s ratification request; |
➤ | The level of impairment to shareholders' rights caused by the existing provision; |
➤ | The history of management and shareholder proposals on the provision at the company’s past meetings; |
➤ | Whether the current provision was adopted in response to the shareholder proposal; |
➤ | The company's ownership structure; and |
➤ | Previous use of ratification proposals to exclude shareholder proposals. |
➤ | General Recommendation: Vote for proposals to increase the number of authorized common shares where the primary purpose of the increase is to issue shares in connection with a transaction on the same ballot that warrants support. |
➤ | Past Board Performance: |
➤ | The company's use of authorized shares during the last three years |
➤ | The Current Request: |
➤ | Disclosure in the proxy statement of the specific purposes of the proposed increase; |
➤ | Disclosure in the proxy statement of specific and severe risks to shareholders of not approving the request; and |
➤ | The dilutive impact of the request as determined relative to an allowable increase calculated by ISS (typically 100 percent of existing authorized shares) that reflects the company's need for shares and total shareholder returns. |
A. | Most companies: 100 percent of existing authorized shares. |
B. | Companies with less than 50 percent of existing authorized shares either outstanding or reserved for issuance: 50 percent of existing authorized shares. |
C. | Companies with one- and three-year total shareholder returns (TSRs) in the bottom 10 percent of the U.S. market as of the end of the calendar quarter that is closest to their most recent fiscal year end: 50 percent of existing authorized shares. |
D. | Companies at which both conditions (B and C) above are both present: 25 percent of existing authorized shares. |
➤ | General Recommendation: For U.S.-incorporated companies, and foreign-incorporated U.S. Domestic Issuers that are traded solely on U.S. exchanges, vote for management proposals to institute open-market share repurchase plans in which all shareholders may participate on equal terms, or to grant the board authority to conduct open-market repurchases, in the absence of company-specific concerns regarding: |
➤ | Greenmail, |
➤ | The use of buybacks to inappropriately manipulate incentive compensation metrics, |
➤ | Threats to the company's long-term viability, or |
➤ | Other company-specific factors as warranted. |
➤ | General Recommendation: Generally vote against shareholder proposals prohibiting executives from selling shares of company stock during periods in which the company has announced that it may or will be repurchasing shares of its stock. Vote for the proposal when there is a pattern of abuse by executives exercising options or selling shares during periods of share buybacks. |
➤ | Financial issues – company’s financial situation; degree of need of capital; use of proceeds; effect of the financing on the company’s cost of capital; |
➤ | Management efforts to pursue other alternatives; |
➤ | Control issues – change in management; change in control, guaranteed board and committee seats; standstill provisions; voting agreements; veto power over certain corporate actions; and |
➤ | Conflict of interest – arm’s length transaction, managerial incentives. |
➤ | General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on mergers and acquisitions. Review and evaluate the merits and drawbacks of the proposed transaction, balancing various and sometimes countervailing factors including: |
➤ | Valuation - Is the value to be received by the target shareholders (or paid by the acquirer) reasonable? While the fairness opinion may provide an initial starting point for assessing valuation reasonableness, emphasis is placed on the offer premium, market reaction, and strategic rationale. |
➤ | Market reaction - How has the market responded to the proposed deal? A negative market reaction should cause closer scrutiny of a deal. |
➤ | Strategic rationale - Does the deal make sense strategically? From where is the value derived? Cost and revenue synergies should not be overly aggressive or optimistic, but reasonably achievable. Management should also have a favorable track record of successful integration of historical acquisitions. |
➤ | Negotiations and process - Were the terms of the transaction negotiated at arm's-length? Was the process fair and equitable? A fair process helps to ensure the best price for shareholders. Significant negotiation "wins" can also signify the deal makers' competency. The comprehensiveness of the sales process (e.g., full auction, partial auction, no auction) can also affect shareholder value. |
➤ | Conflicts of interest - Are insiders benefiting from the transaction disproportionately and inappropriately as compared to non-insider shareholders? As the result of potential conflicts, the directors and officers of the company may be more likely to vote to approve a merger than if they did not hold these interests. Consider whether these interests may have influenced these directors and officers to support or recommend the merger. The CIC figure presented in the "ISS Transaction Summary" section of this report is an aggregate figure that can in certain cases be a misleading indicator of the true value transfer from shareholders to insiders. Where such figure appears to be excessive, analyze the underlying assumptions to determine whether a potential conflict exists. |
➤ | Governance - Will the combined company have a better or worse governance profile than the current governance profiles of the respective parties to the transaction? If the governance profile is to change for the worse, the burden is on the company to prove that other issues (such as valuation) outweigh any deterioration in governance. |
1. | Maintain appropriate pay-for-performance alignment, with emphasis on long-term shareholder value: This principle encompasses overall executive pay practices, which must be designed to attract, retain, and appropriately motivate the key employees who drive shareholder value creation over the long term. It will take into consideration, among other factors, the link between pay and performance; the mix between fixed and variable pay; performance goals; and equity-based plan costs; |
2. | Avoid arrangements that risk “pay for failure”: This principle addresses the appropriateness of long or indefinite contracts, excessive severance packages, and guaranteed compensation; |
3. | Maintain an independent and effective compensation committee: This principle promotes oversight of executive pay programs by directors with appropriate skills, knowledge, experience, and a sound process for compensation decision-making (e.g., including access to independent expertise and advice when needed); |
4. | Provide shareholders with clear, comprehensive compensation disclosures: This principle underscores the importance of informative and timely disclosures that enable shareholders to evaluate executive pay practices fully and fairly; |
5. | Avoid inappropriate pay to non-executive directors: This principle recognizes the interests of shareholders in ensuring that compensation to outside directors is reasonable and does not compromise their independence and ability to make appropriate judgments in overseeing managers’ pay and performance. At the market level, it may incorporate a variety of generally accepted best practices. |
➤ | General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on ballot items related to executive pay and practices, as well as certain aspects of outside director compensation. |
Vote against Advisory Votes on Executive Compensation (Say-on-Pay or “SOP”) if: |
➤ | There is an unmitigated misalignment between CEO pay and company performance (pay for performance); |
➤ | The company maintains significant problematic pay practices; |
➤ | The board exhibits a significant level of poor communication and responsiveness to shareholders. |
➤ | There is no SOP on the ballot, and an against vote on an SOP would otherwise be warranted due to pay-for-performance misalignment, problematic pay practices, or the lack of adequate responsiveness on compensation issues raised previously, or a combination thereof; |
➤ | The board fails to respond adequately to a previous SOP proposal that received less than 70 percent support of votes cast; |
➤ | The company has recently practiced or approved problematic pay practices, such as option repricing or option backdating; or |
➤ | The situation is egregious. |
1. | Peer Group9 Alignment: |
➤ | The degree of alignment between the company's annualized TSR rank and the CEO's annualized total pay rank within a peer group, each measured over a three-year period. |
➤ | The rankings of CEO total pay and company financial performance within a peer group, each measured over a three-year period. |
➤ | The multiple of the CEO's total pay relative to the peer group median in the most recent fiscal year. |
2. | Absolute Alignment10– the absolute alignment between the trend in CEO pay and company TSR over the prior five fiscal years – i.e., the difference between the trend in annual pay changes and the trend in annualized TSR during the period. |
➤ | The ratio of performance- to time-based incentive awards; |
➤ | The overall ratio of performance-based compensation to fixed or discretionary pay; |
➤ | The rigor of performance goals; |
➤ | The complexity and risks around pay program design; |
➤ | The transparency and clarity of disclosure; |
➤ | The company's peer group benchmarking practices; |
➤ | Financial/operational results, both absolute and relative to peers; |
➤ | Special circumstances related to, for example, a new CEO in the prior FY or anomalous equity grant practices (e.g., bi-annual awards); |
8 | The Russell 3000E Index includes approximately 4,000 of the largest U.S. equity securities. |
9 | The revised peer group is generally comprised of 14-24 companies that are selected using market cap, revenue (or assets for certain financial firms), GICS industry group, and company's selected peers' GICS industry group, with size constraints, via a process designed to select peers that are comparable to the subject company in terms of revenue/assets and industry, and also within a market-cap bucket that is reflective of the company's. For Oil, Gas & Consumable Fuels companies, market cap is the only size determinant. |
10 | Only Russell 3000 Index companies are subject to the Absolute Alignment analysis. |
➤ | Realizable pay11 compared to grant pay; and |
➤ | Any other factors deemed relevant. |
➤ | Any other factors deemed relevant. |
➤ | Problematic practices related to non-performance-based compensation elements; |
➤ | Incentives that may motivate excessive risk-taking or present a windfall risk; and |
➤ | Pay decisions that circumvent pay-for-performance, such as options backdating or waiving performance requirements. |
➤ | Repricing or replacing of underwater stock options/SARS without prior shareholder approval (including cash buyouts and voluntary surrender of underwater options); |
➤ | Extraordinary perquisites or tax gross-ups; |
➤ | New or materially amended agreements that provide for: |
➤ | Excessive termination or CIC severance payments (generally exceeding 3 times base salary and average/target/most recent bonus); |
➤ | CIC severance payments without involuntary job loss or substantial diminution of duties ("single" or "modified single" triggers) or in connection with a problematic Good Reason definition; |
➤ | CIC excise tax gross-up entitlements (including "modified" gross-ups); |
➤ | Multi-year guaranteed awards that are not at risk due to rigorous performance conditions; |
➤ | Liberal CIC definition combined with any single-trigger CIC benefits; |
➤ | Insufficient executive compensation disclosure by externally-managed issuers (EMIs) such that a reasonable assessment of pay programs and practices applicable to the EMI's executives is not possible; |
➤ | Any other provision or practice deemed to be egregious and present a significant risk to investors. |
➤ | Failure to respond to majority-supported shareholder proposals on executive pay topics; or |
➤ | Failure to adequately respond to the company's previous say-on-pay proposal that received the support of less than 70 percent of votes cast, taking into account: |
➤ | Disclosure of engagement efforts with major institutional investors, including the frequency and timing of engagements and the company participants (including whether independent directors participated); |
➤ | Disclosure of the specific concerns voiced by dissenting shareholders that led to the say-on-pay opposition; |
➤ | Disclosure of specific and meaningful actions taken to address shareholders’ concerns; |
➤ | Other recent compensation actions taken by the company; |
11 | ISS research reports include realizable pay for S&P1500 companies. |
➤ | Whether the issues raised are recurring or isolated; |
➤ | The company's ownership structure; and |
➤ | Whether the support level was less than 50 percent, which would warrant the highest degree of responsiveness. |
➤ | General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on certain equity-based compensation plans12 depending on a combination of certain plan features and equity grant practices, where positive factors may counterbalance negative factors, and vice versa, as evaluated using an "Equity Plan Scorecard" (EPSC) approach with three pillars: |
➤ | Plan Cost: The total estimated cost of the company’s equity plans relative to industry/market cap peers, measured by the company's estimated Shareholder Value Transfer (SVT) in relation to peers and considering both: |
➤ | SVT based on new shares requested plus shares remaining for future grants, plus outstanding unvested/unexercised grants; and |
➤ | SVT based only on new shares requested plus shares remaining for future grants. |
➤ | Plan Features: |
➤ | Quality of disclosure around vesting upon a change in control (CIC); |
➤ | Discretionary vesting authority; |
➤ | Liberal share recycling on various award types; |
➤ | Lack of minimum vesting period for grants made under the plan; |
➤ | Dividends payable prior to award vesting. |
➤ | Grant Practices: |
➤ | The company’s three-year burn rate relative to its industry/market cap peers; |
➤ | Vesting requirements in CEO's recent equity grants (3-year look-back); |
➤ | The estimated duration of the plan (based on the sum of shares remaining available and the new shares requested, divided by the average annual shares granted in the prior three years); |
➤ | The proportion of the CEO's most recent equity grants/awards subject to performance conditions; |
➤ | Whether the company maintains a sufficient claw-back policy; |
➤ | Whether the company maintains sufficient post-exercise/vesting share-holding requirements. |
➤ | Awards may vest in connection with a liberal change-of-control definition; |
➤ | The plan would permit repricing or cash buyout of underwater options without shareholder approval (either by expressly permitting it—for NYSE and Nasdaq listed companies—or by not prohibiting it when the company has a history of repricing—for non-listed companies); |
➤ | The plan is a vehicle for problematic pay practices or a significant pay-for-performance disconnect under certain circumstances; |
➤ | The plan is excessively dilutive to shareholders' holdings; |
➤ | The plan contains an evergreen (automatic share replenishment) feature; or |
➤ | Any other plan features are determined to have a significant negative impact on shareholder interests. |
21 | Proposals evaluated under the EPSC policy generally include those to approve or amend (1) stock option plans for employees and/or employees and directors, (2) restricted stock plans for employees and/or employees and directors, and (3) omnibus stock incentive plans for employees and/or employees and directors; amended plans will be further evaluated case-by-case. |
➤ | General Recommendation: Generally vote case-by-case, examining primarily whether implementation of the proposal is likely to enhance or protect shareholder value. The following factors will be considered: |
➤ | If the issues presented in the proposal are more appropriately or effectively dealt with through legislation or government regulation; |
➤ | If the company has already responded in an appropriate and sufficient manner to the issue(s) raised in the proposal; |
➤ | Whether the proposal's request is unduly burdensome (scope or timeframe) or overly prescriptive; |
➤ | The company's approach compared with any industry standard practices for addressing the issue(s) raised by the proposal; |
➤ | Whether there are significant controversies, fines, penalties, or litigation associated with the company's environmental or social practices; |
➤ | If the proposal requests increased disclosure or greater transparency, whether reasonable and sufficient information is currently available to shareholders from the company or from other publicly available sources; and |
➤ | If the proposal requests increased disclosure or greater transparency, whether implementation would reveal proprietary or confidential information that could place the company at a competitive disadvantage. |
➤ | General Recommendation: Generally vote for resolutions requesting that a company disclose information on the financial, physical, or regulatory risks it faces related to climate change on its operations and investments or on how the company identifies, measures, and manages such risks, considering: |
➤ | Whether the company already provides current, publicly-available information on the impact that climate change may have on the company as well as associated company policies and procedures to address related risks and/or opportunities; |
➤ | The company’s level of disclosure compared to industry peers; and |
➤ | Whether there are significant controversies, fines, penalties, or litigation associated with the company’s climate change-related performance. |
➤ | The company already discloses current, publicly-available information on the impacts that GHG emissions may have on the company as well as associated company policies and procedures to address related risks and/or opportunities; |
➤ | The company's level of disclosure is comparable to that of industry peers; and |
➤ | There are no significant, controversies, fines, penalties, or litigation associated with the company's GHG emissions. |
➤ | Whether the company provides disclosure of year-over-year GHG emissions performance data; |
➤ | Whether company disclosure lags behind industry peers; |
➤ | The company's actual GHG emissions performance; |
➤ | The company's current GHG emission policies, oversight mechanisms, and related initiatives; and |
➤ | Whether the company has been the subject of recent, significant violations, fines, litigation, or controversy related to GHG emissions. |
➤ | General Recommendation: Generally vote for requests for reports on a company's efforts to diversify the board, unless: |
➤ | The gender and racial minority representation of the company’s board is reasonably inclusive in relation to companies of similar size and business; and |
➤ | The board already reports on its nominating procedures and gender and racial minority initiatives on the board and within the company. |
➤ | The degree of existing gender and racial minority diversity on the company’s board and among its executive officers; |
➤ | The level of gender and racial minority representation that exists at the company’s industry peers; |
➤ | The company’s established process for addressing gender and racial minority board representation; |
➤ | Whether the proposal includes an overly prescriptive request to amend nominating committee charter language; |
➤ | The independence of the company’s nominating committee; |
➤ | Whether the company uses an outside search firm to identify potential director nominees; and |
➤ | Whether the company has had recent controversies, fines, or litigation regarding equal employment practices. |
➤ | General Recommendation: Generally vote case-by-case on requests for reports on a company's pay data by gender, race, or ethnicity, or a report on a company’s policies and goals to reduce any gender, race, or ethnicity pay gap, taking into account: |
➤ | The company's current policies and disclosure related to both its diversity and inclusion policies and practices and its compensation philosophy and fair and equitable compensation practices; |
➤ | Whether the company has been the subject of recent controversy, litigation, or regulatory actions related to gender, race, or ethnicity pay gap issues; and |
➤ | Whether the company's reporting regarding gender, race, or ethnicity pay gap policies or initiatives is lagging its peers. |
➤ | General Recommendation: Generally vote for proposals requesting that a company report on its policies, initiatives, and oversight mechanisms related to social, economic, and environmental sustainability, unless: |
➤ | The company already discloses similar information through existing reports or policies such as an environment, health, and safety (EHS) report; a comprehensive code of corporate conduct; and/or a diversity report; or |
➤ | The company has formally committed to the implementation of a reporting program based on Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) guidelines or a similar standard within a specified time frame. |
➤ | General Recommendation: Vote case-by-case on proposals requesting information on a company’s lobbying (including direct, indirect, and grassroots lobbying) activities, policies, or procedures, considering: |
➤ | The company’s current disclosure of relevant lobbying policies, and management and board oversight; |
➤ | The company’s disclosure regarding trade associations or other groups that it supports, or is a member of, that engage in lobbying activities; and |
➤ | Recent significant controversies, fines, or litigation regarding the company’s lobbying-related activities. |
➤ | General Recommendation: Generally vote for proposals requesting greater disclosure of a company's political contributions and trade association spending policies and activities, considering: |
➤ | The company's policies, and management and board oversight related to its direct political contributions and payments to trade associations or other groups that may be used for political purposes; |
➤ | The company's disclosure regarding its support of, and participation in, trade associations or other groups that may make political contributions; and |
➤ | Recent significant controversies, fines, or litigation related to the company's political contributions or political activities. |
1 Year First Trust Merger Arbit... Chart |
1 Month First Trust Merger Arbit... Chart |
It looks like you are not logged in. Click the button below to log in and keep track of your recent history.
Support: +44 (0) 203 8794 460 | support@advfn.com
By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions