ASIC calls for better disclosure on remuneration
The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) has called for companies to provide more clarity on remuneration arrangements for their directors and executives.
ASIC deputy chairman Belinda Gibson (pictured) said the review was conducted as a ‘health check’ on market practices in remuneration reporting.
According to Gibson, companies can improve disclosure to shareholders in a number of areas, including disclosing the policy on the nature and amount of remuneration of key management personnel, and the non-financial performance conditions in short-term incentive plans.
ASIC also recommended that companies specify why performance conditions have been chosen, and set out the terms and conditions of incentive plans.
The advice was based on a review of 60 remuneration reports for listed companies for the year ended 30 June 2010.
Under Section 300A of the Corporations Act, listed companies must include these details in the Remuneration Report section of the director’s report for the financial year.
The reason for disclosure requirements is to place shareholders in a position where they can understand the nature of the remuneration. As outlined in the Explanatory Memorandum to the Corporate Law Economic Reform Program (Audit Reform and Corporate Disclosure Bill 2004, this includes any performance hurdles or contingencies on which the payment is based.
Proper disclosure also limits the element of surprise in the event of a payment being made, the memorandum explains.
Recommended for you
Licensing regulation should prioritise consumer outcomes over institutional convenience, according to Assured Support, and the compliance firm has suggested an alternative framework to the “licensed and self-licensed” model.
The chair of the Platinum Capital listed investment company admits the vehicle “is at a crossroads” in its 31-year history, with both L1 Capital and Wilson Asset Management bidding to take over its investment management.
AMP has settled on two court proceedings: one class action which affected superannuation members and a second regarding insurer policies.
With a large group of advisers expecting to exit before the 2026 education deadline, an industry expert shares how these practices can best prepare themselves for sale to compete in a “buyer’s market”.
