<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>edwardhauder.com</title>
	<atom:link href="http://edwardhauder.com/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://edwardhauder.com</link>
	<description>Ed Hauder&#039;s Equity Compensation Blog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 15 Mar 2010 13:00:47 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Another Week, Another Set of SEC Guidance</title>
		<link>http://edwardhauder.com/2010/03/15/another-week-another-set-of-sec-guidance/</link>
		<comments>http://edwardhauder.com/2010/03/15/another-week-another-set-of-sec-guidance/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Mar 2010 12:58:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ed Hauder</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Proxy Disclosure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[SEC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[C&DIs]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://edwardhauder.com/?p=299</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On Friday, March 12, 2010, the SEC Staff again updated the Regulation S-K Compliance &#38; Disclosure Interpretations (C&#38;DIs).
Here is a quick summary of the three new bits of clarification that the SEC Staff offers for the revised proxy disclosure rules:

Q. 119.25-NEIP award based on performance during 2010 granted in January 2010. After the end of [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://edwardhauder.com/2010/03/15/another-week-another-set-of-sec-guidance/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Heads Up: Does performance (TSR) measured on another day smell as sweet?</title>
		<link>http://edwardhauder.com/2010/03/11/heads-up-does-performance-tsr-measured-on-another-day-smell-as-sweet/</link>
		<comments>http://edwardhauder.com/2010/03/11/heads-up-does-performance-tsr-measured-on-another-day-smell-as-sweet/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Mar 2010 13:57:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ed Hauder</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Equity Compensation Plans]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[RiskMetrics Group (RMG)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[RiskMetrics Group (RMG) Policies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[GICS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[median TSR]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[TSR]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://edwardhauder.com/?p=290</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[RiskMetrics uses the median 1- and 3-year Total Shareholder Returns (TSRs) for a company&#8217;s 4-digit GICS industry group in applying the first screen of its pay for performance test.  Only if a company&#8217;s own 1- and 3-year TSR are both below the company&#8217;s GICS industry group 1- and 3-year medians, will RiskMetrics continue on with [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://edwardhauder.com/2010/03/11/heads-up-does-performance-tsr-measured-on-another-day-smell-as-sweet/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>New SEC Staff Guidance Addresses Equity Awards&#8217; Disclosure</title>
		<link>http://edwardhauder.com/2010/03/03/new-sec-staff-guidance-addresses-equity-awards/</link>
		<comments>http://edwardhauder.com/2010/03/03/new-sec-staff-guidance-addresses-equity-awards/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Mar 2010 18:06:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ed Hauder</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Equity Compensation Plans]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Proxy Disclosure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[SEC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[C&DIs]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://edwardhauder.com/?p=285</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On March 1, 2010, the SEC Staff again updated the Regulation S-K Compliance &#38; Disclosure Interpretations (C&#38;DIs).
If a company chooses to report the grant date fair value assumptions for equity awards in relation to the Grants of Plan-Based Awards Table, it can satisfy the Summary Compensation Table disclosure requirements for such information by referencing the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://edwardhauder.com/2010/03/03/new-sec-staff-guidance-addresses-equity-awards/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>More SEC Guidance on Revised Proxy Disclosure Rules</title>
		<link>http://edwardhauder.com/2010/02/17/more-sec-guidance-on-revised-proxy-disclosure-rules/</link>
		<comments>http://edwardhauder.com/2010/02/17/more-sec-guidance-on-revised-proxy-disclosure-rules/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Feb 2010 22:04:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ed Hauder</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Proxy Disclosure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[SEC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[C&DIs]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://edwardhauder.com/?p=253</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On February 16, 2010, the SEC Staff updated the C&#38;DIs for Regulation S-K with a few additional questions and answers, as follows:

Question 116.07
Question: Instruction 3 to Item 401(a) provides that if the information called for by paragraph (a) is being presented in a proxy or information statement, no information need be given respecting any director [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://edwardhauder.com/2010/02/17/more-sec-guidance-on-revised-proxy-disclosure-rules/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>RMG Issues FAQs on New SEC Proxy Disclosure Rules</title>
		<link>http://edwardhauder.com/2010/02/15/rmg-issues-faqs-on-new-sec-proxy-disclosure-rules/</link>
		<comments>http://edwardhauder.com/2010/02/15/rmg-issues-faqs-on-new-sec-proxy-disclosure-rules/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Feb 2010 12:00:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ed Hauder</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Corporate Governance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[RiskMetrics Group (RMG)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[RiskMetrics Group (RMG) Policies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[SEC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[compensation consultant]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[directors]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://edwardhauder.com/?p=246</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[RiskMetrics Group (RMG) recently issued several FAQs related to the new SEC proxy disclosure rules.  Previously, I blogged about the RMG FAQ regarding Compensation Risk Disclosures, and today I will address the two other FAQs, one on compensation consultant conflicts and the other on the enhanced disclosure about directors &#8211; qualifications, diversity policies, and board [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://edwardhauder.com/2010/02/15/rmg-issues-faqs-on-new-sec-proxy-disclosure-rules/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>RiskMetrics Weighs In on Compensation Risk Disclosures</title>
		<link>http://edwardhauder.com/2010/02/12/riskmetrics-weighs-in-on-compensation-risk-disclosures/</link>
		<comments>http://edwardhauder.com/2010/02/12/riskmetrics-weighs-in-on-compensation-risk-disclosures/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Feb 2010 14:52:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ed Hauder</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Corporate Governance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Proxy Disclosure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[RiskMetrics Group (RMG)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[SEC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Item 402(s)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[risk]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[risk assessment]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://edwardhauder.com/?p=242</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The new proxy disclosure rules (Item 402(s) to be precise) require public companies to include a narrative disclosure discussing the company&#8217;s compensation policies and practices as they relate to the company&#8217;s risk management if risks arising from the company&#8217;s compensation policies and practices for its employees are &#8220;reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://edwardhauder.com/2010/02/12/riskmetrics-weighs-in-on-compensation-risk-disclosures/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Sample RMG Burn Rate Commitment Language</title>
		<link>http://edwardhauder.com/2010/02/05/sample-rmg-burn-rate-commitment-language/</link>
		<comments>http://edwardhauder.com/2010/02/05/sample-rmg-burn-rate-commitment-language/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Feb 2010 13:52:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ed Hauder</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Burn Rate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[RiskMetrics Group (RMG)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[RiskMetrics Group (RMG) Policies]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://edwardhauder.com/?p=238</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Last week I blogged about the new burn rate commitments that RiskMetrics Group&#8217;s (RMG&#8217;s) Research Group was accepting.  Thanks to a reader, I&#8217;m now able to share sample burn rate commitment language that was supported by RMG:
The Company commits to a three-year average burn rate for the years 2010, 2011 and 2012 not to exceed [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://edwardhauder.com/2010/02/05/sample-rmg-burn-rate-commitment-language/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Another Burn Rate Commitment RiskMetrics Should Consider</title>
		<link>http://edwardhauder.com/2010/01/29/another-burn-rate-commitment-riskmetrics-should-consider/</link>
		<comments>http://edwardhauder.com/2010/01/29/another-burn-rate-commitment-riskmetrics-should-consider/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 29 Jan 2010 17:22:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ed Hauder</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Burn Rate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[RiskMetrics Group (RMG)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[RiskMetrics Group (RMG) Policies]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://edwardhauder.com/?p=236</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Well, as expected, RiskMetrics Research Group is being a little flexible when it comes to companies&#8217; burn rate commitments for 2010 (for the full details, read this blog entry). But, as I indicated, given the speculative nature of two of the new allowable options, I don&#8217;t think many companies will easily undertake such commitments.
After giving [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://edwardhauder.com/2010/01/29/another-burn-rate-commitment-riskmetrics-should-consider/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Changes to RiskMetrics Group&#8217;s Burn Rate Commitment Policy</title>
		<link>http://edwardhauder.com/2010/01/27/changes-to-riskmetrics-groups-burn-rate-committment-policy/</link>
		<comments>http://edwardhauder.com/2010/01/27/changes-to-riskmetrics-groups-burn-rate-committment-policy/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Jan 2010 23:15:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ed Hauder</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Burn Rate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[RiskMetrics Group (RMG)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[RiskMetrics Group (RMG) Policies]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://edwardhauder.com/?p=230</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[RiskMetrics Group just announced that its Research Group is allowing companies some flexibility in their burn rate commitments for 2010. Companies that have a 3-year average burn rate that exceeds their GICS industry group cap must either publicly commit to maintaining their burn rate for the next three years at the burn rate cap for [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://edwardhauder.com/2010/01/27/changes-to-riskmetrics-groups-burn-rate-committment-policy/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>NY Times Book Review: Money for Nothing</title>
		<link>http://edwardhauder.com/2010/01/17/ny-times-book-review-money-for-nothing/</link>
		<comments>http://edwardhauder.com/2010/01/17/ny-times-book-review-money-for-nothing/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 17 Jan 2010 14:17:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ed Hauder</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Book Reviews]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Corporate Governance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Shareholder Approval]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Shareholder Rights]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://edwardhauder.com/?p=222</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Today&#8217;s New York Times reviews a new book, Money for Nothing: How the Failure of Corporate Boards Is Ruining American Business and Costing Us Trillions, from a former investment banker, John Gillespie, at Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns, and the co-founder of Salon.com, who worked at Dow Jones and Time Inc., David Zweig .
The book [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://edwardhauder.com/2010/01/17/ny-times-book-review-money-for-nothing/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
