Close

Cart

Total $0.00

Checkout

By: Keith Kefgen

Cybersecurity. Say-on-Pay. Short-term vs Long-Term. Shareholder Activism. All of these issues are at the forefront for board directors these days. Change in corporate governance has reached a dizzying pace. How is the gaming industry reacting and/or setting the standard of change in governance? It appears that a number of gaming companies are creating best practices, while others need to update their standards in a big way.

Casino Journal and AETHOS Consulting Group have be examining corporate governing practices for more than a decade. This year’s study includes 26 companies that have significant business concerns in the gaming industry. This study examines board makeup, independence, committee structure and pay-for-performance in determining a governance score for each company. Click here to access the published article or continue reading. For an overview of the total scores and the top-performing boards, please click here.

MGM Resorts took the top spot for the second year in a row, receiving 41 out of a possible 46 points. In particular, MGM made significant progress in board diversity and their rationale for board composition. We applaud James Murren and the entire MGM board for their diligence in corporate governance.

Pinnacle Entertainment followed in second place with 38 points, consistent with their ranking in last year’s study. Other companies rounding out the top five rankings include Carnival and Scientific Games Corporation, who tied for third place with 36 points each, and Nevada Gold & Casinos in fifth with 35 points.

The evaluation was broken down into five key areas:

  • Size, makeup, and independence of the board
  • Committee structure, number of meetings, and effectiveness
  • Extent of insider participation and related transactions
  • Board self-evaluation and communication
  • Pay-for-performance models for board and executive pay
     

SIZE AND MAKEUP
In determining the effectiveness of the size and makeup of a company’s board, we looked at six attributes: the total number of board members, the length of term, the characteristics of the Chairman, the presence of a lead director, the ratio of insiders and outsiders on the board, and the board’s diversity.

Total Number of Board Members: The board should be comprised of an odd number of members between 5 and 11; a range that most experts consider to be optimal. We found that only 12 of the 26 companies in the survey met both metrics, a slight decrease from the previous year’s study.

Length of Term: All board members should be elected annually, rather than a staggered 3-year term, something that only half of the companies did.

Chairman Characteristics: The Chairman of the board should not be the CEO, nor should they be an insider of the company. More than half (15) of the companies had a complete separation of Chairman and CEO responsibilities, but only 7 of those 15 were considered outsiders.

Lead Director: The board should have both a Chairman and a lead director. Only 12 of the 26 companies had a lead director.

Ratio of Insiders and Outsiders: When evaluating the ratio of insiders and outsiders, we concluded that 15 of the 26 companies had a majority of outsiders on the board. However, only 7 companies had the super-majority of outsiders needed to earn full points in this area.

Diversity: Companies received points by having a formal policy around gender and racial diversity, policy implementation and diversity representation on the board. We believe that board diversity is socially responsible as well as good for business, though only MGM Resorts, Carnival, and Boyd Gaming received the full points for this segment.

Overall, not a single company received a perfect score in this section. Of the 16 achievable points, Empire Resorts and Carnival fared the best with 15 points each. MGM Resorts and Scientific Games Corporation followed with 12 points each, then Pinnacle Entertainment and Full House Resorts with 11. No other company received more than 10 points in this section of the study.

COMMITTEE STRUCTURE
The SEC requires public company boards to have the following four committees: audit, compensation, governance and nominating. With respect to committee structure, 9 companies in the peer group achieved a perfect score – indicating that they had the appropriate committees comprised entirely of independent board members, met at least four times a year, and did not have an executive committee.

We found that insider participation on subcommittees of the board has virtually disappeared, with only 3 of the 26 companies having an insider sitting on a committee. This minimal number shows a commitment to maintaining objectivity and keeping shareholder interests at the centre of decision making. Six companies had an executive committee, which boggles the mind in this day and age of corporate governance.

TRANSACTIONS WITH RELATED PARTIES
This section examines where conflicts of interest may arise due to a company insider or board member conducting business with the company in some other way. If any related party transaction is present, the company received zero points for the category. Of the 26 companies, 16 had transactions with related parties. Though this is frowned upon, it appears that most companies are at least communicating these transactions to their shareholders and determined that they were done a “market prices”.

EVALUATION AND COMMUNICATION
Issues concerning the effectiveness of internal board operations, director evaluation and accessibility to shareholders were measured in the evaluation and communication section. Only two companies, MGM Resorts and TransAct, received a perfect score of five points, though six additional companies earned four points. We reiterate that boards that measure their own performance strive, and welcoming two-way communication with shareholders will see an increase in their stock multiple and shareholder loyalty.

PAY-FOR-PERFORMANCE
Evaluation of pay-for-performance models includes consideration for clear articulation of compensation philosophy and incentives, stock ownership guidelines, incorporation of a claw back policy, and absence of excise tax gross-ups and excessive perquisites. In this year’s study, 3 of the 26 companies achieved full scores in pay-for-performance: Scientific Games Corporation, Las Vegas Sands, and Penn National Gaming. We are optimistic that as shareholders continue to voice their opinion on the matter of board and executive compensation, and watchdog agencies continue to apply pressure in this area, scores will tick upward.

Although insulated from a great deal of the fervour around shareholder activism, it is only a matter of time before more gaming companies get the “Icahn Treatment”. We continue to suggest that gaming companies improve their governance policies and activities to ward off activists who are only interested in short-term profits in a transaction. 

About Keith Kefgen

With nearly 30 years of experience in the hospitality industry, Keith is a career hospitality executive. Having graduated from the Cornell University Hotel School, he went on to work at Waldorf=Astoria Hotel before embarking upon a career in hospitality executive search. He was the CEO & founder of HVS Executive Search before joining AETHOS Consulting Group. A frequent lecturer on industry related issues, Keith has written more than 100 articles on the topics of executive selection, pay-for-performance, corporate governance and executive leadership. He is currently writing his first book, The Loneliness of Leadership.

Contact: Keith Kefgen

kkefgen@aethoscg.com / +1 (718) 313-9149

Related News

CEO Pay in Gaming: Founders vs Corporate Executives

Why ‘Heart and Soul’ Is Also a Strength in Leadership

The “TRICK” to Navigating the Turbulent Seas of Transition: Traditional Lodging Makes Waves on the High Seas, Part II

CEO Pay in Gaming: Founders vs Corporate Executives

Excuses are For Losers: Leadership Involves Pressure and Personal Sacrifice

AETHOS and 20|20 AssessSM Call for Participants in a Recruiting Game-Changer: Identifying Employees with the “X Factor”

Entrepreneurs’ Corner: In Conversation With Nikolai Jaeger, An Innovative Modular Hotel Real Estate Developer

Isn’t “Success” the Ultimate Sign of a True Leader?

The Uberisation of Employment

Introducing the “FAIR” Interview – Four Traits Critical for Success in a Meritocracy

Hasn’t the “Great Man or Woman” Leader Profile Been Debunked as a Myth?

AETHOS Consulting Group Releases Corporate Governing Practices Report: Insights on Hospitality Governance in an Ever-Changing Political Landscape

Corporate Governance in the Hospitality and Gaming Sectors in a Changing Political Landscape

Leadership; "Debunking a Myth" & "The Importance of Communication"

The Sad Side of Valentine’s Day – What the Hospitality Industry Should Know

Hershey Entertainment & Resorts CEO Bill Simpson on Tradition and Technology in Business

A 21st Century Quandary: Pause To Assimilate But Never Stop Running

What If…

"What Millennials Want” – The Real Career Priorities of Gen X vs Gen Y

Nominee for “2016 Hospitality Leader of the Year”

All News »

Please login or register to post a comment.