IR Monitor – 25 March 2026

In this week’s newsletter:

• FTI Consulting on climate change and adaptation. A key takeaway for boards is that the disclosure-to-decision gap is widening: only a small minority of companies provide complete, decision-grade transition data across core indicators
• Boards often misunderstand what share buybacks really cost; they’re often payroll in disguise, suggests the Harvard Business Review
• Small investors fear SEC will drive corporate gadflies to extinction, warns Bloomberg. Federal regulators are considering new rules that could limit the ability of shareholders who hold no more than $2,000 in stock to get their proposals on proxy ballots
• Can’t raise billions in London? That’s rubbish says top investor for The Times. UK boards should be braver and ask shareholders for the cash to invest & grow 
• SEC preps proposal to scrap quarterly reporting requirement. Instead, companies would have the option to share results twice a year suggests The Wall Street Journal
• And finally … the Financial Times on how the FTSE grew comfortable with bumper pay for bosses. Investors are buying the argument that they should approve large increases or risk losing bosses to America

This week’s news

FTI on climate change and adaptation

FTI Consulting’s latest report on climate risk integration, suggests that investors, financial institutions and corporate executives are relying on models which consistently underestimate climate exposure, with significant implications across capital markets. An analysis of 148 companies across the globe revealed that conventional models project around 2.0% portfolio losses, while FTI’s analysis identified a 7.7% average exposure, a gap that highlights transition risks remain materially underweighted. For lenders and investors, these findings raise the possibilities of hidden concentrations and mispriced portfolios, while for corporates it affects cost of capital and competitive positioning, with persistent underestimation likely to translate into higher capital requirements. As UK regulatory scrutiny intensifies, more company-specific risk assessments are becoming essential for better-informed decision-making, and for securing stronger risk-adjusted returns and for maintaining stakeholder credibility.

Boards misunderstand what share buybacks really cost – HBR

According to the Harvard Business Review, share buybacks are often portrayed as returning cash to shareholders, but in many cases, they are simply offsetting dilution created by generous stock-based compensation (SBC). HBR suggests that companies effectively grant shares to employees while simultaneously repurchasing stock to prevent dilution and maintain existing ownership levels, with governance practices helping to sustain the cycle: SBC is treated as “non-cash” in reporting, as it does not involve immediate cash, even though it drives significant future spending over time through buybacks. As share prices rise, so does the cost of maintaining that balance, challenging the idea that equity pay is “free”. Non-GAAP metrics can further blur the picture, affecting both investor views and exec pay. The consequences of this cycle are overstated performances, hidden costs and weaker incentives; boards should more accurately measure the true cost of equity pay and adopt more transparent metrics and governance.

Small investors fear SEC will drive corporate gadflies to extinction – BBG

According to Bloomberg, US federal regulators are considering new rules that could limit the ability of shareholders who hold no more than $2,000 in stock to get their proposals on proxy ballots and influence corporate boards. While small investors largely rely on shareholder proposals, plans to raise ownership thresholds, alongside the SEC’s retreat from reviewing whether companies can exclude proposals, would give firms greater control over what reaches a shareholder vote. While some business groups argue the current system is costly and often ineffective, governance advocates warn that it risks silencing smaller investors and activist groups. Although such proposals rarely pass, they have historically driven changes in areas such as governance and social policy. A shift could reduce shareholder engagement, increase legal challenges and weaken the role of smaller investors in influencing corporate behaviour.

Can’t raise billions in London? That’s rubbish says top investor – The Times

When it comes to funding, “ask and you shall receive” is the message from investor Simon Peckham, co-founder of Melrose Industries and current CEO of Rosebank. In a recent interview with The Times, Peckham challenged the prevailing narrative that London is a weak market, arguing instead that boards need to be “brave” in asking shareholders for capital. He dismisses suggestions that the market cannot support large fundraisings as “rubbish”, contending that the real challenge lies in developing compelling, credible strategies that can win investor backing. His own track record underlines the point: Rosebank is set to raise £1.9bn this month, contributing to nearly £3bn secured over the past year. According to Peckham, “there are plenty of good ideas”, but success requires confidence to ask for the capital to pursue them. Those willing to make a clear, proactive case to investors, therefore, may find that the funding is still very much there.

SEC preps proposal to scrap quarterly reporting requirement – WSJ

The Securities and Exchange Commission is weighing a shift that could significantly reshape the financial reporting landscape, with plans to make quarterly earnings reporting optional and allow companies to report just twice a year, according to The WSJ. The proposal, expected as soon as next month, would mark a notable departure from a system that has relied on quarterly disclosures for more than 50 years. The idea has been gaining traction recently, with support from President Trump and SEC Chair Paul Atkins, and regulators are reportedly in discussions with major exchanges to consider how rules might need to adapt. While advocates argue that fewer reporting obligations could reduce costs, make public markets more attractive & potentially slow the trend of companies staying private, investors are likely to argue in favour of regular, transparent disclosures. 

And finally … how the FTSE grew comfortable with bumper pay for bosses

UK boards seem to have rediscovered the art of the big pay packet, with investors increasingly playing along, according to the Financial Times. At companies like Smith & Nephew, Rolls-Royce and Shell, CEO pay is rising sharply. But it’s not just the size of the awards that’s changed, it’s also the reaction: where hefty compensation packages might once have sparked shareholder rebellion, they’re now being met with a far more relaxed response. Stronger performance across the FTSE 100 has helped make the case to investors, while boards also point to more flexible guidance from the Investment Association on pay structures. Add in the reality that many top executives could leave for US companies, with many already calling the US home, and “competitive” pay starts to feel less like excess and more like insurance. The result is a quieter acceptance of higher rewards — though AGM season will reveal whether investors see the increases as justified, or simply another step in a familiar ratchet.