Every pay decision, read against the people who vote on it
The most comprehensive remuneration database of the entire ASX300, and the only one read against investors’ own voting policies, their recorded votes and their published reasons.
It answers two questions together. How will the investors on your register read your pay, given what their policies say? And how did those same investors vote at other companies that made a similar change or carried a similar concern?
Read from the annual report, line by line
More than 75,000 data points, each with the page it came from. Not a survey, and not a summary of someone else’s summary.
From a peer group to a tested proposal
Build the peer group, or have one proposed
Choose peers by size and by sector, or ask the platform to propose a group. A proposed group comes with its reasoning: how close each company is on size, how close on industry, and which near misses were left out and why.
- Size by market capitalisation, revenue, profit or total assets
- GICS sector and industry group
- Save groups and reuse them across every screen
Benchmark quantum, one clean row per measure
Each measure is a single row resting on every company that discloses it in any acceptable form. Where a report gives dollars but not a percentage of fixed, or the reverse, the platform completes the other from the company’s own figures and says so.
- Minimum, P25, median, P62.5, P75 and maximum, with your company’s percentile
- Points shown from five companies, the median from three
- A disclosed annual rate counts for a part-year incumbent; paid amounts for a part year do not
- Opportunity is never mixed with what was awarded or realised
Where your pay sits in a peer group you define
Illustrative data · companies, investors and figures are fictionalCEO · 24 peers · Materials, $4bn–$12bn market capitalisation
Band = P25 to P75 · line = median · dot = your company
One clean row per measure: minimum, P25, median, P62.5, P75 and maximum, with a count of how many values are disclosed and how many are derived.
Benchmark plan design, not only pay
See how common each design feature and each category of performance measure is in your peer group, and read the wording each peer uses. It is the evidence a remuneration committee needs when a proxy adviser calls a structure unusual.
- Prevalence of every feature, with the verbatim text behind it
- Measure categories and weightings for the STI and the LTI
- A report that is silent is recorded as not disclosed, never assumed
How common is each feature among your peers?
Illustrative data · companies, investors and figures are fictionalPlan design prevalence · 24 peers
Bar = share of the 24 peers whose report discloses the feature
| Feature | Peers with it | Your company | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Malus and clawback | 92% | ✓ | |
| STI deferral into equity | 79% | ✓ | |
| CEO minimum shareholding | 71% | ✗ | |
| Financial gateway on the STI | 54% | ✓ | |
| Four-year LTI performance period | 33% | ✗ | |
| Retesting of LTI hurdles | 8% | ✗ |
Captured in each company's own words. Where a report is silent, the silence is recorded as “not disclosed”, never guessed.
See what changed from one year to the next
Quantitative moves for the same incumbent, and structural changes to the plan: a measure added, a deferral lengthened, a scorecard reweighted. A rewording with the same figures is never counted as a change.
- The base year comes from the comparative printed in the later report where there is one
- A change of incumbent is shown and kept out of the group statistics
- Trends use the same companies in every year
What changed in the numbers, and in the plan itself
Illustrative data · companies, investors and figures are fictionalCompany K · FY25 → FY26
Same incumbent · base year taken from the comparative printed in the FY26 report
A rewording with the same figures is never counted as a change. Trends use the same companies in every year, so growing coverage cannot distort them.
Test pay against performance
Set statutory, realised or maximum pay, STI outcomes and LTI vesting against shareholder return and earnings, for one company through time and across the peer group in a single year.
- Rank of pay against rank of return, with the misaligned quadrant marked
- Reported shareholder return where the company gives one
- Every series comes from one source, so a trend never splices two definitions
Is pay moving with returns, against your peers?
Illustrative data · companies, investors and figures are fictionalCEO realised pay rank against three-year shareholder return rank
24 peers · each dot a company · amber = your company
Statutory, realised or maximum pay, STI outcomes and LTI vesting against shareholder return and earnings. Misalignment shows up before an investor points to it.
Search the precedent
Pick a change or a concern and the platform finds every company that shows it, with the figure and the report page as evidence. It then shows how investors voted at those meetings, investor by investor, beside each investor’s record everywhere else, and the reasons they published.
- Pay rises, higher STI or LTI maximums, one-off awards, termination payments
- Bonuses paid near maximum, and incentives paying out in a year of negative return
- Any design feature disclosed or not disclosed; any category of performance measure
- Group figures only where enough meetings support them; it shows what happened, it does not forecast
Who has already done this, and how did investors vote there?
Illustrative data · companies, investors and figures are fictionalHOW THE MEETINGS WENT
3 · WHICH INVESTORS MOVED, AND WHICH DID NOT
4 · WHY, IN THEIR OWN WORDS
Four steps on one screen: the change, what happened at those meetings, which investors vote differently when they see it, and the reasons they gave. Investors B, D and F barely move, so the engagement effort goes to A, C and E. A policy states the intent; a vote at a comparable company shows how it was applied.
Research a proposed change before it is announced
Enter the change you are considering and see where it would place you in the peer group. Then read it against the policies of the investors on your register, their votes at your own past meetings, and their votes at other companies that made the same change.
- Sits beside the register-weighted risk briefing in the wider platform
- Notices of meeting and results of meeting sit beside the pay data
- Every table exports to Excel with its sources
Built to be challenged in a boardroom
A benchmark is only useful if it survives the question “where did that number come from?” These rules apply to every figure.
Before the framework is set, not after the vote
See it on your own peer group and register
A walkthrough takes your company, a peer group you would recognise and the investors on your register, and shows what the evidence says.
Request a walkthroughIllustrations on this page use fictional companies, investors and figures. Sourced from published annual reports and remuneration reports.