How to Structure a Pillar 3 Remuneration Disclosure for PRA and Proxy Scrutiny

Pillar 3 remuneration disclosures now serve two masters who read them very differently. The PRA reads for alignment between pay, risk and prudential outcomes. Proxy advisors read for quantum, performance linkage and governance credibility. Most firms write for one and get ambushed by the other. The fix is not longer disclosure. It is a disclosure structured so the same facts answer both sets of questions in the order each audience asks them.

Key Executive Takeaways

• Write the risk-adjustment and Material Risk Taker (MRT) sections for the PRA, and the quantum and performance sections for proxy advisors, but reconcile them explicitly so neither audience finds a gap the other exploits.
• The single biggest failure point is unexplained variance: year-on-year movement in bonus pool, MRT population or deferral rates without a documented rationale invites challenge from both sides.
• Cross-reference the DRD (Directors' Remuneration Report) and Pillar 3 tables early in the drafting cycle; inconsistencies between the two documents are the fastest route to an ISS 'against' recommendation and a PRA follow-up letter.

Start with the two audiences, not the template

The SYSC 19D and PRA Rulebook tables are a floor, not a structure. Before populating them, decide what story you are telling. The PRA wants to see that variable pay flexes with risk outcomes, that malus and clawback are operable rather than theoretical, and that the MRT identification process is defensible. Proxy advisors want to see that variable pay flexes with performance, that discretion was used sparingly and explicably, and that the CEO pay ratio and quantum sit within peer norms.

These are not the same test. A bonus pool that fell because of a risk event will please the PRA and confuse ISS if you do not say so. A bonus pool that rose on strong financial performance will please shareholders and worry the PRA if risk adjustments are not visible.

Sequence the narrative to pre-empt challenge

Open with governance: RemCo composition, independence, use of the risk and compliance functions, and any independent advice taken. This is table stakes for both audiences and sets a tone of rigour.

Move next to the link between risk and reward. Describe ex-ante risk adjustment (how the pool is sized against risk-adjusted performance metrics) before ex-post adjustment (malus, clawback, in-year adjustments). If malus or clawback was applied in the year, say so plainly and quantify it. If it was considered and not applied, say that too, with reasoning. Silence on operability is the single most common PRA challenge.

Then address MRT identification. Show the qualitative and quantitative criteria applied, the population size, and material year-on-year changes. If the population shrank, explain why. Proxy advisors increasingly probe this as a governance signal.

Finally, present quantum: fixed and variable splits, deferral structures, instrument mix, and aggregate figures by MRT category. This is where proxy advisors focus. Give them the ratios and the peer context they will otherwise construct themselves, unfavourably.

Reconcile with the DRD before you publish

The DRD and Pillar 3 are drafted by different teams on different timetables and often tell subtly different stories. Executive director figures in the DRD must tie to the relevant Pillar 3 aggregates. Discretionary adjustments described in the DRD narrative must appear in the Pillar 3 risk-adjustment discussion. If the DRD says the RemCo exercised downward discretion for risk reasons, Pillar 3 must corroborate it. Assign one person, usually in company secretariat or reward, to own the reconciliation.

What good looks like

A strong disclosure reads as one document with two entry points. A PRA supervisor can find risk alignment, MRT rigour and adjustment operability without hunting. A proxy analyst can find quantum, performance linkage and discretion rationale without inference. Numbers tie. Variances are explained. Discretion is bounded and reasoned.

What most firms get wrong

They treat Pillar 3 as a compliance artefact and the DRD as the shareholder document, then discover proxy advisors read both. They under-explain year-on-year movement. They describe malus and clawback frameworks without evidencing operability. And they leave the MRT population change unexplained, which reads to the PRA as weak identification and to proxy advisors as governance drift.

Next step

Before the current cycle closes, run a single reconciliation workshop between reward, risk, secretariat and investor relations. Bring the draft Pillar 3, the draft DRD, and last year's ISS and Glass Lewis reports. Identify every variance and decide, together, how it will be explained. That meeting is worth more than another round of drafting.

Frequently Asked Questions

How much detail on malus and clawback is enough?

Enough to demonstrate operability. Describe the triggers, the governance process, whether any events in the year were considered, and the outcome. If nothing was triggered, say the framework was reviewed and no triggers were met. Do not describe the policy in the abstract only.

Should we disclose individual MRT pay?

Only where required. Aggregate by category is the standard. Individual disclosure beyond executive directors invites proxy scrutiny without regulatory benefit and can raise data protection issues.

How do we handle a year where variable pay rose sharply?

Explain the performance drivers, the risk adjustments considered, and the RemCo's discretion. Pre-empt the proxy advisor comparison to prior year and peers. If the rise is defensible, defend it in the document rather than in a follow-up call.

What triggers a PRA follow-up on remuneration disclosure?

Unexplained MRT population changes, weak evidence of ex-post adjustment operability, inconsistency with the ICAAP or risk appetite statement, and any suggestion that risk functions were not meaningfully involved in RemCo decisions.

Do proxy advisors actually read Pillar 3?

The larger houses do, particularly for banks and larger investment firms. They cross-check quantum, deferral and instrument mix against the DRD. Assume they will find any inconsistency.