ARHAUS INC CLASS A (ARHS)
Sector: Consumer Discretionary
2026 Annual Meeting Analysis
ARHAUS INC CLASS A · Meeting: May 14, 2026
Directors FOR
0
Directors AGAINST
3
Say on Pay
FOR
Auditor
FOR
Director Elections
Election of Directors
Against Analysis
Ms. DePree has served since March 2023 (more than 24 months), so she is not exempt from the performance trigger; Arhaus stock lost about 17% over three years while the consumer discretionary sector ETF (XLY) gained roughly 50%, a gap of approximately 66 percentage points that far exceeds the 30-point threshold required to trigger a no vote for a company with negative absolute stock returns.
Mr. Doody has served since 2021, well beyond the 24-month exemption window; Arhaus stock lost about 17% over the past three years while the consumer discretionary sector ETF (XLY) gained roughly 50%, a gap of approximately 66 percentage points exceeding the 30-point trigger threshold, and the five-year record is even worse (stock down about 46% vs. positive ETF returns), confirming this is sustained underperformance rather than a temporary dip.
Ms. Hyde has served since 2021, well beyond the 24-month exemption window; Arhaus stock lost about 17% over the past three years while the consumer discretionary sector ETF (XLY) gained roughly 50%, a gap of approximately 66 percentage points exceeding the 30-point trigger threshold, and the five-year record is even worse (stock down about 46% vs. positive ETF returns), confirming sustained underperformance that warrants accountability at the board level.
For Analysis
All three Class II director nominees — Alexis DePree, Rick Doody, and Andrea Hyde — are subject to an AGAINST vote. No named compensation peer group was provided for director TSR benchmarking purposes (the compensation peer group listed in the proxy is used only for executive pay, not cited as the performance benchmark for director elections), so the policy falls back to the sector ETF (XLY). Arhaus stock has declined roughly 17% over three years while XLY gained approximately 50%, a gap of about 66 percentage points that far exceeds the 30-point threshold applicable when a company's absolute three-year stock return is negative. The five-year record (-46% stock vs. positive XLY returns) confirms this is not a temporary dip, so the five-year mitigant does not rescue a FOR vote. All three nominees have served more than 24 months and are therefore not exempt.
Say on Pay
✓ FORCEO
John Reed
Total Comp
$4,649,751
Prior Support
99%%
CEO John Reed received total compensation of approximately $4.65 million in 2025, which is dominated by base salary ($1.5 million) and a cash bonus earned at 90% of target ($1.35 million) rather than equity awards — Mr. Reed received no stock grants — so the pay mix concern about equity dilution does not apply here; the company received 99% shareholder support on last year's pay vote signaling broad shareholder satisfaction, and the pay structure includes meaningful performance conditions (the annual cash bonus was tied to Adjusted EBITDA and Written Sales targets and paid out at only 90% of target reflecting actual results below plan). While Arhaus stock has underperformed its sector, Mr. Reed's above-benchmark total pay is driven primarily by perquisites including personal aircraft use and a merchandise discount rather than above-benchmark incentive awards, and the incentive payout itself came in below maximum reflecting genuine performance discipline, so the pay-for-performance alignment check does not clearly trigger a no vote.
Auditor Ratification
✓ FORAuditor
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Tenure
N/A
Audit Fees
$2,977,000
Non-Audit Fees
$481,000
Non-audit fees (tax fees of $479,000 plus other fees of $2,000, totaling $481,000) represent about 16% of audit fees ($2,977,000), well below the 50% threshold that would raise independence concerns; PwC is a Big 4 firm appropriate for a company of Arhaus's size; auditor tenure is not disclosed in the proxy so the tenure trigger cannot fire; no material restatements were identified.
Overall Assessment
The 2026 Arhaus annual meeting presents three proposals: all three Class II director nominees receive AGAINST votes because the company's stock has badly underperformed the consumer discretionary sector ETF (XLY) over three and five years, triggering the policy's stock performance accountability rule; the Say on Pay vote receives a FOR because the CEO's incentive compensation was subject to real performance conditions and paid out below maximum reflecting actual below-plan results, and prior-year shareholder support was 99%; and auditor ratification of PricewaterhouseCoopers also receives a FOR because non-audit fees are well within acceptable limits at about 16% of audit fees.