ARHAUS INC CLASS A (ARHS)

Sector: Consumer Discretionary

    Home/Companies/ARHS/Annual Meeting

2026 Annual Meeting Analysis

ARHAUS INC CLASS A · Meeting: May 14, 2026

Policy v1.2medium confidenceView Filing ↗
For informational purposes only. This AI-generated analysis applies a published voting policy to publicly available proxy filings. It does not constitute investment advice, proxy voting advice, or a solicitation of any kind. AI analysis may be incomplete or inaccurate — always review the actual filing and make your own independent decision.

Directors FOR

0

Directors AGAINST

3

Say on Pay

FOR

Auditor

FOR

Director Elections

Election of Directors

/3 AGAINST

Against Analysis

✗ AGAINST
Alexis DePreeTSR trigger: 3-year price return -16.8% vs XLY +49.6%, gap of -66.4pp exceeds 30pp threshold for negative absolute TSR; director joined March 2023 (>24 months tenure, not exempt); 5-year data not applicable as company too young/director tenure < 5 years; no named peer group available for primary benchmark so ETF fallback applies

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.

✗ AGAINST
Rick DoodyTSR trigger: 3-year price return -16.8% vs XLY +49.6%, gap of -66.4pp exceeds 30pp threshold for negative absolute TSR; director joined 2021 (>24 months tenure, not exempt); 5-year TSR -45.9% vs XLY also confirms sustained underperformance; no named peer group available for primary benchmark so ETF fallback applies

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.

✗ AGAINST
Andrea HydeTSR trigger: 3-year price return -16.8% vs XLY +49.6%, gap of -66.4pp exceeds 30pp threshold for negative absolute TSR; director joined 2021 (>24 months tenure, not exempt); 5-year TSR -45.9% vs XLY also confirms sustained underperformance; no named peer group available for primary benchmark so ETF fallback applies

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

✓ FOR

CEO

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

✓ FOR

Auditor

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.

Filing date: April 2, 2026·Policy v1.2·medium confidence