GETTY IMAGES HOLDINGS INC CLASS A (GETY)

Sector: Communication

    Home/Companies/GETY/Annual Meeting

2026 Annual Meeting Analysis

GETTY IMAGES HOLDINGS INC CLASS A · Meeting: October 8, 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

1

Directors AGAINST

2

Say on Pay

AGAINST

Auditor

AGAINST

Director Elections

Election of Patrick Maxwell, Jeffrey Titterton and Thomas Walper as Class I Directors

1 FOR/2 AGAINST

Against Analysis

✗ AGAINST
Patrick MaxwellTSR trigger: 3-year price return -93.8% vs XLC +72.8%; gap of -166.6pp far exceeds the 30pp threshold for negative absolute TSR; director has served since 2012, well within the underperformance period; 5-year return -97.4% vs XLC — underperformance persists over 5-year window, no mitigant applies

Maxwell has served since 2012, giving him full accountability for the company's catastrophic stock performance — a 3-year loss of nearly 94% against a sector benchmark (XLC) that gained 72.8% over the same period, a gap of 166.6 percentage points that dwarfs the 30-point threshold required to trigger a vote against; the 5-year record is equally poor, so no long-term mitigant applies.

✗ AGAINST
Jeffrey TittertonTSR trigger: 3-year price return -93.8% vs XLC +72.8%; gap of -166.6pp far exceeds the 30pp threshold for negative absolute TSR; director has served since November 2022, more than 24 months ago and tenure overlaps substantially with underperformance period; 5-year mitigant not applicable — 5-year TSR similarly catastrophic

Titterton joined in November 2022, which is more than 24 months before this meeting, so the new-director exemption does not apply; his tenure fully overlaps with the period in which the stock lost nearly 94% while the XLC sector benchmark gained 72.8%, a gap of 166.6 percentage points that far exceeds the 30-point policy threshold, and the 5-year return provides no mitigating relief.

For Analysis

✓ FOR
Thomas Walper

Walper was appointed on July 20, 2026 — less than 24 months before this meeting — so he is fully exempt from the TSR underperformance trigger under policy, which gives new directors reasonable time to contribute before being held accountable for prior-period performance; no other disqualifying flags identified.

Of the three Class I nominees, two (Maxwell and Titterton) receive AGAINST votes because the company's 3-year stock price decline of nearly 94% against an XLC sector benchmark gain of 72.8% — a gap of 166.6 percentage points, far exceeding the 30pp threshold — applies to both directors given their tenures of more than 24 months; the third nominee (Walper) was appointed in July 2026 and is exempt from the TSR trigger as a director who joined within the past 24 months.

Say on Pay

✗ AGAINST

CEO

Craig Peters

Total Comp

$3,793,495

Prior Support

N/A

Pay-for-performance misalignment: variable pay above benchmark while stock lost 93.8% over 3 years vs XLC sector benchmark gain of 72.8% — a gap of 166.6pp far exceeding the 20pp threshold for above-benchmark variable pay with TSR underperformanceCEO total compensation of $3,793,495 includes $1,475,475 in annual cash bonus and $1,315,500 in equity awards (combined variable pay of $2,790,975, approximately 73.5% of total) while shareholders experienced near-total loss of investment value

The CEO received $3,793,495 in total compensation for 2025, of which roughly 73% was variable pay (cash bonus plus equity awards) — a pay structure that is ostensibly performance-linked; however, shareholders have suffered a devastating loss of nearly 94% of their investment over the past three years while the broader Communication Services sector benchmark (XLC) gained 72.8%, a gap of 166.6 percentage points that vastly exceeds the 20-point threshold our policy uses to identify situations where above-benchmark incentive pay is not justified by shareholder outcomes. The incentive compensation paid to the CEO and other named executives was not aligned with the experience of shareholders who held the stock through this period, making a vote against the pay program appropriate.

Auditor Ratification

✗ AGAINST

Auditor

Ernst & Young LLP

Tenure

N/A

Audit Fees

$3,381,000

Non-Audit Fees

$6,698,000

Non-audit fees exceed 50% of audit fees: non-audit fees (audit-related $5,900K + tax $792K + other $6K = $6,698K) represent approximately 198% of audit fees ($3,381K), well above the 50% threshold

In 2025, Ernst & Young received $3,381,000 in core audit fees but $6,698,000 in other fees (including $5,900,000 for Section 404(b) readiness work, $792,000 in tax services, and $6,000 in other fees), meaning the non-audit work was nearly twice the size of the audit itself — a ratio of roughly 198%, far above the 50% ceiling our policy uses to protect auditor independence; although the Section 404(b) readiness work appears to be a one-time item, our policy does not automatically waive the trigger for one-time events, and the scale of the non-audit relationship raises genuine independence concerns.

Overall Assessment

This ballot presents serious governance concerns: two of three director nominees receive AGAINST votes due to the company's catastrophic 3-year stock performance (down 94% vs. the XLC sector benchmark which gained 73%), and the auditor ratification fails our policy because non-audit fees in 2025 were nearly twice the size of audit fees, raising independence concerns. The Say on Pay vote also receives an AGAINST because executive incentive pay was not aligned with shareholder outcomes during a period of near-total value destruction.

Filing date: August 28, 2026·Policy v1.2·medium confidence