MICROCHIP TECHNOLOGY INC (MCHP)

Sector: Information Technology

    Home/Companies/MCHP/Annual Meeting

2026 Annual Meeting Analysis

MICROCHIP TECHNOLOGY INC · Meeting: August 18, 2026

Policy v1.2high 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

3

Directors AGAINST

4

Say on Pay

AGAINST

Auditor

FOR

Director Elections

Election of Directors

3 FOR/4 AGAINST

Against Analysis

✗ AGAINST
Steve SanghiTSR underperformance trigger: MCHP 3-year return +8.5% vs peer median +101.1%, gap of -92.6pp exceeds 35pp threshold for low-positive absolute TSR tier5-year TSR check: MCHP 5-year return +35.7% vs peer median +155.2%, gap of -119.5pp exceeds 65pp threshold — 5-year mitigant does NOT applyCEO serving as sitting CEO holds 2+ outside public board seats (Intel, Impinj) — overboarding trigger for sitting CEOExecutive director subject to same TSR trigger as all other directors

Mr. Sanghi has served as a director since 1990 and became permanent CEO in November 2024, giving him full tenure overlap with the 3-year underperformance period; MCHP's stock returned only +8.5% over three years while the company's own disclosed peer group returned a median of +101.1%, a gap of 92.6 percentage points that far exceeds the 35-point threshold for the low-positive TSR tier, and the 5-year record (MCHP +35.7% vs peers +155.2%, a 119.5pp gap) also fails the applicable 65-point threshold so the 5-year mitigant does not rescue the vote; additionally, as a sitting CEO he currently serves on the boards of both Intel and Impinj, which exceeds the policy's two-seat limit for sitting CEOs.

✗ AGAINST
Ellen L. BarkerTSR underperformance trigger: MCHP 3-year return +8.5% vs peer median +101.1%, gap of -92.6pp exceeds 35pp threshold for low-positive absolute TSR tier5-year TSR check: gap of -119.5pp exceeds 65pp threshold — 5-year mitigant does NOT applyDirector since February 2024 — more than 24 months before the August 2026 meeting, so not exempt from the TSR trigger

Ms. Barker joined the board in February 2024, which is more than 24 months before the August 2026 annual meeting, so she does not qualify for the new-director exemption; MCHP's stock trailed the company's own peer group by 92.6 percentage points over three years, well above the 35-point trigger threshold for low-positive absolute returns, and the 5-year gap of 119.5 points also exceeds the applicable 65-point threshold, so the 5-year mitigant does not apply.

✗ AGAINST
Matthew W. ChapmanTSR underperformance trigger: MCHP 3-year return +8.5% vs peer median +101.1%, gap of -92.6pp exceeds 35pp threshold for low-positive absolute TSR tier5-year TSR check: gap of -119.5pp exceeds 65pp threshold — 5-year mitigant does NOT applyDirector since May 1997 — full tenure overlap with underperformance period

Mr. Chapman has served on the board since 1997 and has complete overlap with the 3-year underperformance period; MCHP shareholders received only +8.5% over three years while the peer group returned a median of +101.1%, a 92.6-point shortfall that triggers a vote against, and the 5-year comparison (119.5pp gap) also fails the applicable threshold so the longer-term record does not provide a mitigant.

✗ AGAINST
Karen M. RappTSR underperformance trigger: MCHP 3-year return +8.5% vs peer median +101.1%, gap of -92.6pp exceeds 35pp threshold for low-positive absolute TSR tier5-year TSR check: gap of -119.5pp exceeds 65pp threshold — 5-year mitigant does NOT applyDirector since January 2021 — full tenure overlap with underperformance period

Ms. Rapp has served on the board since January 2021 and her tenure fully overlaps with the 3-year underperformance period; MCHP's stock returned only +8.5% over three years versus a peer-group median of +101.1%, a 92.6-point gap that far exceeds the 35-point trigger, and the 5-year comparison (119.5pp gap vs. the 65-point threshold) also fails, so the 5-year mitigant does not soften the vote.

For Analysis

✓ FOR
Rick CassidyDirector since May 2025 — within 24-month new-director exemption window

Mr. Cassidy joined the board in May 2025, which is within the 24-month new-director exemption period, so he is not subject to the TSR underperformance trigger; he brings over 45 years of semiconductor industry experience and holds only one outside public board seat (SanDisk), and all independence and attendance checks pass.

✓ FOR
Mitch LittleDirector since June 2026 — within 24-month new-director exemption window

Mr. Little joined the board in June 2026, which is within the 24-month new-director exemption, so he is not subject to the TSR underperformance trigger; he brings deep semiconductor and Microchip-specific operational experience, holds no more than the permitted number of outside board seats, and all independence and attendance checks pass.

✓ FOR
Victor PengDirector since February 2025 — within 24-month new-director exemption window

Mr. Peng joined the board in February 2025, which is within the 24-month new-director exemption period, so he is not subject to the TSR underperformance trigger; he brings broad semiconductor industry and executive leadership experience, holds two outside public board seats (Rambus, KLA), which is within the policy limit for non-executive directors, and all independence and attendance checks pass.

Of the seven nominees, four directors (Sanghi, Barker, Chapman, Rapp) receive AGAINST votes driven by severe stock price underperformance — MCHP's 3-year return of +8.5% trailed the company's own disclosed peer group median of +101.1% by 92.6 percentage points, far exceeding the 35-point trigger threshold for the low-positive absolute TSR tier, and the 5-year comparison also fails so no mitigant applies; Mr. Sanghi additionally triggers the overboarding rule for sitting CEOs. Three newer directors (Cassidy, Little, Peng) receive FOR votes under the 24-month new-director exemption.

Say on Pay

✗ AGAINST

CEO

Steve Sanghi

Total Comp

$21,414,531

Prior Support

45.65%%

Prior Say on Pay vote of 45.65% (below 70% threshold) triggers mandatory review of whether meaningful changes were madePay-for-performance misalignment: MCHP 3-year TSR of +8.5% trails peer group median of +101.1% by 92.6pp while CEO total compensation was $21.4 millionInterim CEO equity award was 100% time-based with no performance conditions — effectively fixed pay disguised as variable pay for that portionEngagement and remediation: company conducted robust outreach and increased permanent CEO performance-based equity to 60%, which is a genuine improvement, but the core TSR misalignment and the prior low vote remain material concerns

Last year only 45.65% of votes cast supported Say on Pay — well below the 70% threshold — which requires the company to demonstrate meaningful structural changes to earn a FOR vote this year; while the company conducted genuine shareholder outreach and increased the performance-based share of the permanent CEO's pay to 60%, the interim CEO award granted in January 2025 (a large portion of the reported $21.4 million total) was entirely time-based with no performance conditions, which under our policy is treated as fixed pay regardless of its equity form; critically, MCHP's stock returned only +8.5% over three years while the company's own peer group returned a median of +101.1%, a 92.6-point gap, meaning above-benchmark incentive pay was not earned by shareholders' experience — the structural improvements for future periods are noted but do not overcome the combination of a below-70% prior vote, a time-based-only interim award, and severe pay-for-performance misalignment in the measurement period.

Auditor Ratification

✓ FOR

Auditor

Ernst & Young LLP

Tenure

25 yrs

Audit Fees

$7,062,000

Non-Audit Fees

$655,000

Auditor tenure is exactly 25 years (since June 2001) — at the threshold but the proxy discloses a five-year lead partner rotation policy and active partner rotation, providing a compelling rationale for continued engagement

EY has audited Microchip since June 2001, exactly 25 years, which reaches the policy tenure threshold; however, the proxy explicitly discloses that the lead audit partner is rotated every five years with other personnel rotated periodically, which represents a specific and concrete independence-preservation mechanism that satisfies the policy's exception for continued engagement; non-audit fees (tax fees of $570,000 plus audit-related fees of $85,000 = $655,000) represent approximately 9.3% of audit fees of $6,977,000, well below the 50% threshold that would raise independence concerns.

Overall Assessment

The 2026 Microchip Technology annual meeting is dominated by the company's severe stock price underperformance relative to its own disclosed peer group — a 92.6-percentage-point 3-year gap that triggers AGAINST votes for four of the seven director nominees and reinforces an AGAINST recommendation on Say on Pay, which also carries the weight of last year's historically low 45.65% shareholder support and a large interim CEO award that contained no performance conditions; the auditor ratification passes cleanly with low non-audit fees and adequate disclosure of partner rotation practices that justify EY's continued engagement at the 25-year tenure threshold.

Filing date: July 6, 2026·Policy v1.2·high confidence

Compensation Peer Group

16 companies disclosed in 2026 proxy filing

AMKRAmkor Technology
ADIAnalog Devices
FSLRFirst Solar
GENGen Digital
GDDYGoDaddy
KLACKLA Corporation
MRVLMarvell Technology
MKSIMKS Instruments
MPWRMonolithic Power Systems
NXPINXP Semiconductors
ONON Semiconductor
QRVOQorvo
SWKSSkyworks Solutions
TERTeradyne
TXNTexas Instruments
WDCWestern Digital