NVR INC (NVR)

Sector: Consumer Discretionary

    Home/Companies/NVR/Annual Meeting

2026 Annual Meeting Analysis

NVR INC · Meeting: May 7, 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

2

Directors AGAINST

9

Say on Pay

FOR

Auditor

AGAINST

Director Elections

Election of Directors

2 FOR/9 AGAINST

Against Analysis

✗ AGAINST
Paul C. Saville3-year TSR underperformance vs peer group exceeds 65pp threshold (gap: -72.6pp)5-year TSR also underperforms peer median by -80.8pp — no mitigant applieslong tenure (joined 2022 as director, but served as CEO/employee since 1981 with deep accountability for strategy)

Saville has served on the board since 2022 and as Executive Chairman throughout the entire 3-year underperformance period; NVR's 3-year total shareholder return of +20.6% trails the company's disclosed peer group median of +93.2% by 72.6 percentage points, exceeding the 65-point threshold required to trigger a AGAINST vote for strong-positive TSR situations, and the 5-year gap of -80.8pp against the peer median also exceeds the threshold so no long-term mitigant applies.

✗ AGAINST
C. E. Andrews3-year TSR underperformance vs peer group exceeds 65pp threshold (gap: -72.6pp)5-year TSR also underperforms peer median by -80.8pp — no mitigant appliestenure since 2008 — full overlap with underperformance period

Andrews has served on the board since 2008 and was present for the entire 3- and 5-year periods of underperformance; NVR's 3-year return of +20.6% lags the peer median by 72.6 percentage points (threshold: 65pp for strong-positive TSR), and the 5-year comparison also fails to provide a mitigant, so a AGAINST vote is warranted.

✗ AGAINST
Sallie B. Bailey3-year TSR underperformance vs peer group exceeds 65pp threshold (gap: -72.6pp)5-year TSR also underperforms peer median by -80.8pp — no mitigant appliestenure since 2020 — full overlap with underperformance period

Bailey joined in February 2020 and has been on the board for the full 3- and 5-year measurement windows; the 3-year peer underperformance gap of 72.6pp exceeds the 65pp trigger threshold, and the 5-year gap of -80.8pp against the peer median provides no mitigant, so a AGAINST vote is warranted.

✗ AGAINST
Alfred E. Festa3-year TSR underperformance vs peer group exceeds 65pp threshold (gap: -72.6pp)5-year TSR also underperforms peer median by -80.8pp — no mitigant appliestenure since 2008 — full overlap with underperformance period

Festa has served since December 2008 and was present for the entire measurement period; the 3-year peer underperformance gap of 72.6pp exceeds the 65pp trigger, and the 5-year gap provides no mitigant, so a AGAINST vote is warranted.

✗ AGAINST
Alexandra A. Jung3-year TSR underperformance vs peer group exceeds 65pp threshold (gap: -72.6pp)5-year TSR also underperforms peer median by -80.8pp — no mitigant appliestenure since 2018 — full overlap with underperformance period

Jung joined in December 2018 and has been on the board throughout both the 3- and 5-year measurement windows; the 3-year peer underperformance gap of 72.6pp exceeds the 65pp trigger and the 5-year gap provides no mitigant, so a AGAINST vote is warranted.

✗ AGAINST
Mel Martinez3-year TSR underperformance vs peer group exceeds 65pp threshold (gap: -72.6pp)5-year TSR also underperforms peer median by -80.8pp — no mitigant appliestenure since 2012 — full overlap with underperformance period

Martinez has served since December 2012 and has full overlap with both the 3- and 5-year underperformance periods; the 3-year peer underperformance gap of 72.6pp exceeds the 65pp trigger and the 5-year gap provides no mitigant, so a AGAINST vote is warranted.

✗ AGAINST
David A. Preiser3-year TSR underperformance vs peer group exceeds 65pp threshold (gap: -72.6pp)5-year TSR also underperforms peer median by -80.8pp — no mitigant appliestenure since 1993 — full overlap with underperformance period

Preiser has served since 1993 and has full overlap with all measurement periods; the 3-year peer underperformance gap of 72.6pp exceeds the 65pp trigger and the 5-year gap of -80.8pp provides no mitigant, so a AGAINST vote is warranted.

✗ AGAINST
W. Grady Rosier3-year TSR underperformance vs peer group exceeds 65pp threshold (gap: -72.6pp)5-year TSR also underperforms peer median by -80.8pp — no mitigant appliestenure since 2008 — full overlap with underperformance period

Rosier has served since December 2008 and has full overlap with both measurement periods; the 3-year peer underperformance gap of 72.6pp exceeds the 65pp trigger and the 5-year gap provides no mitigant, so a AGAINST vote is warranted.

✗ AGAINST
Susan Williamson Ross3-year TSR underperformance vs peer group exceeds 65pp threshold (gap: -72.6pp)5-year TSR also underperforms peer median by -80.8pp — no mitigant appliestenure since 2016 — full overlap with underperformance period

Ross has served since July 2016 and has full overlap with both the 3- and 5-year measurement windows; the 3-year peer underperformance gap of 72.6pp exceeds the 65pp trigger and the 5-year gap of -80.8pp provides no mitigant, so a AGAINST vote is warranted.

For Analysis

✓ FOR
Michael J. DeVitojoined July 2025 — within 24-month new-director exemption

DeVito was appointed to the board on July 1, 2025, less than 24 months before the meeting date, so he is exempt from the TSR underperformance trigger under the new-director exemption in our policy.

✓ FOR
George R. Oliverjoined October 2025 — within 24-month new-director exemption

Oliver was appointed to the board on October 1, 2025, less than 24 months before the meeting date, so he is exempt from the TSR underperformance trigger under the new-director exemption in our policy.

NVR's 3-year stock return of +20.6% dramatically trails its four disclosed compensation peers (Lennar, PulteGroup, Taylor Morrison, Toll Brothers) by 72.6 percentage points — well above the 65-point threshold that triggers AGAINST votes for directors whose tenure overlaps with the underperformance period. The 5-year comparison (-80.8pp vs peer median) also fails to provide a mitigant. As a result, nine of the eleven director nominees receive AGAINST votes. The two newly appointed directors (DeVito, July 2025; Oliver, October 2025) are exempt because they joined within the last 24 months and have not had sufficient time to influence company strategy.

Say on Pay

✓ FOR

CEO

Eugene J. Bredow

Total Comp

$1,748,227

Prior Support

95%%

CEO Bredow's total reported compensation of $1,748,227 is notably modest for a $18 billion market-cap homebuilder, and the proxy discloses it sits below the 25th percentile of the company's homebuilding peer group — meaning pay levels are not an issue. The compensation structure is genuinely performance-oriented: roughly 80% of target pay is variable (annual bonus capped at 100% of salary plus long-term stock options that deliver no value unless the share price rises above the grant price), and in 2025 the bonus paid out at only 20% of maximum because NVR missed its pre-tax profit and new orders targets, demonstrating that the incentive plan actually reduces pay when performance falls short. Although NVR's stock has lagged its homebuilding peers over the past three years, this occurred while executive pay remained low rather than executives being rewarded for underperformance, so the pay-for-performance alignment test passes; the prior say-on-pay vote was 95% in favor, and there are no governance concerns with the pay structure that would warrant a AGAINST vote.

Auditor Ratification

✗ AGAINST

Auditor

KPMG LLP

Tenure

39 yrs

Audit Fees

$1,037,500

Non-Audit Fees

$12,000

auditor tenure of 39 years exceeds the 25-year threshold — no compelling justification provided in the proxy

KPMG has served as NVR's auditor since 1987, a relationship of approximately 39 years that well exceeds our 25-year tenure threshold for concern about auditor independence and professional skepticism; while the non-audit fee ratio is extremely low (about 1.2% of audit fees, well within the 50% limit) and no restatements are disclosed, the proxy does not provide the specific and compelling rationale required by our policy to support continued engagement beyond 25 years, and the audit committee's stated practice of 'annually considering rotation' without actually rotating falls short of the concrete commitment needed to overcome this trigger.

Stockholder Proposals

2 proposals submitted by shareholders

Proposal 4

Give Shareholders an Improved Ability to Call for a Special Shareholder Meeting

✓ FOR
Filed by:John CheveddenIndividual ActivistGovernance
Prior-year support: 29% (Less than 30% support at the 2025 annual meeting per the company's opposition statement)
Board recommends: AGAINST
credible individual governance activist filergovernance/structural ask — lower bar to supportcurrent 25% threshold with 1-year continuous holding requirement is restrictiveprior year support under 30% but proposal has genuine governance merit

John Chevedden is a well-known individual governance activist with a long track record of submitting legitimate shareholder rights proposals — this type of filer is taken seriously under our policy. The proposal asks to reduce the threshold to call a special meeting from 25% (plus a one-year continuous holding requirement) to 10%, which is a meaningful governance improvement that gives ordinary shareholders a more practical ability to raise urgent matters between annual meetings; the combination of a 25% threshold and a one-year holding period is more restrictive than typical market practice and effectively limits this right to a very small number of long-term large holders. Although prior-year support was below 30% (a signal that broad shareholder support has not yet formed), the structural merit of lowering an unusually restrictive threshold and the credibility of the filer support a FOR vote.

Proposal 5

Shareholder Proposal Regarding Greenhouse Gas Emissions

✗ AGAINST
Filed by:Not explicitly named in the provided text excerptOtherDisclosure
Board recommends: AGAINST
insufficient filer identity information to classify as credible governance filercompany already discloses SASB data and has a Responsible Building Policy on its websiteboard opposition notes no investor has articulated how GHG disclosures would be used in investment decisions

The proxy text provided does not clearly identify the filer of the GHG emissions proposal, making it impossible to confirm whether this comes from a credible governance-focused investor or an ideological/advocacy filer; without a credible filer identity, the proposal cannot overcome the company's opposition. NVR already publishes SASB disclosures and a Responsible Building Policy on its website, and the company's response that no investor has explained how GHG emission data would be used in investment decisions is a reasonable counter to the disclosure request; given the lack of confirmed filer identity, the absence of prior-year vote data, and the company's existing sustainability disclosures, a AGAINST vote is appropriate.

Overall Assessment

The 2026 NVR annual meeting presents a mixed ballot: nine of eleven director nominees receive AGAINST votes due to NVR's stock lagging its homebuilding peers by over 72 percentage points over three years with no 5-year mitigant, and KPMG's 39-year auditor tenure triggers a AGAINST vote on ratification despite clean fee ratios. The Say on Pay vote earns a FOR given genuinely modest and performance-linked CEO pay, while the special meeting proposal from John Chevedden warrants support as a legitimate governance improvement to NVR's unusually restrictive special meeting threshold.

Filing date: March 17, 2026·Policy v1.2·high confidence

Compensation Peer Group

4 companies disclosed in 2026 proxy filing

LENLennar Corporation
PHMPulteGroup, Inc.
TMHCTaylor Morrison Home Corporation
TOLToll Brothers, Inc.