Triennial could be a trend in 2011: If companies have their way, most shareholders will get their say on pay every three years.

So far, the majority of the 72 companies that filed their proxies as of Dec. 30 are recommending shareholder advisory votes on executive pay every three years. That's according to a tally by Latham & Watkins of non-TARP companies with annual meetings on or after Jan. 21, when the requirement under the Dodd-Frank Act takes effect. It's also in line with previous reports on early filings.

Among those companies, 40 (56 percent) recommend triennial votes, like Varian Medical Systems. Another 17 (24 percent) recommend annual SOP votes, including Oshkosh Corp. Eight, including Dolby Laboratories Inc. recommend biennial votes (11 percent), .

Interestingly, 7 (10 percent), Becton Dickinson & Co., make no recommendation. That's something those who advise companies don't expect to see often. “Companies that don't make a recommendation are missing an opportunity to influence the dialogue on executive compensation and corporate governance,” says Latham partner James Barrall.

He notes that triennial votes are currently the favorite among small and large companies alike. Among 34 large accelerated filers, 21 (62 percent) recommend triennial votes, while six (18 percent) recommend annual votes. Four LAFs made no recommendation and the other three recommend biennial votes.

Among 17 smaller reporting companies, nine (53 percent) are recommending triennial votes, while five (29 percent) recommend annual votes. Two recommend biennial votes and one made no recommendation.

“The numbers put a dent in the conventional wisdom that most companies would recommend annual votes for fear of offending ISS or others,” says Barrall. It also flies in the face of the view that most smaller companies would recommend annual votes.

Barrall takes the view that for most companies, recommending a triennial vote makes the most sense. “With respect to their compensation policies, companies ought to be managing for the longer term, and the key issue is whether pay aligns with performance,” he says.  Exceptions where recommending a more frequent vote might make sense include industries where financial performance is volatile, such as high tech, or companies that have had past problems related to their pay practices with proxy advisors such as ISS or their institutional shareholders, says Barrall.