Disquiet around the planned new prudential framework for bank remuneration in APRA-regulated firms is generating threats of shareholder revolts, APRA chief Wayne Byres said yesterday."Our proposals have undoubtedly caused a fair amount of angst, as they would require significant change to established practice," Byres told a Women in Banking and Finance Series event in Sydney."Many large investors and proxy advisors, in particular, have been uncomfortable with what we have proposed largely, I suspect, because they have been very influential in designing current practices to suit their particular interests."Byres may have floored some when he said: "At least some boards have apparently been told that if they change their arrangements to comply with APRA's requirements, they will be met with protest votes at AGMs. "That is a strange and disappointing response to a board that would be seeking to comply with the law, but is illustrative of the passion that this topic has aroused."The APRA chief noted the concerns raised in many recent submissions that APRA's proposals "will not achieve our objectives, will be too onerous and therefore cannot be justified on a cost-benefit basis, and/or will have unintended consequences (such as challenges in attracting new talent, and significant shifts from variable to fixed remuneration)."We are considering these issues very carefully," he said. "Notwithstanding these concerns, there does appear to be an underlying desire to improve remuneration practices in the financial system: few sought to argue that the status quo was optimal. "Sadly though, there is no consensus on what improvement looks like," he said.The need for boards to do a better job of exercising their discretion to adjust remuneration to ensure appropriate outcomes are achieved, is "one area where we and many submissions are on common ground," Byres said.On the flip side, "the proposed cap of 50 per cent on the use of financial metrics has been highly contentious," he accepted, going on to confirm APRA's flexibility on this point."We are not locked in to the specific 50 per cent proposal, and certainly recognise there are trade-offs involved, so will be looking at other options. "These could include, for example, a higher limit, a narrower definition of 'financial metrics', or an alternative way to use non-financial metrics. "Whatever we do, however, the challenge is to find an alternative that gives sufficient comfort that a 'profit alone' approach will not re-emerge in another guise."