The question of the role of compensation in encouraging risk-taking and cheating on the part of executives is an ongoing debate (for example, see “CEOs with Stock Options Are More Likely to Break Laws,” by Dylan Minor, Harvard Business Review, May 26, 2106). But a couple of recent studies that I heard about on a podcast make me wonder if it isn’t the amount or type of compensation that is the problem but more so the disclosure of it.
The Studies
I make dinner every night and doing so invariably involves endless chopping of vegetables. This gives me a LOT of time to listen to podcasts. One podcast I listen to regularly is NPR’s Hidden Brain, which discusses patterns in human behavior. A recent episode (“The Cheater’s High and Other Reasons We Cheat“) discussed social science research on cheating, specifically the social contexts in which people cheat.
The podcast discussed one study (“Cheating More for Less: Upward Social Comparisons Motivate the Poorly Compensated to Cheat” by Leslie John of Harvard Business School, George Loewenstein of Carnegie Mellon University, and Scott Rick of the University of Michigan) that found that people are more likely to cheat when they are aware that others are doing better than them. The subjects of the study were compensated at varying rates for performing a self-reported trivia task. The subjects were more likely to cheat when they knew that others in the experiment were earning more than them. The more easily they had access to the information about how others were compensated, the more likely they were to cheat. According to the authors of the study:
Our results suggest that low pay-rates are, in and of themselves, unlikely to promote dishonesty. Instead, it is the salience of upward social comparisons that encourages the poorly compensated to cheat.
A second study (“Winning a Competition Predicts Dishonest Behavior” by Amos Schurr of Ben-Gurion University of the Negev and Ilana Ritov of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem) found that people who won a competition were more likely to cheat on subsequent unrelated tasks. The propensity to cheat was tied directly to winning (i.e., performing better than their peers), not succeeding at personal goals or in games of chance.
Executive Compensation Disclosures and Cheating
When I listened to the podcast, I immediately thought of the executive compensation disclosures in the proxy statement. The disclosures provide an easy way for executives to compare their pay to their peers’. Not only is the information readily available on the SEC website, but it is fodder for any number of published studies on executive compensation. For proof, just look at the NASPP’s Surveys & Studies Portal. I count at least four or five such studies that are published annually, one of which is published in the Wall Street Journal. And that’s just among the studies that I have permission to post on the website. I’m sure there are more that I’m not aware of. If you are among the top five highest executives, I’m pretty sure you have an idea of how your compensation compares to your peers’.
On top of that, in recent years executive pay has shifted more and more towards performance-based compensation, which enables executives to increase the amount they are paid by improving company performance. We’ve also seen a significant shift toward measuring performance based on relative TSR—that is, how well a company performs as compared to its peers. Companies that rank higher against their peers “win” and those executives are paid more. Given the results of the two studies described above, this seems like a recipe for executives to cheat.
– Barbara
Tags: executive compensation, executive compensation disclosures, executive pay
New Studies
We’ve posted two new studies by Frederic W. Cook & Co:
NASPP To Do List
Here’s your NASPP To Do List for the week:
Tags: corporate governance, executive compensation, executive pay, LTI, LTI awards, NASPP To Do List
There’s a lot being said about the new CEO pay ratio disclosure rules, most of it far better than anything I could write myself, so today, as a fill in for Jenn Namazi who is on vacation, I continue my new tradition of “borrowing” other blog entries on this topic.
Today’s entry is a nifty “to do” list for preparing for the CEO pay ratio disclosure that Mike Melbinger of Winston & Strawn posted in his August 6 blog on CompensationStandards.com. Given that the disclosure isn’t required until 2018 proxy statements, you might have been lulled into thinking that this isn’t something you have to worry about yet. While it’s true that there’s no need to panic, there is a lot to do between now and 2018 and it is a good idea to start putting together a project plan now to get it all done. Don’t let this turn into another fire that you to put out. Here are Mike’s thoughts on how to get started:
1. Brief the Board and/or the Compensation Committee as to the final rules and the action steps. Press coverage of the rules has been extensive. They are likely to ask.
2. Each company may select a methodology to identify its median employee based on the company’s facts and circumstances, including total employee population, a statistical sampling of that population, or other reasonable methods. We expect that the executive compensation professionals in the accounting and consulting firms very soon will be rolling out available methodologies (they began this process when the rules were proposed, two years ago). The company will be required to describe the methodology it used to identify the median employee, and any material assumptions, adjustments (including cost-of-living adjustments), or estimates used to identify the median employee or to determine annual total compensation.
3. As I noted yesterday, the rules confirm that companies may use reasonable estimates when calculating any elements of the annual total compensation for employees other than the CEO (with disclosure). Assess your ability to calculate precisely all items of compensation or whether reasonable estimates may be appropriate for some elements. The company will be required to identify clearly any estimates it uses.
4. Begin to evaluate possible testing dates. The final rules allow a company to select a date within the last three months of its last completed fiscal year on which to determine the employee population for purposes of identifying the median employee. The company would not need to count individuals not employed on that date.
5. Consider tweaking the structure of your work-force (in connection with the selection of a testing date). The rules allow a company to omit from its calculation any employees (i) individuals employed by unaffiliated third parties, (ii) independent contractors, (iii) employees obtained in a business combination or acquisition for the fiscal year in which the transaction becomes effective. Finally, the rule allows companies to annualize the total compensation for a permanent employee who did not work for the entire year, such as a new hire. The rules prohibit companies from full-time equivalent adjustments for part-time workers or annualizing adjustments for temporary and seasonal workers when calculating the required pay ratio.
As I noted yesterday, the rules permit the company to identify its median employee once every three years, unless there has been a change in its employee population or employee compensation arrangements that would result in a significant change in the pay ratio disclosure.
6. Determine whether any of your non-U.S. employees are employed in a jurisdiction with data privacy laws that make the company unable to comply with the rule without violating those laws. The rules only allow a company to exclude employees in these countries. (The rules require a company to obtain a legal opinion on this issue.)
7. The rules only allow a company to exclude up to 5% of the company’s non-U.S. employees (including any non-U.S. employees excluded using the data privacy exemption). Consider which non-U.S. employees to exclude.
8. The rules allow companies to supplement the required disclosure with a narrative discussion or additional ratios. Any additional discussion and/or ratios would need to be clearly identified, not misleading, and not presented with greater prominence than the required pay ratio.
Mike noted one additional action item in his blog on August 7:
The rules explicitly allow companies to apply a cost-of-living adjustment to the compensation measure used to identify the median employee. The SEC acknowledged that differences in the underlying economic conditions of the countries in which companies operate will have an effect on the compensation paid to employees in those jurisdictions, and requiring companies to determine their median employee and calculate the pay ratio without permitting them to adjust for these different underlying economic conditions could result in a statistic that does not appropriately reflect the value of the compensation paid to individuals in those countries. The rules, therefore, allow companies the option to make cost-of-living adjustments to the compensation of their employees in jurisdictions other than the jurisdiction in which the CEO resides when identifying the median employee (whether using annual total compensation or any other consistently applied compensation measure), provided that the adjustment is applied to all such employees included in the calculation.
If the company chooses this option, it must describe the cost-of-living adjustments as part of its description of the methodology the company used to identify the median employee, and any material assumptions, adjustments, or estimates used to identify the median employee or to determine annual total compensation.
Companies with a substantial number of non-US employees should seriously consider the ability of apply a cost-of-living adjustment to the compensation measure used to identify the median employee.
Finally, don’t forget that registering for the Proxy Disclosure Preconference at this year’s NASPP Conference also entitles you to attend the online Pay Ratio Workshop on August 25. Don’t wait–discounted pricing is only available until next Friday, August 21.
The Proxy Disclosure Preconference will be held on October 27, in advance of the NASPP Conference in San Diego.
– Barbara
Tags: CEO pay, Dodd-Frank, Dodd-Frank Act, executive compensation, executive compensation disclosures, executive pay, executives, pay ratio, proxy, SEC, SEC rulemaking
I realize the title of my blog is somewhat broad – I mean, I’m guessing that highly paid CEOs have a lot in common (a nice office, fancy cars, access to private jets, world travel…). Alright, daydreaming aside, I’ll kill the suspense and answer my own question. In today’s blog I’m angling for an answer along the lines of “at least $95M each in income last year from stock compensation”.
With a rallying stock market, a legendary IPO and other favorable factors, the 10 most highly paid CEOs in 2012 (based on a recent poll by GMI Ratings – a corporate governance rating group) all earned in excess of $100M. The top two in that group earned in excess of a billion dollars. “Ah, so what?”, I thought. Then I looked a little closer and realized that that largest cash bonus in that group was $9.5M. The landslide majority of that compensation all came from stock compensation – both restricted stock and stock options.
It’s been a banner couple of years for executive pay. Once again, equity compensation appears to be squarely on top of the executive compensation pie. Of course the concerns about disproportionate gains (executives who are winning big while shareholders still are not) have surfaced, too. I’m going to avoid that discussion today, but if you’re interested in more on that topic, see Broc Romanek’s recent blog. Remember, the GMI Ratings information reflects 2012 compensation. With the stock market soaring, it seems that 2013 may even outpace 2012 in terms of realized gains on stock compensation.
When I start to see such record gains from stock compensation, and the corresponding publicity, I think about several things that stock administrators should consider:
- Prepare for trading activity. As year-end draws near and the stock market is going gangbusters, this seems to be the perfect combination for increased trading activity from executives. Even those with 10b5-1 plans may still lead to increased activity – if the 10b5-1 plan was based on a series of limit orders, those limits may execute quickly in an up market. Tax and financial advisers may also encourage executives to liquidate some of their position for one reason or another. This means there could be a surge in executives looking to trade in the coming weeks (requiring availability for pre-clearance procedures, and assurance the executive knows who to contact to execute the transaction).
- Consider whether there will be say-on-pay considerations for your upcoming proxy season. Is your company up for a say-on-pay vote this coming proxy season? With record executive compensation, there is bound to be scrutiny as to how those gains compare to shareholder returns. This opens the window to more of a microscope when the say-on-pay filter is applied. Even if you don’t get overly involved in the proxy preparation, given that a huge portion of executive compensation may have come from stock option or restricted stock transactions, you may need to be more involved in providing information for the disclosures. Now, for those who yawn at the mention of say-on-pay, let me just go tangential for a second to say that as of last week, there were 64 companies so far this year with a failed say-on-pay vote – already exceeding the 61 failures in all of 2012. So this is not an area where bygones have become bygones.
- Is it time to beef up year-end communications? Have you been considering sprucing up the old examples you use in your year-end communications? With an up stock market, I’m guessing the equity compensation windfalls may not be limited to just executives. With more employees cashing in on market gains, they are bound to be more interested in your year-end communications. Now’s the time to consider enhancing those communications with more detail and timely examples in order to proactively address employee questions. Remember, this is the first year some of those quirky taxes (like the additional medicare withholding rate) kick in, so employees may not be fully aware of how they may be or have been affected by these changes.
Who doesn’t love a good stock market rally? As keepers of the stock plans, this is what we hope for when we issue those grants and/or awards. Try to keep that in mind during those times when volume of transactions is up, and more year-end preparation is needed.
-Jennifer
Tags: 10b5-1 plan, employee communications, executive pay, restricted stock, Say-on-Pay, stock option