Arguments in a recent divorce proceeding potentially cast doubt on the idea of pay-for-performance, i.e., that outsized executive compensation is justified by performance.
The Jed Clampett Defense
If this sounds familiar, it’s because we highlighted an article (“Are C.E.O.s That Talented, or Just Lucky?,” Robert Frank, Feb. 7, 2015) in the New York Times that discussed case in the Across Our Desk column in the March-April 2015 NASPP Advisor. Lawyers for the founder and CEO of Continental Resources argued that he should only have to pay a small portion of his overall wealth to his ex-wife because most of the growth in his wealth was attributable to factors outside his control. Apparently under the applicable state laws (and in the laws of a number of states), the increase in value of an asset that you owned prior to marrying is not divisible in your divorce if the increased value is not due to your own efforts.
According to the article, the CEO’s lawyers argued that “under 10 percent of his wealth was a result of skill and effort, and that mostly he rode the crest of oil prices and the slide.” The CEO’s holdings included a 68% stake in Continental Resources, which has market capitalization of over $30 billion. Essentially the argument was that, although the CEO’s wealth increased during his marriage and much of that wealth was attributable to his holdings in the company he founded and runs, the holdings increased in value through little effort of his own. He was just lucky enough to be CEO of a successful company (sort of like Jed Clampett of The Beverly Hillbillies striking it rich by finding oil in his backyard).
Pay-for-Performance?
This was interesting to me because there is so much emphasis these days on paying for performance. This emphasis has lead to a surge in the use of performance awards, which often include multipliers when the company performs well, increasing payouts to execs.
I looked up what the Continental Resources proxy said about the CEO’s compensation. The 2014 proxy included statements like: “We rely upon our judgment in making compensation decisions, after…reviewing the performance of the Company, and evaluating an NEO’s contribution to that performance…and long-term potential to enhance shareholder value,” and other statements that seemed to indicate that compensation is based, at least in part, on individual performance. So while the CEO might not have thought he contributed to the company’s success, management and the compensation committee didn’t seem to share this view.
On the other hand, the Times article notes that academic research seems to indicate that individual executives don’t necessarily have a lot of control over the success of a company:
“As we know from the research, the performance of a large firm is due primarily to things outside the control of the top executive,” said J. Scott Armstrong, a professor at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania. “We call that luck. Executives freely admit this — when they encounter bad luck.”
The Ends Justify the Payouts, Even If They Aren’t the Means?
Ultimately, do shareholders care about the reason for a company’s success? I suspect that if the company is doing well and increasing shareholder wealth, they are fine with large payouts to executives even if the company’s success is not due to the efforts of executives.
I’ve told you to complete the ISS policy surveys in the past and I’m sure a lot of you have scoffed. But this year is different; this year, you might want to think twice about blowing off the survey. ISS has announced that they are considering a significant shift in how they evaluate stock compensation plans. The ISS Policy Survey is your opportunity to give ISS some feedback about how you think they should be analyzing your stock plans.
New ISS Policy on Equity Plans?
According to a recent posting in Tower Watson’s Executive Pay Matters blog (“ISS 2015 Policy Survey — Expanded Focus on Executive Compensation,” July 21), ISS has stated that it is considering using a more “holistic, ‘balanced scorecard’ approach” to evaluate equity plans. The good news is that this might allow for a more flexible analysis, rather than the very rule-based, SVT and burn rate analysis ISS uses today. But, as the Towers Watson blogs points out, it also might result in a less transparent process. Less transparency equates to less confidence in how ISS will come out on your plan when you put it to a vote (and perhaps also more business for ISS’s consulting group).
The 2015 Policy Survey
ISS uses policy surveys to collect opinions from various interested parties as to its governance policies. Corporate issuers are one of the many entities that are encouraged to participate in the survey. This year’s survey includes several questions on equity plans, including what factors should carry the most weight in ISS’s analysis: plan cost and dilution, plan features, or historical grant practices.
There’s a good chance your institutional investors are participating in the survey; don’t you want ISS to also hear your views on how your equity plans should be evaluated?
What Do You Think?
Say-on-Pay and CEO Pay
The survey also includes several questions on CEO pay (that ultimately relate to ISS analysis of Say-on-Pay proposals), including questions on the relationship between goal setting and award values and when CEO pay should warrant concern.
Completing the Survey
You have until August 29 to complete the survey. There may be questions in the survey that you don’t have an opinion on or that aren’t really applicable to you as an issuer–you can skip those questions. But don’t wait to complete the survey, because I’m pretty sure the deadline won’t be extended. On the positive side, however, the survey is a heck of a lot shorter than the NASPP’s Stock Plan Design and Administration Surveys.
This week I attended the annual CEP Symposium hosted by the Certified Equity Professional Institute at Santa Clara University. This was no ordinary CEP Symposium – it was the Institute’s 10th annual event, and also celebrated the Institute’s 25th anniversary. With so many great sessions at this event, it was hard to choose some tidbits to share in today’s blog. Finally, I decided to share with you 5 things I learned from Mark Borges, who delivered this year’s keynote address (and, by no coincidence, delivered the keynote at the first CEP Symposium years ago).
1. Performance-based pay is the new “norm.” That’s probably not surprising to many of us who are in the trenches of administering these programs, but the part that caught my attention is that shareholders are also catching on to the mainstream prevalence of these awards. The bottom line: if you are not using performance-based pay (which includes awards), your shareholders are likely to say something – now or in the near term future.
2. The proxy statement has become a “communication” tool, rather than a “compliance” tool. Some of the bigger brands have caught on to this concept and are investing in magazine-like layouts, looks and feels in designing and delivering their proxies. For examples, check out this year’s proxies from General Electric and Coca-Cola.
3. Executive pay litigation isn’t over. We’ve been through a couple phases of litigation initiated by shareholder plaintiff attorneys. The first round mostly focused on failed say-on-pay votes. The second round turns to inadequate proxy disclosures – mostly around stock plan proposals. Where is the litigation moving next? The eye seems to be turning to the technical non-compliance with the qualified performance based exception under Section 162(m).
4. Say-on-pay disclosures may be headed towards inclusion of more supplemental or responsive insights. It’s not far fetched to envision a table in the proxy that reports detailed results of shareholder say-on-pay votes and a matrix to address concerns raised by shareholders. 5. Don’t forget about the impending CEO pay ratio disclosure requirements coming from the SEC. The Commission is still scheduled to adopt rules this year, with a likely effective date somewhere in 2014 and implementation in 2016. These disclosures are expected to be both informative and inflammatory.
All in all, this year’s Symposium was a great event. I remember the first one – attended by somewhere around 75 people. This year’s attendance appeared to be just over 400. Congratulations to the Santa Clara University and the CEPI on their 25th anniversary in supporting the equity compensation profession, and for another successful event!
We’re into late March and I’m reminded of the centuries old English proverb: “March comes in like a lion and goes out like a lamb.” Somehow I think it’s the reverse for the stock plan world; as many of us get to this point in the year, we’ve found that we moved on from year-end reporting to a busier proxy season.
Say-on-What?
Perhaps I speak for many of us when I suggest that the term “say-on-pay” has almost become like white noise in the background. For so long it was talked about everywhere – with so much attention spent on dissecting how companies were implementing say-on-pay driven practices and proxy voting outcomes. Well, say-on-pay is still here, and while many of us are used to it, there are still a fair number of companies that still fail to gain an affirmative say-on-pay vote when proxy season comes. A few days ago, Broc Romanek of CompensationStandards.com blogged that the 2nd say-on-pay failure for this proxy season just happened. This particular company was one that received an affirmative say-on-pay vote the year before. All in all, 74 companies failed the say-on-pay vote last year. Let’s hope those numbers start a downward trend this season. I’m not sure if I’d put my money on a downward spiral just yet, though. According to an informal poll on CompensationStandards.com, 82% of respondents felt that somewhere between 41-90 companies would fail to obtain affirmative say-on-pay votes this season. Yikes!
Keep Your Eyes Wide Open
The message of today’s blog is that while say-on-pay is not so much a “hot topic” in stock compensation at the moment, it is proxy season, and shareholders are still very much engaged in expressing themselves via their say-on-pay votes. Additionally, last year we had much discussion on the wave of litigation aimed at better proxy disclosures. These are the things to keep in mind as you sit at the proxy table this year. While it’s obviously good to care about any proposal in your proxy statement, if you’ve got stock plan related proposals on the table, you’ll want to have your radar up to understand how shareholders (and their lawyers?) are reactive to your proxy statement as a whole. A negative vote against a stock plan matter may simply be a by-product of shareholder unhappiness related to other aspects of the company’s disclosures.
Although we many be feeling complacent with the concept of say-on-pay, now is not the time to relax our efforts to ensure that all disclosures will stand up to the continued scrutiny of shareholders and their advisors.
In separate proxy related news, the Wall Street Journal reports that it looks like proxy advisory firm ISS is set to change hands (for the third time in seven years).
Here are a few items that recently showed up in my Google Alert/email that I found interesting.
Return on Executives Exequity is promoting a new way to measure alignment of pay with performance: return on executives (ROX). This measure compares the change in compensation paid to executives with the aggregate change in shareholder wealth. According to Exequity’s alert, ROX results in greater correlation between pay and performance and fewer disconnects in pay for performance alignment than other models (e.g., relative degree of alignment) typically used by ISS, Glass Lewis, and institutional investors.
The alert doesn’t go into a lot of detail on the calculation, but if you are having trouble with your Say-on-Pay story, maybe you should give Exequity a call.
Canada’s Loophole Activists in Canada are jumping on the stock options loophole bandwagon. Their objection isn’t related to corporate tax deductions, however (companies already don’t typically get a deduction for stock compensation in Canada). Stock options that meet certain requirements are taxed as capital gains in Canada, which generally results in a 50% income deduction. The requirements seem to be somewhat straightforward (you can read about them on pg 28 the NASPP’s Canada Guide) and there isn’t a limit on the number of shares that can qualify for this benefit, like there is with ISOs in the US. Canadian tax activists think option gains should be taxed as compensation. But I wonder, if the options are taxed as compensation, shouldn’t companies then be entitled to a corporate tax deduction for them?
Less Disclosure It’s not often that you hear about the SEC reducing the disclosures companies are required to make. Recently, however, the Corporation Finance staff updated the SEC’s Financial Reporting Manual to reduce the amount of disclosure companies have to make about their pre-IPO stock price valuations. The SEC doesn’t note what is new in the Manual, but a blog by Polk Davis describes what has changed with respect to the disclosures. This seems to be an outcome of the SEC’s Reg S-K study that I blogged about last week.
I have another grab bag of topics for you this week.
2013 Say-on-Pay Results Just in time for the 2014 proxy season, Steven Hall & Partners has published a quick summary of the Say-on-Pay vote results for last year’s proxy season. Here are a few facts of interest.
73 companies failed (out of a total of 3,363 companies that held votes. This seems to be up from 2012. Oddly, even with a Google search, I could not find an apples-to-apples comparison, but it seems like just over 60 companies had failing votes in 2012. It’s possible the increase is partly due to more companies having held Say-on-Pay votes.
In the category of “Not Getting the Message,” 15 of the companies with failing votes had failures in prior years.
At one company, Looksmart, 100% of the votes on their Say-on-Pay proposal were against it (which makes them look not so smart). That’s right, even the board voted against their own Say-on-Pay proposal. Apparently there was a complete board turnover, all the executives were fired, and the new execs didn’t own any stock.
New HSR Act Filing Thresholds New HSR Act filing thresholds have been announced for 2014. Under the new thresholds, executives can own up to $75.9 million of stock before potentially having to make the HSR filings. See this memo from Morrison & Foerster for more information. If you have no idea what the HSR Act is, see the NASPP’s excellent HSR Act Portal.
NASDAQ Amends Rules on Compensation Committee Independence NASDAQ has amended its rules on compensation committee independence to provide that compensatory fees (consulting, advisory, et. al.) paid by the company to board members should be considered when evaluating eligibility to serve on this committee, rather than prohibiting these fees outright. The NYSE has always imposed the more lenient standard and apparently NASDAQ received feedback that their more stringent standard might make them less popular. This alert from Cooley has more information.
But there’s one sound That no one knows What do the investors say?
Actually, What Do the Investors Say?
As we are heading into next year’s proxy season (and now that you have that horrible song in your head), I thought it might be a good time to look at what the investor hot buttons are likely to be with respect to executive and stock compensation. I listened to the recording of the session “Say-on-Pay Shareholder Engagement: The Investors Speak” at the 10th Annual Executive Compensation Conference and found a few recurring themes. The panelists were Aeisha Mastagni of CalSTRS, Karla Bos of ING, and Donna Anderson of T.Rowe Price; the panel was moderated by Pat McGurn of ISS.
The investor panelists take a rather dim view of retention grants. They also don’t like programs that grant the same value of stock to execs every year (so that when the stock price drops, execs get more shares).
They weren’t keen on TSR or EPS as performance metrics. They felt EPS is too easily manipulated and too short-term and they would rather see goals that drive TSR, not TSR goals themselves. Which is interesting because TSR and EPS are the two most popular performance metrics in our 2013 Domestic Stock Plan Design survey (co-sponsored by Deloitte).
They didn’t have a lot of use for supplemental proxy filings but opinions were mixed as to the value of realizable pay disclosures.
For next year’s proxy season, the main areas of focus that they generally agreed on were performance awards and metrics, CIC provisions, and employment contracts (e.g., retention bonuses). If you don’t have a good story to tell on those topics, you might want to get cracking.
They all thought the CEO pay-ratio disclosure was of dubious value.
They all also insisted that they were very open-minded about stock and executive compensation and that they don’t blindly follow ISS (it’s just that they happen to agree with ISS on most issues).
Another key takeaway for me was that all of the investors explained that they focus on “the outliers” when reviewing proxy statements. They have lots of proxies to review and can’t do an in-depth analysis of each one. But if something about your executive pay grabs their attention because it is outside the norm, they will look closer at your company. So make like a junior high student and try to blend in.
There aren’t any surprises, at least when it comes to executive and stock compensation. ISS didn’t make any changes specific to stock compensation and the only change that relates to executive compensation is that they’ve changed the Relative Degree of Alignment measure to be a three-year calculation only, rather than a weighted average of the one and three-year calculations.
Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon
The Relative Degree of Alignment measure doesn’t have anything to do with Kevin Bacon (although it might be argued that it would be a lot more interesting if it did). Instead, as I noted in my blog on ISS’s proposed changes (“ISS Policy Changes for 2014,” October 29, 2013), it simply compares the company’s TSR ranking among its peers to its CEO pay ranking. Ideally (from ISS’s perspective, that is–your CEO might feel differently), your company will have a high TSR ranking and a CEO pay ranking that is equal to or lower than its TSR ranking. A low TSR ranking and a high CEO pay ranking will result a negative RDA and probably a lot more attention from ISS than you’d like.
What’s Changed
The old calculation averaged the one-year RDA and the three-year RDA with a respective weighting of 40/60. The new calculation is just the three-year RDA.
Why Change?
Because the most recent year was included in both the one-year and three-year calculations, the prior RDA measure placed significant emphasis on this year. By eliminating the one-year RDA measure, the most recent year will be deemphasized in favor of the longer three-year period. As a result, short-term changes in TSR and CEO pay rankings will have a smaller impact on this aspect of ISS’s analysis. ISS also notes that the longer term calculation will help alleviate timing mismatches in pay for performance that result from equity awards being issued early in the fiscal year, before the corresponding performance year.
No Burn Rates Yet
The burn rate tables aren’t available yet. I expect them some time in mid to late December. Hmmm, maybe I’ll be able to get three blog entries out of this whole policy update.
Don’t Miss Your Chance to Update Your Peer Group with ISS
The companies that ISS considers to be your peers are critical for the RDA measure as well as numerous other analyses that ISS performs. ISS will consider your self-selected peers when constructing your peer group. You have until December 9 to let ISS know which companies are in your self-selected peer group. For more information see, ISS’s Peer Group Methodology FAQ. You can submit your peers and any other feedback you have for ISS on your peer group at http://www.issgovernance.com/PeerFeedbackUS.
ISS has proposed changes to its corporate governance policy for 2014. You have until November 4 to comment on the changes.
What’s Changed?
In terms of stock compensation, or even compensation in general, not much. So the good news is this maybe isn’t something you have to spend a lot of time on this year and I can have a short blog entry today. Of course that’s also the bad news–things aren’t going to get any better next year in terms of the restrictions ISS places on your stock compensation program.
Evaluating Alignment of Pay to Performance
The only proposal that relates directly to compensation that ISS is looking at changing is the Relative Degree of Alignment (RDA) measure, which compares the difference between a company’s TSR ranking and its CEO’s pay ranking among its peers. For example, if the company’s TSR ranks in the 25th percentile among its peers (meaning that the company’s TSR is better than only 25% of its peers) and its CEO’s pay is in the 75th percentile (i.e., the CEO’s pay is more than 75% of his/her peers), ISS might be concerned that there is a pay for performance misalignment. This is just one of several measures ISS uses to assess whether CEO pay aligns with company performance.
Currently ISS calculates RDA on a one-year and three-year basis. They are proposing to eliminate the one-year calculation and instead consider only three-year RDA. If your RDA score has been trending downwards, you are probably pleased as punch about this; if your RDA score has been trending upwards, you are probably a little less thrilled (but what goes up most come down and, under the proposed calculation, if you do have a down year, that year won’t impact your RDA score as much).
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.