As I’m sure my readers know, the Dodd-Frank Act requires public companies to allow shareholders to vote on their executive compensation programs beginning next year. On October 18, the SEC proposed regulations governing how these votes will work, bringing us one step close to the inevitable.
Say-on-Pay Regs Proposed The regulations require three non-binding votes:
Say-on-Pay: Shareholders must be permitted to vote on executive compensation every one, two, or three years. The first vote must be held at the company’s first annual meeting on or after January 21, 2011. Shareholders will be voting on the compensation paid to executives as disclosed in the proxy statement.
Say-When-on-Pay: Shareholders must also be permitted to vote on how frequently the company holds a Say-on-Pay vote. This vote must occur at least every six years, with the first vote at the company’s first annual meeting on or after January 21, 2011.
Say-on-Parachutes: Shareholders must be permitted to vote on golden parachute arrangements. If these arrangements have not previously been voted on, this vote must be included in the proxy statement relating to the merger (or any similar transaction, such as a sale of the company’s assets) for which the compensation will be paid. In connection with this, the SEC is requiring enhanced tabular disclosure of parachute payments in proxy statements for mergers and similar transactions.
Effective Date
The Say-on-Pay and Say-When-on-Pay votes must be included in the proxy for the first annual meeting on or after January 21, 2011, even if the SEC has not finalized these regulations by then. The Say-on-Parachutes vote is not required until the regulations are finalized.
Non-Binding with a Kick
All of the votes are non-binding, which means the company doesn’t have to abide by them. For the Say-on-Pay vote, however, the proposed regulations require companies to discuss in the CD&A how the vote has been considered in setting executive pay. Likewise, for the Say-When-on-Pay vote, companies must disclose in the 10-Q following the vote whether they intend to comply with it. Woe to those companies that don’t choose to comply; shareholders can then introduce a proposal regarding the frequency of Say-on-Pay votes in the next year’s proxy statement.
More Information
We’ve posted an alert on the proposed regs that includes the memos we are receiving from law firms and compensation consultants; look for even more memos to be posted in the next few days. Check out the excellent summaries by Maslon Edelman Borman & Brand and Morrison & Foerster (co-authored by CompensationStandards.com’s David Lynn).
Conference Audio Available Are you ready for Say-on-Pay? Make sure with the many sessions on Say-on-Pay offered at this year’s NASPP Conference. All of the sessions have been recorded and can be downloaded in MP3 format. Purchase just the session(s) you want or save by purchasing a package of sessions.
Free Conference Session Audio If You Renew by Dec 31 All NASPP memberships expire on a calendar-year basis. Renew your membership by Dec 31 and you’ll qualify to receive the audio for one NASPP Conference session for free!
Join Now and Get Three Months Free and Free Conference Session Audio! If you aren’t currently an NASPP member, now is the time to become one! Join the NASPP for 2011 and you’ll get the rest of 2010 for free. If that’s not enough, you’ll also get the audio for one NASPP Conference session for free. Tell all your friends!
NASPP “To Do” List We have so much going on here at the NASPP that it can be hard to keep track of it all, so I keep an ongoing “to do” list for you here in my blog.
As those of you that have been keeping up with my blog entries know, for the past few weeks, I’ve been covering the executive compensation-related provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act, highlighting tidbits I learned at a presentation by Mike Andresino of Posternak Blankstein & Lund and David Wise and Sara Wells of Hay Group at the July Silicon Valley NASPP chapter meeting. This week I discuss some of the changes David thinks we can expect to see for stock compensation as a result of the Act. (If you’re keeping score, that’s three blog entries from one chapter meeting–now that’s what I call a productive meeting!)
Stock Compensation Under Dodd-Frank Here are a few changes we might see to stock compensation under the Dodd-Frank Act.
More Double-Triggers
In the NASPP’s 2010 Stock Plan Design Survey (co-sponsored by Deloitte), I was surprised by the number of companies with plans that provide for immediate acceleration of vesting on a change-in-control. With shareholders now given the opportunity to vote on executive pay packages and a separate vote for change-in-control provisions that haven’t previously been voted on, expect to see more companies move to a double-trigger (i.e., vesting accelerates only if the executive is terminated within a specified period after the CIC).
Greater Use of Performance Awards
With companies now required to disclose how executive pay relates to performance, it seems fairly clear that this will propel the use of performance-based awards. At the same time, the requirement to disclose the ratio of CEO pay to median employee pay may cause boards to look for ways to reduce the value of CEO pay. Since this disclosure is based on amounts in the SCT–rather than actual payouts–one way to accomplish this is to grant options and awards that are subject to performance conditions.
For LTI programs in general, David expects to see more interest in relative goals (because absolute goals have become so challenging to set), more use of multiple goals (e.g., an absolute goal with a relative goal), more companies using three measures instead of just two measures, lowering of plan maximums, and longer vesting schedules.
Premium-Priced Options
Options granted with a price above the grant date FMV have never really caught on, but do result in a lower grant-date valuation. Since this is the value reported in the SCT, premium priced options could help improve the CEO to median employee pay ratio, perhaps increasing their popularity.
Broad-Based Plans?
Another way to make the CEO to median employee pay ratio look better is to increase employee pay. Could this cause companies to consider expanding eligibility for stock compensation programs? Maybe–if you are looking at raising pay, seems like it would be easier to do this with a non-cash expense than with cash compensation.
Deferrals
More companies may also start requiring deferred payout for awards. David points out that deferrals serve two goals: (i) they can be of assistance in enforcing clawback provisions–now required under Dodd-Frank and (ii) they help facilitate enforcement of stock ownership/holding requirements–a primary means of risk mitigation in stock plans.
The 18th Annual NASPP Conference is Just Five Weeks Out! Scheduled for Sept 20-23, the 18th Annual NASPP Conference is timed perfectly to help our members prepare for mandatory Say-on-Pay and the other requirements of the Dodd-Frank Act. We’ve added a special Say-on-Pay track, featuring key advice and real-world strategies from in-the-know practitioners. Register for the Conference today.
NASPP New Member Referral Program Refer new members to the NASPP and your NASPP Conference registration could be free. You can save $150 off your registration for each new member you refer, up to the full cost of registration. You’ll also be entered into a raffle for an Apple iPad and the new members you refer save 50% on their membership–it’s a win-win! Don’t delay–this program ends on August 31.
NASPP “To Do” List We have so much going on here at the NASPP that it can be hard to keep track of it all, so I keep an ongoing “to do” list for you here in my blog.
It’s a big week for NASPP Chapter meetings: don’t miss the meetings in Atlanta, Denver, NY/NJ, Orange County, Phoenix, and San Diego. Robyn Shutak, the NASPP’s Education Director, will be attending the San Diego meeting; be sure to say hello!
Last Tuesday, I blogged about the Say-on-Pay provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act, but the Act includes a number of other corporate governance provisions that are of interest to stock plan professionals. Luckily, the presentation I attended by Mike Andresino of Posternak Blankstein & Lund and David Wise and Sara Wells of Hay Group at the Silicon Valley NASPP chapter meeting covered these aspects of the Act as well.
The Dodd-Frank Act: More Than Say-on-Pay The Dodd-Frank Act is very broad in scope, with banking legislation and consumer protections as well as regulating private placements and private investment funds–that’s nice to know, but we don’t really care about any of it for purposes of this blog. I want to focus on the areas of the Act that are likely to intersect with my readers’ job responsibilities.
Internal Pay Equity
As I noted in my June 29 blog, the Act requires companies to disclose the ratio of CEO pay to the median pay of all other employees. I understand that the jury is still out on how this ratio will actually be computed–preparing a Summary Compensation Table for all employees just to calculate their median pay may not be feasible–but, regardless, this disclosure is likely to cause a lot of consternation (David Wise pointed out that it was a top focus of the business lobby). The definition of all employees could include employees in overseas operations, including, say, manufacturing plants in countries where wages are considerably lower than in the United States. We are only beginning to contemplate the implications of this disclosure.
Relationship of Pay to Performance
Companies will be required to disclose the relationship of executive compensation to corporate financial performance. Like Say-on-Pay, this is another provision that I naively thought we already had–i.e., the performance graph in the executive compensation disclosures. Silly me. As Mike Andresino pointed out, the Act doesn’t limit the disclosure to just the top five NEOs, so this “pay for performance” disclosure could be quite a bit more work to put together than the performance graph.
According to a Pearl Meyer & Partners memo on the Act that we’ve posted in the NASPP’s Say-on-Pay Portal, there are lots of issues to resolve for this requirement, including which “executives,” what “compensation,” what “financial performance,” the time period the disclosure covers, and whether the disclosure is on an aggregate or individual basis (or by component of compensation–imagine what fun that would be to put together).
Clawbacks
The Act expands the requirements for companies to adopt clawback policies for compensation paid to executives beyond what was required under Sarbanes-Oxley. According to the NASPP’s 2010 Domestic Stock Plan Design Survey (co-sponsored by Deloitte), only 32% of respondents have clawback policies for stock compensation and of those that don’t, only 20% are considering adding one. That’s going to have to change.
Broker Non-Votes
The Act requires the SEC to direct the stock exchanges to prohibit brokers from voting uninstructed shares for director elections, executive compensation matters (e.g., Say-on-Pay), and any other significant matter (brokers are already prohibited from voting uninstructed shares on matters relating to stock plans).
This doesn’t leave a whole lot that brokers can vote uninstructed shares on. Mike Andresino pointed out that if there’s nothing in the proxy that brokers can vote on without instruction, companies may have problems achieving a quorum at shareholder meetings.
Compensation Committees
The Act requires the stock exchanges to establish new independence standards for compensation committee members. In addition, the committee must have the ability to retain its own independent (per standards to be determined by the SEC) comp consultants, legal counsel, and other advisors.
18th Annual NASPP Conference Scheduled for Sept 20-23, the 18th Annual NASPP Conference is timed perfectly to help our members prepare for mandatory Say-on-Pay and all of the other executive pay reforms required under the Dodd-Frank Act. Just announced–we’ve added a special Say-on-Pay track, featuring key advice and real-world strategies from in-the-know practitioners. Register for the Conference today.
NASPP “To Do” List We have so much going on here at the NASPP that it can be hard to keep track of it all, so I keep an ongoing “to do” list for you here in my blog.
Tune in next Tuesday, August 10, for the NASPP webcast highlighting the results of the 2010 Domestic Stock Plan Design Survey (co-sponsored by Deloitte, survey support provided by the CEP Institute). There’s sure to be some surprises!
Refer new members to the NASPP so you qualify for the August raffle and Conference discount available through our New Member Referral Program.
Don’t miss your local upcoming NASPP chapter meetings in Boston, Chicago and Michigan. In addition, the San Francisco chapter is hosting its annual all-day program at the bucolic Wente Vineyards on August 11–I’m looking forward to it and hope to see you there.
The New Long-Term Incentive Paradigm–Conserving Share Usage Through Innovative Incentive Design by Myrna Hellerman, Sibson Consulting
The Dodd-Frank Act “Say-on-Pay” provision…something totally new? Not really. For years shareholders have had a voice in compensation decision making, especially through the power to approve incentive and equity compensation plans. They just haven’t used their power to its full potential. Dodd-Frank provides a clearer platform and framework to exercise this power.
Next year we will celebrate the “coming of age,” 18th anniversary of Section 162(m), the infamous “Million Dollar Cap” for non-performance-based compensation. Like Dodd-Frank, there was an expectation that Section 162(m) would “reel in” executive pay, create a greater alignment between pay and performance, and give the shareholder a “say on pay.” The logic was simple: “You lose deductibility of top executive pay if it exceeds $1 million unless the pay is earned under a shareholder approved performance-based incentive compensation plan.” In 2003 the SEC further strengthened shareholder’s “say on pay” by affirming the new NYSE and Nasdaq rules that expanded the shareholder approval requirement to equity compensation plans and amendments thereto.
So, does the existence of the formal Dodd-Frank Say-on-Pay Vote imply that earlier attempts to give shareholders a say on pay have been complete failures. Headline news over the years would suggest this to be so. However, we think not. Successful outcomes just don’t make the headlines. One of these formerly untold success stories will be presented at the 18th Annual NASPP Conference in September. The presentation, “The New Long-Term Incentive Paradigm–Conserving Share Usage Through Innovative Incentive Design,” provides an exemplar outcome in response to a pre-Dodd-Frank “say-on-pay” vote. The takeaways from this presentation will be valuable as organizations prepare for the more formal Say-on-Pay vote required under Dodd-Frank.
In 2005 stockholders rejected an additional share authorization at the 9,000+ employee Arthur J. Gallagher & Co due to burn-rate and dilution concerns. This “No” vote was unexpected at a company with generally shareholder-friendly, conservative pay practices. In response, the organization began a lengthy transformational journey that resulted in a new long-term incentive paradigm. The paradigm recognizes several key realities:
The voice of the shareholder is very powerful. Shareholders need to be continually educated about the company’s pay practices and deserve a reasoned response to their objections.
A purge of poor pay practices and a “diet” to get value transfer and burn-rates into line are not just part of a short-term solution. They are a way of life.
A culture of “ownership” in the long-term success of the organization can be preserved even when there is a paucity of equity. At Gallagher this was accomplished through the use of a uniquely designed, 162(m) compliant long-term cash incentive approach, which mirrors the risks and rewards of equity (this design will be detailed in the presentation).
Management must get comfortable with the difficult, prioritized decisions that are required to effectively manage long-term incentives.
The board, and especially the compensation committee, need to embrace a more intimate role in executive compensation decision making, especially with respect to long-term incentives. Management and the outside independent advisor must provide the education, transparency of information, and the analytics that allow the directors to be successful in this role.
The NASPP Conference presentation and the accompanying discussion will be lead by Myrna Hellerman (SVP, Sibson Consulting), Jon Minor (Sr. Consultant, Sibson Consulting) and Tom Paleka (VP Global Rewards, Arthur J. Gallagher)., three catalysts to Arthur J. Gallagher’s transformational journey that began because of a “say on pay” vote.
Last Wednesday, July 21, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act was signed into law, making Say-on-Pay votes mandatory for all public companies in the United States.
The New Say-on-Pay Vote When I first heard the phrase “Say-on-Pay,” I naively thought to myself, “What’s so new about that; haven’t we had “Say-on-“Pay” for stock compensation since 2003, when the NYSE and NASDAQ implemented rules requiring listed companies to submit virtually all stock plans to a shareholder vote?” Well, on Thursday of last week, I had the good fortune to attend the Silicon Valley NASPP chapter meeting, where Mike Andresino of Posternak Blankstein & Lund presented a summary of the new rules, along with David Wise and Sara Wells of Hay Group. In today’s blog, I present some of Mike’s comments regarding how these new rules differ from current law and practices.
What Exactly Are Shareholders Voting On?
Despite my initial oversimplification, this is actually a sea change for executive compensation in the United States. Shareholders will be voting on all compensation paid to NEOs, as disclosed in the proxy–cash bonuses, individual awards, exercise and award transactions, perks (including use of corporate aircraft)–the whole shebang. And it’s an all or nothing vote–a little scary when you think about it. If shareholders are really irritated about that huge award payout the former CEO received under his severance agreement when he left last year, they might express their displeasure by voting against all of this year’s executive pay. One grant or award transaction by an exec (or one perk) that is particularly irksome to shareholders and there goes the whole Say-on-Pay vote. There is some concern that shareholders may even use the Say-on-Pay vote to express displeasure over company practices or policies that have nothing to do with executive compensation.
Advisory Vote
Of course, it is just an advisory vote, so if shareholders do vote against executive pay, the company isn’t left unable to pay executives over the coming year. (Unlike votes on stock plans, which are NOT advisory–if shareholders vote down your stock plan, that means no more stock plan.) But I expect that most companies that receive a majority (or even a large percentage) of votes against their executive pay will be forced into a dialogue with shareholders to address their concerns (especially since the Dodd-Frank Act also gives shareholders the right to add their own director candidates to the proxy).
Frequency of Vote
And with shareholder approval of stock plans, the company has control over how often it puts a plan to a shareholder vote. With a large share reserve, an evergreen plan, share replenishment, and conservative share usage, companies may be able to put off seeking approval for new plans/shares. With Say-on-Pay, shareholders vote on how often they get to vote on executive pay; this could be an annual vote (and, in no event, can it be less than every three years).
Golden Parachute Arrangements
Shareholders will have to be permitted to vote on any pay related to a change-in-control that they haven’t already voted on under a prior Say-on-Pay vote. This was likely included in the bill in respond to recent media criticisms of awards made in anticipation of mergers–see my October 20, 2009 blog entry “The Next Big Options Scandal…or Not.” The proxy related to the merger will include a vote on the merger and a separate vote on any previously undisclosed golden parachute arrangements. It isn’t completely clear what this vote accomplishes since it is advisory only and, in some cases, the shareholders of the target may not even end up being shareholders in the new company.
More Information
We’re posting new memos on the Dodd-Frank Act every day in the NASPP’s Say-on-Pay Portal.
Scheduled for Sept 20-23, the 18th Annual NASPP Conference is timed perfectly to help our members prepare for mandatory Say-on-Pay. Just announced–we’ve added a special Say-on-Pay track, featuring key advice and real-world strategies from in-the-know practitioners. Register for the Conference today.
The New Pay Legislation: Action Items With the new legislative pay reforms–particularly mandatory “Say-on-Pay” and the new “sleeper” internal pay equity disclosure–all eyes will be focused like never before on executive compensation practices (and the resulting proxy disclosures). You will need answers even before the SEC issues new rules and it is critical to have the best possible guidance. Free to registrants of the “18th Annual NASPP Conference,” “7th Annual Executive Compensation Conference,” and “5th Annual Proxy Disclosure Conference,” this pre-conference webcast on July 29 is the first step as part of the full Conferences that will provide the latest essential–and practical–implementation guidance that you need.
NASPP New Member Referral Program Refer new members to the NASPP and your NASPP Conference registration could be free. You can save $150 off your registration for each new member you refer, up to the full cost of registration. You’ll also be entered into a raffle for an Apple iPad and the new members you refer save 50% on their membership–it’s a win-win!
NASPP “To Do” List We have so much going on here at the NASPP that it can be hard to keep track of it all, so I keep an ongoing “to do” list for you here in my blog.
Every week brings us a little closer to mandatory “Say-on-Pay.” Last week (very early Friday morning), Senate and House conferees reached agreement on the finance reform bill. All that remains now is for the House and Senate to vote on the bill and for President Obama to sign it into law–all this is expected to be wrapped up in time for the July 4 holiday. (Is it just me or does it seem like all major regulatory changes happen right before a holiday? It’s a good thing we have holidays or nothing would ever get done in this country.)
The full bill is 2,000 pages long–a little light reading for down-time during your 4th of July picnic. For those of you that want the cliff-notes version, we’ve posted a 23-page excerpt of the sections relating to executive compensation.
A Triennial Requirement (or How Much Control Will Your Shareholders Want)?
The final bill would allow companies to seek shareholder approval to hold a Say-on-Pay vote only once every two or three years, rather than requiring the vote every year. Shareholders would have to be allowed to vote on the frequency of Say-on-Pay votes at least once every six years. This must be a separate resolution from the Say-on-Pay vote.
SCT for Rank-and-File Employees
The final bill requires companies to disclose the median pay of all employees other than the CEO and the ratio of this pay to the CEO’s pay. “Pay” for this purpose is computed based on the requirements for reporting total compensation in column (j) of the Summary Compensation Table. The amount for employees other than the CEO will be disclosed on a aggregate basis (you won’t disclose pay for non-NEOs on an individual basis)–but to get to the aggregate amount, you’ll have to apply the SCT principles to each individual employee. Now would be a good time to check with your administrative service providers to determine if their solution offers a report to assist with this calculation.
A Bill by Any Other Name
The last motion on the bill was to change the name to the “Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.” That’s quite a mouthful, so Broc Romanek, in his June 28 blog on the bill, has a poll on what the shorthand name should be. True to my 80’s roots, my favorite is the “Doddy-Frank Goes to Hollywood Act (Relax, don’t do it…)”
18th Annual NASPP Conference Scheduled for Sept 20-23, the 18th Annual NASPP Conference is timed perfectly to help our members prepare for mandatory Say-on-Pay. Just announced–we’ve added a special Say-on-Pay track, featuring key advice and real-world strategies from in-the-know practitioners. Register for the Conference today.
NASPP New Member Referral Program Refer new members to the NASPP and your NASPP Conference registration could be free. You can save $150 off your registration for each new member you refer, up to the full cost of registration. You’ll also be entered into a raffle for an Apple iPad and the new members you refer save 50% on their membership–it’s a win-win!
NASPP “To Do” List We have so much going on here at the NASPP that it can be hard to keep track of it all, so I keep an ongoing “to do” list for you here in my blog.
Say on pay is inevitable, but it’s difficult for stock plan managers to know exactly what that means to them. Because it’s practically unheard of for the equity compensation team to be on the decision-making side of executive compensation, it may feel easy to dismiss say on pay as an issue that can be overlooked.
However, availing yourself as a knowledgeable resource within your company elevates you as a subject matter expert. Being a part of the conversation when it comes to new policies or grant practices always helps ensure that the solutions coming down your pipeline are both effective and manageable. In that spirit, these are my top three action items for stock plan managers to prepare for say on pay:
Know what shareholders; hot buttons are for share-based compensation, including what features and provisions are likely to be unacceptable and those that increase the likelihood of acceptance. Take a good look at your company’s executive equity compensation to see how outstanding grants rate. Here are a few:
Pay for Performance – A significant majority of the bad press generated over executive compensation focuses on the disparity between executive compensation pay-outs and the relative success of the company during the same period. Pay for performance is more than simply slapping a performance condition on a grant, especially if the performance measures are not adequate to inspire long-term success. This year, we have a fantastic pre-conference program dedicated to performance awards, the Practical Guide to Performance-Based Awards. If you’re looking for ways to beef up your knowledge on performance awards, this is the program for you!
Dividend Payments – Shareholders generally don’t want to see executive compensation that pays out dividends or DERs on unvested shares. This follows right in line with pay for performance; shareholders don’t want to see that an executive will be eligible for dividends on unearned shares.
Long-term Focus – One of the hottest buttons for shareholders is whether or not executive compensation has a long-term focus. For equity compensation, this includes issues like minimum vesting periods (e.g.; at least 3 years, but preferably 5 years) and holding requirements. Increasing the length of time executives must wait before they can cash out their company shares reduces the temptation executives may feel to take excessive risks. Take a close look at your executives’ equity compensation and create a list of features or provisions that demonstrate a long-term focus.
Double-trigger – When it comes to change in control provisions in your grant agreements, shareholders (and potential acquiring companies) absolutely want to see a double-trigger for acceleration of vesting in the event of a change in control. If you haven’t already, take a close look at your grant agreements to see what your company’s change-in-control provisions look like.
Clawback Provisions – depending on how the House and Senate reconcile their final versions of their bills, clawback provisions could be required for listed companies. Shareholders generally like to see that clawbacks are not only in place, but also enforceable. Typically, clawback provisions are found in employment contracts, so have a conversation with your legal team to find out what your company’s current practice is and if that will be changing. Remember that clawback provisions can extend beyond fraud situations; they also may be part of other provisions such as non-compete requirements.
Know what your peer companies are doing and how it compares to your company. This is getting easier to do with enhanced proxy disclosure. If your company’s compensation philosophy already identifies peer companies or groups, then the difficult part has already been done for you. Check out the 2010 proxies from those companies and review their executive compensation practices. Also, keep up with the latest news on shareholder advisory votes; particularly keeping your eyes open for any executive compensation that does not garner vote of approval from shareholders.
Coordinate with your legal and compensation teams. First, it’s important to just keep the lines of communication open and be a part of the conversation. More specifically, find out if tackling say on pay (along with increased disclosure requirements) will require you to provide different or additional data and/or analysis. The earlier you know about additional data requirements, especially if they will ultimately be a periodic need, the more time you have to find the most efficient solution to providing that data.
The NASPP Conference’s Say on Pay Track
Hot off the presses! This week, we announced the “Say on Pay” track that we’ve added to our 18th Annual NASPP Conference. Don’t get left behind on decisions your company may be making in light of say on pay, join us for these essential sessions!
The Restoring American Financial Stability Act of 2010, passed by U.S. Senate on May 20th, contains provisions that apply to all public companies. Fortunately, you won’t need to read the daunting almost 1500 pages of the bill to weed out the pieces that could impact stock plan managers because we’ve posted the corporate governance and executive compensation portions, courtesy of Davis Polk. Here are the main sections that I think you should be aware of.
Say on Pay and Majority Voting
This bill, like the corresponding House bill, does include a required non-binding shareholder vote to approve executive compensation. Unlike the House bill, this legislation does not require a shareholder advisory vote on golden parachute payments. This provision would take effect six months after enactment of the bill. This does mean that say on pay for all public companies is eminent. Additionally, there is a provision that requires majority voting by shareholders in uncontested board elections that would require any board member who does not receive a majority vote to submit his or her resignation.
These two provisions mean that companies will need to prepare for the voting process, but also get a game plan together on how to address the possibility that shareholders will reject either uncontested board members or executive compensation. In both scenarios, the company can still choose to do what it wants–the executive compensation vote is non-binding and the board can reject a resignation letter. On that note, the CorporateCounsel.net blog this week covers three companies that are already grappling with how to respond to a shareholder rejection of executive pay packages; Motorola, Occidental Petroleum, and KeyCorp. I’ll definitely be tracking this blog to see how say on pay pans out! If you’re looking for more help with executive compensation, don’t forget that the 7th Annual Executive Compensation Conference is included with your 18th Annual NASPP Conference Registration.
Proxy Disclosures
Although this version of the bill does not require the chairman of the board and the CEO to be separate individuals, it does require companies to disclose the reasons they have chosen to keep these positions separate or combine them. In addition, there are a host of required disclosures regarding the company’s compensation committee and executive compensation. This includes a discussion of the relationship between executive compensation and financial performance as well as how the amount of executive compensation compares to the company’s financial performance or investor-return.
Clawbacks
The bill requires the SEC to direct exchanges to prohibit the listing of any company that does not adopt certain clawback policies. This provision is not included in the House bill. Stock plan managers should pay particular attention to this part of the bill. If it is enacted, you will need to work with your legal team to determine if your grant agreements need to be updated and nail down a policy on how to respond to financial restatements that trigger compensation recovery.
Get Smart
As you know, we’ve rolled out our NASPP Question of the Week. I’m really excited about this new challenge for NASPP members! What you may not know is that if you missed out on our first announcement, you still have the unique and never-to-come-again opportunity to catch up. The first four quiz questions will remain available at the full point value until the second month of our contest. So, don’t feel like you’re starting at a disadvantage–you can still work toward that number one position. Create your screen name and get started now!
Over the past week the final verdict came in for two of the cases I blogged about on April 15th.
First, former CEO of KB Home, Bruce Karatz, was convicted for concealing the company’s backdating scheme and faces up to 80 years in federal prison. Mr. Karatz was found guilty on four counts including making false statements on a quarterly report filed with the SEC and making false statements to the company’s outside accounting firm, but was acquitted of 16 other counts including three counts of securities fraud (the most serious charges against him). Mr. Karatz, in pleading non-guilty to all charges, had claimed that he was falsely targeted as part of the governments crack-down on illegal back-dating. With only four out of 20 charges resulting in a conviction, it looks like even the testimony against him from the former KB Homes HR Director, Gary Ray, wasn’t enough for the SEC to get the big win they were looking for on this one. (See thisRueters article.)
Alternatively, former Maxim Integrated Product’s CFO, Carl Jasper was found guilty on eight out of 11 counts against him. Mr. Jasper had claimed that the backdating scheme was above his pay grade (so to speak) and that former CEO, Jack Gifford, was an unstoppable force heading up the practice. (See thisBusiness Journal article.)
Both Mr. Karatz and Mr. Jasper intend to challenge their convictions.
Options Prevail!
Almost exactly one year after rejecting a proposal to ban stock options to senior executive officers (See thisAssociated Press article.), Pfizer shareholders got a second opportunity to vote on a very similar proposal. Once again, the proposal to eliminate all future option grants to executive officers was overwhelmingly rejected.
This year, the proposal was being brought by activist shareholder Evelyn Y. Davis, who obviously favors restricted stock over options, blaming the recent fluctuations in the market on “shenanigans” stemming from the granting of stock options. Coincidentally, shareholders did vote to give themselves an advisory vote on executive compensation, adding Pfizer to the list of companies engaging in some type of “say on pay.” (See thisYahoo! Finance article.)
I was thinking about this vote when I saw our own Broc Romanek’s April 17th Advisor’s Blog entry on CompensationStandards.com. He brought it to my attention that the Council of Institutional Investors published a checklist of the “Top 10 Red Flags to Watch for When Casting an Advisory Vote on Executive Compensation”. On that list is a call for stock options to be linked to performance, an approach to granting options that Ms. Davis seems to have missed.
If you’re looking for the best information available on executive compensation, you’ll be excited to know that your registration for the 18th Annual NASPP Conference includes a special bonus access to the 7th Annual Executive Compensation Conference! If you aren’t already registered, don’t miss out on the $200 discount that we are offering through May 14th. Register today!
With so many proposed, pending, or newly finalized pieces of legislation right now, I feel a little overwhelmed trying to keep up. Fortunately, we have a couple great resources on our site to help me keep it all straight. First, there is the “Cheat Sheet” provided by OnSecurities.com (posted to the Say on Pay portal). There is also this article by Choate, which has a great chart that details the legislation and which parts of corporate governance it impacts.
Here are a couple of the latest developments, along with a little newsworthy item that caught my eye.
FASB Exposure Draft
As I’m sure you are all aware, the U.S. is moving toward the adoption of IFRS. Nobody is sure when we will adopt IFRS as the U.S. accounting standard, but we do occasionally see signs that progress is being made in that direction. The Exposure Draft issued by FASB on December 17th is a perfect example.
The Exposure Draft is a proposed clarification regarding companies that issue equity awards that are denominated in a foreign currency. If enacted, the amendment in this exposure draft won’t impact very many companies at all. This is because Topic 718 (formerly FAS123R) already addresses the more common situations of companies denominating their equity awards in a foreign currency: using the functional or the payroll currency of the foreign entity. The scenario missing from the current wording in Topic 718 is where a company denominates their equity awards in a currency that is neither the functional nor the payroll currency, but is instead the currency of the market in which a substantial amount of the company’s shares trade. This draft clarifies that such an award would also be considered an equity award, providing that it would otherwise qualify for equity treatment. (For more information, check out our alert.)
What FASB is attempting to do with the clarification offered in this proposed change to Topic 718 is create uniformity with respect to the expensing of certain equity awards. More importantly to me, however, is the fact that FASB specifically addresses how the proposed amendments compare with IFRS. The trouble is that neither Topic 718 nor IFRS currently specifically call out the situations in which this amendment would be applicable, but it is likely that if IFRS were to be updated to include this situation, it would be the same. This is because, as stated in the Exposure Draft, most companies currently reporting under IFRS already expense these awards as equity awards.
Facilitating Shareholder Director Nominations
The SEC recently reopened the comment period for the proposed rule, Facilitating Shareholder Director Nominations. The proposed rule is designed to empower certain shareholders (based on ownership thresholds and minimum holding periods) to influence (presumably to improve) corporate governance by means of introducing both director nominations and proposals to amend director nomination process or disclosure requirements.
Existing comments can be viewed here. One of the concerns being voiced are that the bar for determining which shareholders may submit nominations and proposals is set too low, which could potentially allow short-term investors (like hedge funds) to encourage inappropriate risk-taking. Another concern is the amount of time and energy boards may potentially need to divert from day-to-day business decisions in order to deal with the politicization of board elections.
Although it is unlikely that this rule, if adopted, would impact the daily responsibilities of most stock plan managers, it does highlight SEC efforts to create better corporate governance by giving shareholders more power to influence corporate business strategy. Maybe what it does mean for you stock plan managers out there is that it’s time to renew (or initiate) your relationship with your company’s investor relations group.
FAR Out!
I came across this interesting article in the Hedge Fund Law Report on the merits of granting hedge fund managers appreciation rights that would be similar to a stock appreciation right (although the article compares them to stock options), but track against the increase in the fund’s value.
Two things really struck me about this article. First, it’s encouraging and powerful to keep seeing the conviction that creating an ownership mentality improves the long-term success of a company by aligning employee interests with shareholder interests. Much like the Treasury Special Master’s determinations highlighted the preference of performance-based equity compensation over cash compensation, the idea of granting an appreciation right that pays out with the success of a hedge fund really highlights the importance of appropriate equity compensation as a motivating vehicle.
The second thing that really caught my eye is that the name “Fund Appreciation Right” (FAR) has actually been trademarked by a particular compensation administration company (Optcapital). So, it’s not that other administrators (or funds) can’t issue an equity vehicle that is in the form of an appreciation right; they just can’t call it a FAR. It makes me wonder what our conversations would sound like if someone had trademarked “stock option” or “restricted stock unit”, forcing each company to come up with their own nomenclature!
We have several fantastic webcasts planned between now and the end of April; two in January alone! All our webcasts are a complementary benefit provided to our members. Don’t miss out; renew today.