For today’s blog entry I have a couple of recent developments that don’t really warrant a blog entry of their own.
T+2: It’s Happening
The SEC has adopted an amendment to the Settlement Cycle Rule (Rule 15c6-1(a) of the Exchange Act) to move to T+2. The new settlement cycle will commence on September 5 (the day after Labor Day). I already blogged about this—twice—so I don’t really have any more to say on the topic (see “T+2: What’s It to You” and “Progress Towards T+2“). We hosted a great webcast on it in April (“Be Prepared for T+2“); if you aren’t up to date on this development, be sure to check it out.
FASB Issues Modification Accounting ASU
Yesterday the FASB issued ASU 2017-09 (not to be confused with ASU 2016-09—right, no one is going to get these confused), which redefines when modification accounting is required under ASC 718.
All companies have to adopt the ASU by their first fiscal year beginning after December 15, 2017. Early adoption is permitted. Once adopted the ASU applies prospectively. Unlike with ASU 2016-09, if ASU 2017-09 (yep, not confusing at all) is adopted in an interim period, prior interim periods in the same year are not adjusted.
Barring some sort of unforeseen obstacle, T+2 settlement is scheduled to go into effect on September 5 of this year. (That’s the Tuesday after Labor Day—what better way to cap a holiday weekend than with a major change in the US securities markets? I guess they didn’t want to wait until December 26).
On Tuesday, I blogged about why the securities industry is moving to T+2 (“Progress Towards T+2“). For today’s blog entry, I have a list of six things you need to think about with respect to T+2.
1. Be prepared to shorten processing time for any stock plan transactions that involve open market sales. This includes same-day-sale and sell-to-cover transactions. The broker will need to receive the shares and know the funds to be transferred to the company to cover the cost of the transaction and tax withholding in time to settle by T+2. That means you’ll have one less day to process the transaction.
2. Other types of transactions may be affected as well. Cash and net exercises and share withholding don’t involve open market transactions and, thus, theoretically aren’t subject to the mandated settlement period. But, in recent years, many companies have begun allowing employees to conduct these transactions using the automated, self-service tools provided by their brokers. Some (many? all?) brokers may subject these transactions to the same two-day settlement period simply because that is how their systems will be designed to work.
3. Watch out for complicated transactions. It may be no sweat to calculate the tax withholding for US employees and get that information over to your brokers in 24 hours. But for non-US employees, where you may have to contact local payroll (possibly in a time zone that is half a day off from yours) for the appropriate tax rate, this might not be so easy. And then there are your mobile employees. Withholding at the maximum tax rate and refunding the excess through local payroll might be the only way to manage this process.
4. Beware the IRS deposit deadline for same-day sales. Where the company’s cumulative deposit liability to the IRS exceeds $100,000, the deposit needs to be made within one business day. But for same-day sale exercises, an IRS field directive considers the deposit timely if made within one day of the settlement date. If settlement occurs on T+2, that means the deposit now needs to be made by T+3.
5. Talk to your brokers. Contact your brokers to find out what they are doing to prepare for T+2 and what testing opportunities will be available to you. Think about what you’ll need from your brokers and communicate this to them. Don’t wait for your brokers to contact you; get out in front of this.
6. Don’t forget about employee communications. Your brokers are going to be communicating this change to your participants. Make sure you know what they will be communicating and when, so you aren’t caught off guard. And review your own educational materials for any mention of the settlement period.
Some of the panelists in the NASPP Conference session on this encouraged the use of the term “settlement period” without explaining how long this period is, so that if/when the period is reduced to T+1, you don’t have to change it again. I hate that idea. It makes a confusing concept even more confusing for employees. And it could be decades before we move to T+1 (moving from T+3 to T+2 took 20 years). By then, you’ll probably have been promoted (or retired) and updating the educational materials will be someone else’s problem.
In early February, the SEC approved of rule changes by the NYSE and Nasdaq that are necessary to shorten the settlement cycle to T+2. The approved rule changes relate to the calculation of ex-dividend dates and several other administrative procedures that I don’t understand. The exact rules that were changed aren’t particularly important; what is important however is that yet another task on the T+2 to-do list has been checked off.
I recently listened to the recording of the session “Be Prepared For T+2” from last year’s NASPP Conference. (This was a great panel, by the way. So great that we’ve asked the panelists to give a repeat performance for our April webcast. Be sure to check it out.) Here are a few things I learned from the panel.
Why T+2? It’s All About Risk
The move to T+2 is industry driven, rather than a push from regulators, with the goal being to reduce risk in the settlement process. Currently trades are settled through a central counter-party, which you know as the DTCC (Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation). One of the DTCC’s roles is to guarantee delivery of shares to the buyer and cash to the seller. If, over the three-day settlement period, either one of these parties flakes out, the DTCC steps in to make the non-flaking party whole.
This requires cash. With securities worth $8.72 billion changing hands every day on the US markets, it requires a lot of cash. The panelists described it as a big suitcase of cash held by the DTCC that can’t be used for anything else. But the DTCC isn’t your rich uncle; this cash is provided by various market participants (such as brokerage firms).
If we can shorten the settlement cycle, the inherent risk is reduced, and less cash is needed to guarantee settlement. This frees up cash that market participants can use for other, presumably better and more profitable, purposes.
Remember Y2K?
The process of changing to T+2 is not dissimilar to what we all went through back when we were preparing for the new millennium. It’s not terribly complex, but there are a lot of rules and processes that have to be reviewed, updated, and tested.
The Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (SIFMA) and the Investment Company Institute (ICI) have formed an Industry Steering Committee to define the path to T+2. (They even have their own website and a nifty logo, because any self-respecting industry-wide initiative needs a logo.) The steering committee commissioned Deloitte & Touche to prepare a T+2 Playbook detailing all of the changes that have to take place to shorten the settlement period by a day. Europe moved to T+2 in 2014 and apparently there were some lessons learned during that process.
What About T+1? Or T+0?
The consensus of the panel is that T+1 is a long ways off. Moving to T+2 merely requires that the current processes speed up. Moving to T+1 would require real-time clearance; that’s a fundamental change to the entire settlement process. You can rest assured that you’ll have plenty of time to get use to T+2 before having to worry about T+1.
Wait, There’s More!
Stay tuned! On Thursday I’ll discuss the steps you should be taking to prepare for T+2. Also, don’t miss our April webcast, “Be Prepared for T+2.”
As I mentioned in my blog on Tuesday, we are starting to see some movement towards repeal or revision of at least parts of the Dodd-Frank Act. The Administration’s executive order isn’t the only action that has been taken; here are a couple of other developments:
CEO Pay Ratio—The SEC Weighs In
On Monday, February 6, Acting SEC Chair Michael Piwowar issued a statement on the CEO pay ratio disclosure. Piwowar requests comments on “unexpected challenges that issuers have experienced as they prepare for compliance with the rule and whether relief is needed,” and encourages detailed comments to be submitted within 45 days. Piwowar also notes that he has directed the SEC staff to “reconsider the implementation of the rule based on any comments submitted and to determine as promptly as possible whether additional guidance or relief may be appropriate.”
While that’s pretty vague, is does indicate that, in addition to the Secretary of the Treasury and the Financial Stability Oversight Council, the SEC is also looking at the CEO pay ratio rule. Even so, it’s hard to say what this means. As we all know, and as an article in the Wall Street Journal notes (“GOP-Led SEC Considers Easing Pay-Gap Disclosure Rule of Dodd-Frank“), it is difficult for the SEC to move quickly on matters like this:
Republicans on the SEC could be stymied by the commission’s own procedures on the pay-ratio rule because undoing a regulation is handled by an often lengthy process that is similar to creating one. It also is difficult for the SEC to delay it outright, because of the commission’s depleted ranks. There are just two sitting commissioners—Mr. Piwowar and Kara Stein, a Democrat—meaning the SEC is politically deadlocked on most matters. Ms. Stein on Monday signaled opposition to efforts to ease the pay rule. “It’s problematic for a chair to create uncertainty about which laws will be enforced,” she said.
And Then There’s Congress
An article in Bloomberg/BNA reports that the Financial Choice Act is likely to be reintroduced into Congress this year (“Dodd-Frank Rollback Bill Expected in February, Duffy Says“). Originally introduced last year, this bill would repeal or restrict major parts of the Dodd-Frank Act, including reducing the frequency of Say-on-Pay votes, limiting application of the clawback provisions, and repealing the CEO pay ratio and hedging disclosures. Jenn Namazi blogged on the Act last year (see “Post Election: Things to Watch – Part I” and “Part 2“).
The Financial Choice Act is bigger than Dodd-Frank. The bill would also require a joint resolution of Congress before any “major” rulemaking by the SEC and a number of other agencies could go into effect. Mark Borges notes in his blog on CompensationStandards.com (“Acting SEC Chair Weighs in on CEO Pay Ratio Rule“) that the bill is expected to require the major proxy advisory firms to register with the SEC and, among other things, disclose potential conflicts of interest.
Poll: What Are You Doing?
It’s hard to know what to do in response to all this. Preparing for the CEO pay ratio disclosure requires a lot of time and resources, which most on the corporate side would view as wasted if the disclosure is eliminated. But if the disclosure isn’t eliminated, stalling preparations now could result in an implementation time crunch.
In his blog on CompensationStandards.com (“As Predicted—Hitting the Pause Button on the CEO Pay Ratio Rule“), Mike Melbinger says: “Postponement and revision of the rule seems likely. Now might be a good time to stop spending time and money on this calculation.” Take our poll to tell us what your company is doing (click here if the poll doesn’t display below).
Since last Friday, there’s been a lot of talk from regulators relating to Dodd-Frank. There’s been no definitive action yet on the law, but we’re officially on notice that things are likely to change in the future. Here’s a quick run-down of what happened.
Review of Dodd-Frank
Last Friday, February 3, the Administration issued an executive order that purportedly calls for a review of the Dodd-Frank Act, albeit without mentioning Dodd-Frank by name. The order establishes the following “Core Principles”:
(a) empower Americans to make independent financial decisions and informed choices in the marketplace, save for retirement, and build individual wealth;
(b) prevent taxpayer-funded bailouts;
(c) foster economic growth and vibrant financial markets through more rigorous regulatory impact analysis that addresses systemic risk and market failures, such as moral hazard and information asymmetry;
(d) enable American companies to be competitive with foreign firms in domestic and foreign markets;
(e) advance American interests in international financial regulatory negotiations and meetings;
(g) restore public accountability within Federal financial regulatory agencies and rationalize the Federal financial regulatory framework.
The order then gives the Secretary of the Treasury and the Financial Stability Oversight Council 120 days to report on the extent to which “existing laws, treaties, regulations, guidance, reporting and recordkeeping requirements, and other Government policies” adhere to these principles and to identify any of said laws, treaties, et. al., that inhibit regulation in a manner consistent with the Core Principles.
That sounds bigger than Dodd-Frank and perhaps it is. According to an article by Bloomberg (“Trump to Order Dodd-Frank Review, Halt Obama Fiduciary Rule,” the order is intended to target the Fiduciary Rule (which requires advisors on retirement accounts to act in the best interest of the clients), as well as Dodd-Frank.
It’s all very general in nature, but within the next four months (presumably sometime around the end of May) the Treasury Department will be delivering its report and (again presumably) it will address whether (and to what extent) the Dodd-Frank Act promotes or does not promote the Core Principles. I expect that this report will cover the various executive compensation-related provisions of the Act, including the CEO pay ratio disclosure requirement. While it’s still too early to know what this all means – or how it will play out, the Order clearly signals the start of the long-promised re-working of the law. This will likely include the repeal of some provisions, the modification and amendment of others, and, possibly, the survival of some provisions intact.
It is common for boards and compensation committees to have discretion over clawback provisions, either over determining whether the clawback provision has been triggered or, once triggered, whether it should be enforced. While this discretionary authority is useful from a design and implementation standpoint, it can sometimes be problematic from an accounting perspective.
Background
Under ASC 718, expense associated with an equity award is determined on the grant date, which cannot occur before an employee and employer reach a mutual understanding of the key terms and conditions of the award. Where a key term is subject to discretion, a mutual understanding of the key terms and conditions of the award may not exist until the point at which this discretion can no longer be exercised.
In the case of clawback provisions, if the circumstances under which the board/compensation committee might exercise their discretion are not clear, this could lead to the conclusion that the service or performance necessary to earn the award is not fully defined. This, in turn, prohibits a mutual understanding of the terms and conditions of the award and delays the grant date. This delay would most likely result in liability treatment of the award.
Recent Comments from SEC Accounting Fellow
Sean May, a professional accounting fellow in the SEC’s Office of the Chief Accountant, discussed this concern in a speech at the 2016 AICPA Conference on Current SEC and PCAOB Developments, held in Washington, DC. May distinguished objectively applied clawback policies from policies that “may allow those with the authority over compensation arrangements to apply discretion.” In addition, he made the following comments:
If an award includes a key term or condition that is subject to discretion, which may include some types of clawback provisions, then a registrant should carefully consider whether a mutual understanding has been reached and a grant date has been established. When making that determination, a registrant should also assess the past practices exercised by those with authority over compensation arrangements and how those practices may have evolved over time. To that end, registrants should consider whether they have the appropriate internal control over financial reporting to monitor those practices in order to support the judgment needed to determine whether a grant date has been established.
Clawbacks and Discretion are Common
68% of respondents to the NASPP’s 2016 Domestic Stock Plan Design Survey (co-sponsored by Deloitte Consulting) indicate that their equity awards are subject to clawback provisions. 83% of those respondents, indicate that the board or compensation committee has some level of discretion over enforcement of the provisions.
If you are among those 83%, it might be a good idea to review the comments May made at the AICPA conference with your accounting advisers to make sure your equity awards receive the accounting treatment you expect.
Today’s blog features guest author Emily Cervino of Fidelity Stock Plan Services, who gave us a heads-up on the SEC’s big “Tick Size” pilot that just kicked off.
Tick Tock: Time for the SEC’s Tick Size Pilot
By Emily Cervino, Fidelity Stock Plan Services
Are you ready? On October 3, 2016, the evaluation of whether or not to widen the tick size from $.01 to $.05 began.
News to you?
At Fidelity, we’ve been ticking off our Tick Size Pilot to-dos, but, if this is news to you, don’t worry… I’ve got you covered with a handy synopsis.
In May 2015, the SEC approved the two-year Tick Size Pilot, sponsored by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), as a mandatory program for a select group of publicly traded equity securities. The pilot will evaluate whether or not widening the tick size, from $0.01 to $0.05, for securities of smaller capitalization companies would impact trading, liquidity, and market quality of those securities and consists of one control group and three test groups, each consisting of approximately 400 securities.
If your company is one of the 1200 that have been identified to participate in the test groups, your stock price will only move in nickel increments, rather than penny increments. To find out if your company is included in the pilot, check the pilot program test group assignment sections on the NYSE or Nasdaq websites. Note that Control Group = C, Test Group = G1, G2 or G3 and the Rollout Date is the date that security joins the pilot.
From a stock plan perspective, this will directly impact option exercises, long share sales, and Rule 10b5-1 contracts and sales, and indirectly impact pretty much anything else that relies on your FMV, such as grant pricing and ESPP purchases. Most immediately, it will have an impact on outstanding limit orders.
If your company’s security is involved in the pilot, i.e. is assigned to a test group, you’ll want to be sure your participants know what’s in store. They may see a change in quoted spreads when buying or selling a security and they’ll need to submit limit orders in five-cent increments.
What to do now?
Check with your service provider to find out:
What tools and resources exist to help you understand the pilot and communicate to your participants
How customer services associates are trained on the pilot
What messaging participants will see regarding nickel increments
How outstanding orders (both buy and sell orders) will be adjusted prior to the pilot effective date to conform to the pilot rules
With that, you should be able to tick this off your list.
Emily Cervino is a Vice President at Fidelity Stock Plan Services. She has been an active participant in the equity compensation industry since 1998, and now focuses on strategic marketing initiatives, thought leadership, and building Fidelity’s strong industry presence.
Emily is a frequent speaker at equity compensation events, past president of the Silicon Valley Chapter of the NASPP, a member of NASPP, GEO, and NCEO, and a 2015 recipient of the NASPP’s Individual Achievement Award. Emily is a Certified Equity Professional (CEP) and she holds Series 7 and 63 securities registrations.
Views expressed are as of the date indicated and may change based on market and other conditions. Unless otherwise noted, the opinions provided are those of the author, and not necessarily those of Fidelity Investments.
Links to third-party websites may be shared on this page. Those sites are unaffiliated with Fidelity. Fidelity has not been involved in the preparation of the content supplied at the unaffiliated site and does not guarantee or assume any responsibility for its content.
Fidelity Brokerage Services LLC, Member NYSE, SIPC, 900 Salem Street, Smithfield, RI 02917. 775451.1.0
I recently had to update my EDGAR passphrase. I thought this would be a relatively simple process. I’m a smart person and I have a proven success rate in navigating government websites—I know how to use the DMV website to make an appointment, I’ve requested a certified copy of my birth certificate online, I can find a public company’s stock plan on EDGAR—how hard could it be to update my EDGAR password? Turns out, way harder than I expected.
This is a long blog entry, but it’s not my fault. I blame the SEC (and maybe Microsoft).
How I Got Into this Mess
I got my EDGAR access codes over a decade ago, back when the SEC first rolled out the system for filing Section 16 forms online. It was so long ago, it was before the SEC required a notarized Form ID or a passphrase. I did not want to go through the hassle of submitting a notarized form to the SEC, so I had a system in place to make sure I didn’t forget to update my EDGAR password, which consisted of a reminder in my Outlook calendar set for about a month before my EDGAR password expired. Once a year, the reminder would pop up and—unlike how I respond to my alarm clock—I would not ignore it or hit snooze. I would immediately update my EDGAR password and set the reminder for the next year.
This system worked fantastically for over a decade, including through a change in employers. And then I got a new laptop with Outlook 13 on it. Outlook 13 had some sort of “known issue” that caused emails to disappear from my inbox. The only way to fix it was to remove Outlook 13 and go back to Outlook 10. In the process, my entire calendar was lost. Completely gone.
After massive hyperventilating and gnashing of the teeth, I was able to recreate most of it, but there were some appointments I forgot—including the reminder about my EDGAR password.
Fixing an Expired EDGAR Password
To update an expired EDGAR password, you have to generate a new set of EDGAR codes. This requires a passphrase. I had no idea what my passphrase was because the passphrase system wasn’t in place when I originally got my EDGAR codes, hence I didn’t have it noted in any of the various places where I have made note of my EDGAR codes (this was regrettable on my part). Here’s what I needed to do:
1. Generate a new passphrase. This required me to submit an Update Passphrase Confirmation form, which has to be notarized. I thought getting the notarization would be hard, and it was, mainly because I kept forgetting to bring the form with me when I met with my notary friend who would notarize the form for free.
This part was also very confusing because the only way to get the Update Passphrase Confirmation form is to fill out an online request for a new passphrase. But the SEC won’t issue a new passphrase until the notarized form is submitted, so I would have to come back and complete this very same online form again once I had my notarization. Essentially, you complete one new passphrase request that the SEC completely ignores. Then, once you have your notarized form, you complete a second request that the SEC will act on if you can manage to submit your notarized form properly (see steps 2 to 5).
Finally, to add to my frustration, it took several tries to come up with a passphrase that would meet the SEC’s crazy specifications so that I could print the form that I had to have notarized. (Note to the SEC: a password that is so complicated to remember and so hard to update that you write it down in multiple places it is a total security fail.)
2. Months later, after I finally got the form notarized (access to EDGAR isn’t really a pressing concern for me on a day-to-day basis), I had to go back to EDGAR to submit the form.
3. Of course I first tried this after 7:00 PM Pacific (I am in California) and EDGAR is shut down for the night at that time. Despite how ridiculous this is for an online system, it shouldn’t have been a surprise; as soon as I got the error message, I remembered that EDGAR shuts down for the night.
4. The next day I thought I was all set. I had my form and it was between 3:00 AM and 7:00 PM Pacific. Thankfully, the EDGAR system let me use the same passphrase I had come up with after several tries in step 1, so I didn’t have think of another one. But I still made every error in the book before I could submit the form—my file name was too long, then it had spaces, then it had capital letters, then my reason for needing to update my passphrase was too long, then it included profanity (just kidding, I did not swear at the SEC, at least not in writing).
5. After several tries, I finally managed to submit my update passphrase request form without getting an immediate error. I took this to be a good sign, even though there was no way I could tell that the submission had succeeded, since I got the same “submission completed” screen that I got when the submission failed.
6. Then I waited. After two business days, I received an email that my request to change my passphrase had been accepted. This was a major hurdle overcome, but I still had to go in and generate my new EDGAR codes.
7. Guess what time it was when I tried generate my new EDGAR codes: yep, after 7:00 PM Pacific (this is one of my most productive time periods). So I set an appointment in my calendar to remind me to generate my codes before 7:00 PM the next day (no worries about me trying to generate them before 3:00 AM).
8. The next day, my reminder pops up and I go to generate my new EDGAR codes. After all this, I am positively holding my breath that I wrote down my passphrase correctly because I sure as heck didn’t want to have to start this whole process again. Luckily, I am at least competent in this one thing, because the passphrase worked and I finally have my new EDGAR codes. Phew!
Lesson Learned
You might think the lesson I learned is to not let my EDGAR password expire, but that isn’t it all. The lesson I learned is …
Don’t forget your EDGAR passphrase!
If I had just remembered my passphrase, this whole blog entry could have been avoided. Maybe I should rent a safe deposit box or get one of those fireproof safes just to store my EDGAR passphrase.
Wondering why EDGAR is such a hot mess? Check out this nifty podcast that explains the problem with government websites: “DMV Nation.”
It’s been a while since I tackled Section 16 reporting in this blog. The last time I covered it, the SEC was on widespread mission to crack down on the smallest of infractions, Section 16(a) included. That was in 2014, and things seem to have quieted since then. Or have they? In today’s blog I’ll address that question.
All is (not) Quiet on the Section 16 Front
This time last year, there was a fair amount of buzz circulating around about the SEC’s (at the time) newfound aggression in pursuing enforcement for Section 16(a) reporting violations. It was the latest in a line of actions brought by the Commission as part of what SEC Chairman White had described as a “broken windows” initiative, where the agency put focus on frequently overlooked minor violations and highlighted that it was “important to pursue even the smallest infractions.”
While some companies have struggled to file Section 16 reports on a timely basis, the SEC’s ability to identify even the smallest of those infractions has increased greatly in recent years. Advances in technology and renewed attention to enforcement have combined to create an environment where it’s no longer safe to assume that a tiny infraction, even if just an oversight, will be overlooked. Although hype around this type of enforcement has quieted in recent months, it doesn’t mean that SEC attention has waned. Companies should be attentive in pursuing flawless (or near flawless) compliance with Section 16 reporting requirements.
Proxy season is on the horizon for many companies, and although any Section 16(a) reporting violations that happened in the past are what they are, there’s still time to focus on the Item 405 proxy disclosure piece that identifies any late reported Section 16 activity. Effort can also be made to ensure no Section 16 reporting mishaps occur going forward. It’s time to examine opportunities for improvement in these areas.
Inadvertent Mistakes Aren’t a Defense
There was a time where it almost seemed reasonable to say “it was just an inadvertent mistake.” That language appears in the Item 405 disclosure of many proxy statements. Why? Because, the truth is that inadvertent mistakes do happen. What is important to know is that violations of Section 16(a) reporting requirements are enforced only by the SEC, and (key to note) there is no “intent” or other “state of mind requirement” for there to be a “violation”; therefore, inadvertent failures to timely file Section 16 Forms 3, 4 and 5 may constitute violations of the federal reporting requirements. Essentially, nobody had to have “intended” to violate Section 16 in order for there to be an infraction. Additionally, relying on others is not a defense either: (“The insider didn’t give us timely information and therefore, I couldn’t make the filing on time.”)
Since an inadvertent mistake won’t necessarily absolve an issuer (or an insider) from responsibility and potential SEC enforcement action, it’s more important than ever to develop practices that prevent mistakes from occurring in the first place.
Must-Have Section 16 Resources
This month, Section 16 is getting a lot of NASPP coverage. With the goal to achieve “flawless” reporting this year, there’s lots to focus on, especially if you have a history of recent Item 405 disclosures in the proxy (pointing to opportunities for improvement in this area).
On January 27, Alan Dye will be doing his annual webcast on the Latest Section 16 Developments (free for NASPP members). Since the SEC’s major Section 16 enforcement initiative in late 2014, involving 28 insiders and civil penalties totaling $2.6 million, Section 16 filings have been in the spotlight like never before, commencing a new era of enforcement for the SEC. This is a Q&A webcast, designed to make sure you are equipped to comply. Hear practical tips on refining your Section 16 procedures and answers to your questions on the challenges you are facing today (submit your questions to adye@Section.net).
We’ve also got a great interview with Alan Dye that will be featured in the next episode of our Equity Expert podcast series (out next week). Be sure to subscribe today so that you are notified when Alan’s interview becomes available. The podcast is all audio, and is accessible on the NASPP website or through a podcast app on your mobile device (search for “Equity Expert”). The podcast is available for free to everyone. If you’re not listening to it, you’re missing out on some great interviews!
The Jan-Feb issue of The NASPP Advisor is due out next week, and both the Top 10 List and Administrators’ Corner articles are dedicated to Section 16 practices. Keep an eye out for it, because you won’t want to miss the tips and practices for achieving better compliance with Section 16 reporting requirements.
Watch for and take advantage of these great resources to help improve Section 16 compliance and reporting practices this year.
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.
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.
