The Advisors' Blog

This blog features wisdom from respected compensation consultants and lawyers

Monthly Archives: July 2015

July 31, 2015

Drafting Effective CD&As

Broc Romanek, CompensationStandards.com

In this podcast, Sharon Podstupka of Pearl Meyer & Partners provides some insight into how to draft more effective CD&As (here’s the related report findings), including:

– What are the benefits of having a non-lawyer involved in drafting the CD&A?
– What are arguments that can “win the day” at companies who have senior management not interested in drafting user-friendly CD&As?
– How does creating more usable disclosure impact the timeframe for drafting proxy disclosure?
– Do you see companies planning in advance for the pay ratio rules? And if so, in what ways?

pay ratio

July 29, 2015

It’s Official: Pay Ratio Rules Coming Next Wednesday! (& Our “Pay Ratio Workshop” on August 25th!)

Broc Romanek, CompensationStandards.com

The SEC just posted its Sunshine Act notice to adopt the pay ratio rules next Wednesday, August 5th. This blog from a few days ago gives a guess as to some of the rule’s final parameters.

We want to help you get prepared – so I have put together a “Pay Ratio Workshop” that will be held on Tuesday, August 25th, which will be held online via audio webcast. Here’s the “Pay Ratio Workshop” agenda.

This “Pay Ratio Workshop” is part of a registration to the “Proxy Disclosure Conference” & “Say-on-Pay Workshop” that will be held on October 27th-28th in San Diego and by video webcast. In other words, this new audio-webcast only event is paired with our prior pair of executive pay conferences. So it’s three conferences for the price of one! Register now – discounted rate available only through August 7th!

These are part of our FAQs:

– For those registered to attend in San Diego in person or by video, you also gain access to the August 25th “Pay Ratio Workshop” that is available only by audio webcast.
– You will receive an ID/pw to access the August 25th “Pay Ratio Workshop” by the middle of August (although it will just be your existing ID/pw to our sites if you already have a membership).
– There is no CLE available for the “Pay Ratio Workshop” (but there will be CLE for the “Proxy Disclosure/Say-on-Pay” Conferences in October in most states)
– An audio archive of the “Pay Ratio Workshop” will be available starting on August 25th in case you can’t catch that event live.

July 29, 2015

Survey: Pay Ratio Disclosures So Far

Broc Romanek, CompensationStandards.com

Last week, I blogged about Mark Borges’ blog about a comprehensive pay ratio disclosure – and then Mark followed up by blogging about some more samples. And now thanks to Simpson Thacher, we have this survey on pay ratio disclosures that they prepared in late March. The survey also includes some examples of companies that provide a comparison of compensation increases/decreases among the CEO and average employee.

To prepare this survey, Simpson Thacher searched all SEC filings since 2010 for companies that have disclosed the ratio of CEO to employee pay and found 16 examples. In reviewing these 16 examples, they noted the following data points for their disclosure:

1. Employees Included in Comparator Group
– Three (19%) note that the employee comparator group includes all employees, including part-time or temporary employees.
– Three (19%) note that the employee comparator group is limited to full-time employees.
– Three (19%) impose geographic restrictions on which employees are included in the comparator group (e.g., limiting to strictly U.S. or UK employees).
– Seven (44%) did not specify which employees are included in the comparator group.

2. Compensation Included
– Nine (56%) compare the CEO’s total compensation to the average total compensation for the company’s employees.
– Three (19%) compare the salary of the CEO to the average salary for the company’s employees.
– Three (19%) have two separate ratios: one based on salary, and one based on both salary and bonus.
– One (6%) has two separate ratios: one based on salary, and one based on total compensation.

3. Basis of Employee Comparison (Average vs. Median Salary)
– Three (19%) use the average salary for employees as the basis of comparison.
– Five (31%) use the median salary for employees as the basis of comparison.
– Eight (50%) use both the median and average salary for employees as a basis of comparison.

The first section, titled “Examples of Pay Ratio Disclosure”, includes the disclosure of the 16 companies discussed above, as well as information regarding the data points. Among these 16 examples, five companies (31%) have a market cap under $100 million; four companies (25%) have a market cap between $100 million and $1 billion; and seven companies (44%) have a market cap of over $1 billion. In addition, of these 16 companies, nine (56%) employ fewer than 1,000 employees, while only Whole Foods and Israel Chemical employ more than 5,000 employees. Further, seven companies (44%) are incorporated in Israel, as such disclosure appears to be encouraged under Israeli corporate law.

The survey also includes an additional chart at the end, titled “Examples of Compensation Increase Disclosure,” which includes seven examples of companies that disclose percentage pay changes (i.e., the annual percentage increase in pay of the CEO and other top executives, and the comparable percentage increase for all other employees). This disclosure, although it does not provide pay ratios, was provided by companies that all employed more than 1,000 employees (or, with respect to Aon, Astrazeneca, Avery Dennison and Reed Elsevier, employed more than 25,000 employees), and indicates the type of compensation used and the employees considered for the disclosure.

July 28, 2015

WSJ: “SEC Poised to Complete CEO-Pay Ratio Rule”

Broc Romanek, CompensationStandards.com

Last night, Joann Lublin & Andrew Ackerman ran this WSJ article:

Securities regulators are poised to complete rules requiring companies to disclose the pay gap between chief executives and employees, putting in place a measure without broad exclusions sought by companies, people familiar with the deliberations said Monday. In a setback to corporations and their trade groups, the Securities and Exchange Commission is expected to allow companies to exclude 5% of their overseas workers from the pay-ratio calculation, these people said. Companies had pressed to exclude a much larger percentage of foreign workers, which likely would have narrowed the pay gap some businesses report.

Under the rule, which the SEC could vote on as early as the first week of August, companies would have to disclose median worker pay—the point on the income scale at which half their employees earn more and half earn less—and compare it with CEO compensation. A mandate of the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial law, the pay-ratio rule could put added pressure on corporate boards to slow pay increases for chief executives at companies with significant or growing gaps, proponents have said. SEC Chairman Mary Jo White is under pressure from Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) and other Democratic lawmakers to complete the measure as well as other unfinished portions of the Dodd-Frank law.

Yet the pay-ratio rule has come under fire from corporations, Republican lawmakers and some regulators who warn it will be costly to compile across multiple jurisdictions and won’t provide investors with meaningful information about a company’s financial health. As with a 2013 proposal, the rule is expected to draw dissents from the SEC’s two Republicans, who say the commission has more urgent rules to tackle and the pay-ratio rule is designed to shame chief executives.

Economists at the SEC believe allowing companies to exclude 5% of their workforce will only have a small effect of the pay ratio, according to an analysis the commission released in June. The analysis found a 5% carve out changed a company’s pay ratio up or down by about 3.5%. An SEC spokeswoman declined to comment. Ms. White has repeatedly said she hopes to complete the measure by fall. People familiar with the matter said the vote date and the contours of the rule could still change.

Letting companies exclude up to 5% of their workforce if they are overseas will benefit some businesses with a minor presence abroad, said Mark Borges, a principal at Compensia Inc., an executive-pay boutique. “For a lot of companies, I don’t think that (exclusion) goes far enough.’’ The SEC should exclude all foreign employees from companies’ pay-ratio calculations, suggested Timothy J. Bartl, president of the Center on Executive Compensation, a Washington advocacy group for corporate human-resources chiefs. “That’s the most effective way to remove the most burdens.”

An AFL-CIO study of CEO pay across a broad sample of S&P 500 firms showed the average CEO earned 373 times more than the typical U.S. worker in 2014. In 1980, that multiple was 42. The 5% carve out is also likely to encounter opposition from supporters of the rule, including the big labor federation, who have pressed the SEC against carve outs. Brandon Rees, deputy director of the AFL-CIO’s Office of Investment, said Congress intended for companies to count all employees, not some of them. “The SEC doesn’t have statutory authority to exclude workers from the ratio,’’ Mr. Rees said.

July 27, 2015

Shareholder Engagement Disclosures May Impact Say-on-Pay

Broc Romanek, CompensationStandards.com

Here’s a blog by Davis Polk’s Ning Chiu:

EY Center for Board Matters reviewed the proxy statements of S&P 500 companies and found a dramatic increase in the number of companies that disclose shareholder engagement from five years ago. Based on 444 proxy statements available as of the middle of June, 56% discussed talking to shareholders, compared to 6% in 2010.

Eighteen percent disclose that board members were involved in the engagement, usually the compensation committee chair or members, lead director, board chair or the nominating and governance chair or members. Slightly less than half indicate that changes were made as a result of the conversations with investors. Not surprisingly, 82% of those changes relate to executive pay, as it has been clear by now that the say-on-pay vote has essentially required companies with approval ratings of 75% or below to reach out to shareholders due to the policies of the proxy advisory firms. However, companies also disclosed that changes were made to governance practices 33% of the time; 12% focused on modifications to environmental or social matters and 7% affected proxy disclosures.

All this engagement may be affecting the low numbers of investors actually opposing director elections. EY reports that only 3.5% of all director nominees received more than 20% negative votes, an all-time low in the seven years since 2009. That year, nearly 10% of directors faced opposition levels of over 20%.

Engagement may also be contributing to the continued support for say-on-pay, which averaged around 92% in the fourth year of the vote being held. Only 2% of companies with say-on-pay proposals (a total of 30 companies) received less than 50% support, compared to 59 companies in 2014.

July 24, 2015

Transcript: “Clawbacks – What Now After the SEC’s Proposal”

Broc Romanek, CompensationStandards.com

We have posted the transcript for our popular webcast: “Clawbacks – What Now After the SEC’s Proposal.”

July 23, 2015

How Failed Say-on-Pay Votes Impacts ISS Recommendations & Director Elections

Broc Romanek, CompensationStandards.com

In this report, Semler Brossy analyzes how say-on-pay vote outcomes impact ISS recommendations and director election voting results in subsequent years including:

– In the year following a failed (<50%) say-on-pay vote, Compensation Committee members are 4x as likely, and Compensation Committee chairs are over 5x as likely, to receive an ISS "withhold" or "against" recommendation - Say-on-pay failures result in declines in voting support the following year of 5% for non-Compensation Committee members, 10% for Compensation Committee members, and 14% for Compensation Committee chairs - Say-on-pay voting results in the 50% - 70% range result in declines in voting support the following year of 2% for non-Compensation Committee members and 6% for Compensation Committee members and chairs - Shareholder support for say-on-pay was 32% lower at companies with an ISS "against" recommendation in 2015

July 22, 2015

Poll: “What is a Perk?”

Broc Romanek, CompensationStandards.com

It’s been 9 years since we ran our popular “Quick Survey on “What is a Perk?” (here’s those old results) – so it’s time to do it again. Please take a moment to participate in our new “Quick Survey on “What is a Perk?”

Proxy Disclosure Awards: Last Chance to Vote!

It’s time to vote! Please take a moment to vote for these 12 categories of awards. Voting is anonymous – and ends this Friday, July 24th. Here’s the FAQs

July 21, 2015

Pay Ratio: Disclosure Example & Ramping Up

Broc Romanek, CompensationStandards.com

Get ready to ramp up by registering now for our upcoming “Proxy Disclosure Conference“! Last night, Mark Borges blogged about NorthWestern’s pay ratio disclosure that bears reviewing. In addition, check out this study entitled “Consumers Prefer Firms with Lower CEO-to-Worker Pay Ratios” – and this WSJ article entitled “CFOs Prep for Pay-Ratio Rules“:

Finance chiefs at public companies are looking for clarification from the Securities and Exchange Commission as they prepare to comply with coming regulations on how they must disclose the boss’s pay compared to a typical worker. The SEC earlier this month accepted public comments on a proposed rule that soon could force thousands of companies to disclose annually the ratio of CEO-to-typical worker pay. The agency first proposed the rule two years ago to comply with the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010 and SEC Chairman Mary Jo White has said she wants the SEC to issue a final rule by this fall.

Among the issues that companies are expecting to get further guidance is how they should define a “median employee”—and what types of pay to include as compensation. The clarifications also will impact the cost to companies of preparing for the ratio. The SEC is “going to have to provide some degree of guidance” to clarify which employees that companies will have to include when they crunch the numbers, said Joseph Grundfest, a Stanford law professor and former SEC commissioner.
Related

Companies can use different sampling methods in their calculations, which gives them “a lot of latitude to choose what they want those estimates to be,” said Michael Ohlrogge, a Stanford University law and engineering doctoral student, who wrote to the SEC earlier this month.

Some companies including Noble Energy Inc. are testing the waters. In March, the Houston-based oil and gas exploration and production company disclosed that former Chief Executive Charles Davidson made 82 times more than the median employee, who took home $103,500 in direct compensation in 2014. Mr. Davidson made $8.5 million in direct compensation, it said. Neither that figure nor its ratio calculation included the roughly $1 million increase in the value of his pension, employer retirement contributions and perquisites like club-membership dues the company provided. “If the SEC adopts rules on compensation ratio, we will conform the methodology by which we calculate that ratio to align with the SEC requirements,” a Noble spokeswoman said in a statement. “Until rules are adopted, we expect to continue with the current methodology in our future disclosures.”

In all, the SEC expects the 3,800 public companies affected to spend a combined $72.8 million to comply, according to its 2013 proposal. That comes to about $19,000 apiece. One “global technology company” the agency consulted estimated that the cost of crunching the numbers could amount to $350,000 plus $100,000 a year for compliance, it said. James Flaws, Corning Inc. ’s finance chief, said he expects the specialty glass and ceramics maker will lay out less than $250,000 to tally a ratio between the compensation of its CEO Wendell Weeks—$13 million in 2014—and its average worker. The Corning, N.Y. business employs 34,600 people full-time, with two-thirds of them working in more than 100 foreign countries.

At ingredients maker Ingredion Inc., based in Westchester, Ill., about 83% of the company’s full- and part-time workforce of 11,400 people is employed outside the U.S., which means that determining a pay ratio could be “resource intense,” said CFO Jack Fortnum. “There are many potential variables in the calculation of the compensation ratio, including how employees are paid around the world, and how to consider various pensions and other benefits,” he said.

A lobbyist for a S&P 500 technology company said that the company objects to including foreign employees in the calculation, because the average per capita income in places like the Philippines are a fraction of those in the U.S. and thus would skew the results.

As much as 95% of the cost and effort the company expects to face in calculating a pay ratio would arise from tallying the pay of overseas workers, he said. “If this was domestic employees only, it wouldn’t be worth my time” to fight against the rule in its current form, the lobbyist added.

The National Association of Manufacturers, a trade group, cited a member company that said it would face $18 million in costs related to implementing the rule. That unnamed company, it said, must scour 500 separate payroll systems around the world to hammer out compensation details for its 130,000 employees and build a centralized network to capture the information, according to its comment letter to the SEC. The SEC’s Division of Economic and Risk Analysis last month said the figures that companies use to calculate their pay ratios could vary between 3.4% and 15%, based on the percentage of workers the companies exclude from their sampling.

CEOs and CFOs must attest, under penalty of law, that the information is accurate, since the disclosures will be included in SEC filings, according to Timothy J. Bartl, president of the Center on Executive Compensation, a Washington, D.C., advocacy group of human-resources chiefs.

Some shareholders say they’re eager to see the new statistics. “I think the pay ratio is going to be a data point in the conversation,” said Jonas Kron, senior vice president and director of shareholder advocacy at Boston-based Trillium Asset Management LLC, with $2.2 billion in assets under management. Trillium generally votes against any executive compensation package exceeding $7 million. “We’re going to be able to have more sophisticated conversations with companies and internally when making investment determinations,” he added.

July 20, 2015

Does the SEC’s New “Compensation Actually Paid” Help P4P Assessment?

Broc Romanek, CompensationStandards.com

Last week I blogged about the roughly 60 comment letters have been submitted to the SEC on its pay-for-performance proposal. In addition, there are dozens of memos about the SEC’s proposal in our “Pay-for-Performance” Practice Area – including this one from Pay Governance entitled “Does the SEC’s New “Compensation Actually Paid” (“CAP”) Help Shareholders Accurately Assess Pay-for-Performance?“…