Thursday, January 25, 2018

Tesla’s Elon Musk May Have Boldest Pay Plan in Corporate History

For the last several years, there has been speculation about Elon Musk’s future at Tesla, and whether he would step down as chief executive in the next year or two.
Mr. Musk stoked that speculation as far back as five years ago when he said he wanted to stay through the introduction of the Model 3. Then in 2014, he said, “I’ll have to see, you know, how things are going at that point,” adding, “I will certainly be the C.E.O. for the next four or five years, and it’s T.B.D. after that.”
With the success of Mr. Musk’s various other endeavors, such as Space X, his aeronautics company, it was only natural that investors would expect that the model for Robert Downey Jr.’s Tony Stark character in “Iron Man’’ might move on to a different role at Tesla.
NEW YORK TIMES. JAN. 23, 2018. 
Read more here.

Say-on-Pay Rulebook – “Do’s and Don’ts” from an Investor Perspective

In today’s environment, boards are hard pressed to follow the traditional approach of utilizing pay and benefits as they see fit to “attract, retain, and motivate” the managers who, in their view, will ensure the corporation’s success. Proxy advisors -- and many institutional shareholders -- rely on quantitative models to filter for companies that appear to have pay-performance disconnects or certain unacceptable practices. Both ISS and Glass Lewis follow their filtering with a qualitative assessment that takes into account a variety of company-specific factors; but the advisors and many investors are obligated to follow a consistent framework in applying their policies, sometimes leaving little room for the nuances of business exigencies. The proxy advisors also regularly evolve their policies to reflect new regulations and new thinking (that stock hedging and even pledging by executives and directors raises risks to shareholder value, for example). Even the new CEO-to-median-employee pay ratio that will emerge in 2018 proxies may eventually make its way into advisor and mainstream investor policies, though neither of those groups appears to have formalized public guidelines as yet. 

Carol BowieSenior Advisor, Teneo Governance


Read more here.

How the Highest-Paid Boards Compare to Peers

Since the enactment of Say on Pay following the passage of Dodd-Frank, executive compensation has been closely watched and scrutinized by corporate shareholders. However, the compensation of those who represent shareholders—the board of directors—often flies under the radar. While no mandated check or balance like Say on Pay currently exists for director compensation, recent events may change the current governance landscape.
As covered in a recent Equilar blog, Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS) published annual updates to its proxy voting guidelines. With respect to director pay, the new guidelines state:
“[ISS will] generally [recommend a] vote against members of the board committee responsible for approving/setting non-employee director compensation if there is a pattern (i.e. two or more years) of awarding excessive non-employee director compensation without disclosing a compelling rationale or other mitigating factors.”
EQUILAR. January 15, 2017
Read more here.

Wednesday, January 10, 2018

CEO Pay Ratio Development Considerations

Included in the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act is Section 953(b), the so-called CEO pay ratio rule, which requires publicly traded companies to disclose the ratio of their CEO’s pay to that of their median employee. Companies will be required to report the pay ratio disclosure based on compensation paid in their first full fiscal year beginning on or after January 1, 2017. 

There have been recent proposals to defer or repeal portions of the Dodd-Frank Act, including the CEO pay ratio rule. In fact, a Treasury Department report released on October 6, 2017 recommended that “section 953(b) of Dodd-Frank be repealed and any rules issued pursuant to such provisions be withdrawn.” However, any potential changes to the requirement are not likely to occur before the filing deadline, so companies should prepare to include the disclosure in the next proxy filing. 

We predict that there will be significant discussion in the media regarding the CEO pay ratio once 2018 proxies are filed, so the messaging contained in the proxy will be important. While there is likely to be some attention focused on the methods of disclosure for the pay ratio in each company’s proxy, it’s hard to argue that anything will prove to be more important than the ratio itself. To that point, companies must consider that the media is likely to provide significantly more coverage to disclosures where the ratio of CEO pay to median employee pay is deemed very high. 

Since there is little flexibility in calculating CEO pay, if the goal is to minimize the magnitude of the ratio, then the method of determining the median employee becomes the key. Certainly, having the highest possible median employee compensation would minimize the ratio, but consideration needs to be given to employees’ reaction to the median compensation figure. Employees already understand that the CEO makes a lot more than most employees, but they may be more interested to see how their own pay compares to the median worker. Accordingly, using a method of identifying the median employee that results in a higher pay level may not be the most desirable in all circumstances. 

Suggested Steps 
1. Determine the effective date that will be used to determine the employee population, and thus the median employee. This date can be any date within the last three months of the fiscal year that the proxy is being prepared for. 
2. Compile a payroll report for all employees who were employed on the effective date, including basic information such as name, position, and hire/termination dates. The report will also need to include compensation data such as salary, overtime, and bonuses. Another measure of compensation that would be useful to include is the amount in Box 3 of the employee’s W-2 (Medicare taxable wages). 
3. Once the employee compensation data is compiled, it will be useful to identify the median employee in a couple of different ways. We suggest using total cash compensation, as well as W-2 Box 3 wages, in order to see how the results differ using each method. 
4. After the median employee is identified, compile information on equity grants, company paid benefits, company contributions to retirement plans, and the actuarial change in pension plan value (if applicable) for that median employee. 

5. Prepare the total compensation figure for the median employee the same way that the CEO’s total compensation figure in the Summary Compensation Table (SCT) was prepared. 
6. Determine the ratio of the CEO’s SCT total compensation to the total for the median employee. 
7. Prepare the disclosure, including the median employee’s annual total compensation, the annual total compensation of the CEO, and the ratio of these two amounts. 
8. Consider whether additional ratios and supplemental disclosures are appropriate. Additional information is permitted, so long as the information is accurate and is not given greater prominence than the required disclosure. One possible additional ratio would be total realized pay of the CEO versus the median employee. This would be particularly useful in a year where the CEO had a large equity grant, but realized pay was much less. 

Important Considerations 
 The rules allow for (but do not require) compensation to be annualized for permanent employees who did not work a full year. Consider whether annualizing pay for these employees helps achieve the company’s goals related to the CEO pay ratio disclosure. Note that pay for temporary or seasonal employees cannot be annualized, and pay for part-time employees cannot be converted to full-time equivalent rates. 
When looking to identify the median employee, do not include independent contractors or anyone who is not considered an employee of the company as of the specified date. The SEC notes that companies should “apply a widely recognized test under another area of law that the registrant otherwise uses to determine whether its workers are employees.” 
If the employee determined to be the median employee has “anomalous characteristics” in their compensation, then an employee with substantially similar compensation can be substituted. For instance, if the median employee did not receive any 401(k) match or did not participate in the company’s health insurance plan, but the typical employee did receive these benefits, then a substitution could be made. 
There is not much flexibility in the calculation of the CEO’s pay in the SCT; however, items under non-discriminatory benefit plans that total less than $10,000 can either be included or excluded. If included for the CEO, the same items would need to be included for the median employee. Depending on the end goal, including or excluding something like the portion of health insurance paid by the company could significantly impact the ratio. 
The final rule published by the SEC does allow for a de minimis exception, which provides that non-U.S. employees can generally be excluded from the calculation if they make up 5% or less of the company’s total employee population. This exemption could prove particularly useful for companies with just a handful of employees outside the U.S. 

Once the ratio of CEO pay to that of the median employee is calculated, it will be important to provide an explanation of the calculation methodology, as well as facts and circumstances behind the compensation of the CEO and median worker at the company. As the date for disclosing the CEO pay ratio grows closer, it will be important for companies to consider how employees, shareholders, and the media will react to the disclosure. Carefully crafted disclosures will assist in minimizing the risk of negative reactions while maintaining compliance with the existing law. 

Joe Kager, POE Group

CEO Pay Ratio Disclosure Introduction

Included in the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act is Section 953(b), the so-called CEO pay ratio rule, which requires publicly traded companies to disclose the ratio of their CEO’s pay to that of their median employee. Companies will be required to report the pay ratio disclosure based on compensation paid in their first full fiscal year beginning on or after January 1, 2017. For companies with a calendar year fiscal year, this requirement begins with the 2018 proxy statements, which report on fiscal year 2017.

There have been recent proposals to defer or repeal portions of the Dodd-Frank Act, including the CEO pay ratio rule. In fact, a Treasury Department report released on October 6, 2017 recommended that “section 953(b) of Dodd-Frank be repealed and any rules issued pursuant to such provisions be withdrawn.” However, any potential changes to the requirement are not likely to occur before the filing deadline, so companies should prepare to include the disclosure in the next proxy filing.

The rule requires taking into account all employees globally (except the CEO), in order to determine the total compensation paid to the median employee. Employees include full-time, part-time, temporary, and seasonal workers. The compensation of the median employee is then compared to the CEO pay disclosed in the Summary Compensation Table. The final rule published by the SEC does allow for a de minimis exception, which provides that non-U.S. employees can generally be excluded from the calculation if they make up 5% or less of the company’s total employee population. This exemption could prove particularly useful for companies with just a handful of employees outside the U.S.

A company is allowed to choose the effective date of the data set used for purposes of identifying the median employee, as long as the date selected occurs within the last three months of its last completed fiscal year. For a company with a calendar year fiscal year, the effective date of the data used could be as early as October 1, 2017, which would allow more time to run the calculations prior to the proxy disclosure.

Companies have flexibility to choose the methodology to identify the median employee, which can actually complicate the process. The SEC allows companies to use statistical sampling, reasonable estimates, or just certain pieces of compensation that are easily identifiable (e.g., payroll or W-2 compensation). However, any methodology used must be explained in the proxy and must be reasonable.

Once the ratio of CEO pay to that of the median employee is calculated, it will be important to provide an explanation of the calculation methodology, as well as facts and circumstances behind the compensation of the CEO and median worker at the company. ISS (Institutional Shareholder Services) reinforces the importance of providing an explanation to shareholders: "For institutional investors, narrative disclosure on the pay ratio is likely to be the most important aspect of the disclosure mandate as they look to understand the factors impacting CEO and employee pay, the drivers behind the board’s compensation-setting process, and how they reinforce the company’s management strategy."

Shareholders, and potentially the media, will likely be interested in not just the absolute CEO pay ratio, but also how the ratio compares to peers. Unsurprisingly, all else being equal, larger companies are likely to have a higher CEO pay ratio than smaller companies. A study published by ISS on October 6, 2017 compared data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics to CEO pay data for Russell 3000 companies and found that CEO pay for S&P 500 companies is approximately 172 times greater than the average employee’s earnings, while CEO 2 pay data for companies in the S&P 600 is just 48 times greater (Exhibit 1). The same ISS study predicted vast differences in the CEO pay ratio by industry. The study found that CEOs in the Food & Staples Retailing sector earn 142 times more than the average employee, while bank CEOs’ pay is just 15 times that of a median employee (Exhibit 2).

It will be important for companies to consider how their employees and shareholders will react to the disclosure. Carefully crafted disclosures will assist in minimizing the risk of negative reactions while maintaining compliance with the existing law.

Although the focus of this rule has been on the pay ratio, possibly the most impactful outcome will be the disclosure of the pay of the median employee. Employees are generally aware of relatively high CEO pay levels, as this has been disclosed for years. They may be more interested in how their individual pay compares to the median employee, both within their own company and competing companies. Companies would be wise to consider the pay calculation of the median employee and carefully craft the narrative around the disclosure.

Interest in the CEO pay ratio rule is not limited to shareholders, as state and local governments have also taken a special interest in the CEO pay ratio rule, in the form of new taxes and fees. Portland, Oregon enacted the first rule of its kind when it passed an ordinance in December 2016 that created a surtax of 10% for public companies with a CEO pay ratio of 100:1 or more, with the surtax set to 25% if the ratio exceeds 250:1. The surtax would be levied on business income from activities in Portland, and would be in addition to the existing 2.2% corporate tax rate.

The state of Illinois has proposed an annual fee of $1,500 on any publicly traded company doing business in the state if its CEO pay ratio is 100:1 or more, with the fee increasing to $2,500 if the ratio exceeds 250:1. In addition, Connecticut, Minnesota, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island have all proposed corporate surtaxes if the CEO’s pay exceeds 100 times that of the median worker. Perhaps more surprising is the fact that the proposed laws in Connecticut and Massachusetts are not tied to the methodology in the Dodd-Frank Act, which means that their proposed rules are designed to stand even if the act is repealed.

It would appear that the proposed surtaxes do not take into account company size, industry, or peer comparisons. They are simply based on absolute pay ratio numbers, rather than relative comparisons. This would seem to penalize larger publicly traded companies, as their pay ratio is likely to be greater. In addition, certain industries are more far more likely to exceed the 100:1 threshold that is seen in several states’ proposals.

The communication strategy of the pay ratio is as important as the calculation approach. Issues to consider include where to locate the disclosure in the proxy statement, how much detail or supplemental analysis to include, and the need for company-wide communication on the pay of the median employee contemporaneously with the release of the proxy statement.




Joe Kager, POE Group