Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Compensation’ Category

The Wells Fargo incentive pay problem is at least as old as Matthews, Young; and we’ve been advising the banking industry on performance-based incentive compensation for over 40 years.  Decades ago when we discussed design of incentive plans, we would half-joke about avoiding the creation of an employee mindset of “open an account and get a new toaster; open three new accounts and get three toasters”.

Our experience tells us that a cardinal rule of incentives is that you get what you pay for – in terms of employee behavior and results.  If your bank sets new account goals without incorporating a balancing measure like branch customer satisfaction, you are sending a problematic message:  account growth matters and gets rewarded and customer satisfaction does not.  If your incentives are driven by Net Income growth without corresponding Return on Assets / Equity measures, you are telling management that it’s okay to inflate the balance sheet for that extra dollar of profits.   If loan growth is the key to incentive earnings without corresponding credit quality requirements . . . well, we all know where that got us in the recent past!

Business news reports of the Wells Fargo problem indicate that another cardinal rule of incentives may have been violated:  employees must have a reasonable chance of achieving goals and not fear losing their jobs for failing to achieve what they perceive as unobtainable results.  Such a situation will cause some employees to quit trying and others to start their search for different employment.  Or in the Wells Fargo case, employees will find a way to achieve goals even when they know their behavior is inconsistent with customer interests and, ultimately, shareholder return.

We also believe that Wells Fargo’s decision to cancel incentive plans is an over-reaction.  Well-designed incentive plans are an effective management tool to:

  • focus attention and action plans on key results
  • motivate individual effort and teamwork
  • link company and employee success

The Wells Fargo story will fade in the press, but we believe it should be a wakeup call for banks to take a fresh look at incentive plans.  With the new year approaching, now is the time to ask the tough questions:  Are performance measures balanced with respect to growth, profitability, soundness, and customer satisfaction?  Are expectations reasonably obtainable and do employees have the proper tools and training to perform at their best?  Are payout levels competitive but reasonable compared to base pay (e.g., are high incentives necessary for cash compensation to be competitive)?  Are we supporting our incentives plans with effective employee communications that explain expectations for results and behavior?

Matthews, Young has been advising banks, thrifts, and credit unions for over four decades on the use of sound incentive compensation.  We are experienced in the design of new plans as well as the review of existing plans.  Contact us at: Info@MatthewsYoung.com.

Read Full Post »

Executive compensation and performance-based pay continue to be a hot topics in board rooms and in the press. Corporate directors should be wary of compensation plans that can distort the pay for performance equation. Two pending SEC rule changes may impact how public companies implement executive compensation in the future: the Pay for Performance disclosure, and the CEO pay ratio. Where CEO pay and company performance are misaligned, proxy reporting will raise a red flag for shareholders and investor groups. Large pay packages that result in problematic CEO pay ratios (the ratio of CEO pay to employee median pay) have been key topics in the press as companies anticipate the implementation of the SEC’s new pay ratios rules.

Strategic PlanningAs the deadline nears for implementing these new pay disclosure rules, public boards and executives should focus on the effectiveness of all elements of executive pay. Since a large part of CEO compensation is long-term incentives, typically stock-based or plan-based compensation, these plans should be closely evaluated. While public companies will be concerned with the new pay rules, private companies will also be interested since pay for performance is a best practice. Consequently, long-term incentive pay will be a focus in the near term.

Historically, long-term incentives were granted to retain executive talent; executive retention is greatly enhanced when adding a vesting feature and a forfeiture clause for executives who leaves before vesting. Retention in the form of long-term incentives generally were implemented using stock grants, primarily in the form of restricted stock and RSUs with vesting after three or five year’s continuous service. Stock options could also be used to help with retention; however they often lose their effectiveness when the stock price drops and options fall underwater. While these types of grants are effective retention tools, they lack the focus that is generated with performance-based incentives.

We believe that a meaningful way to measure the effectiveness of long-term incentive compensation is to evaluate whether the incentives reward senior executives for meeting and sustaining the strategic goals of the company. While service vested stock grants have an element of performance, too often vesting of large stock grants occur during a time when the company’s performance is declining. This misalignment of pay and performance can send a bad message to shareholders and regulators. A better message to send occurs when a large block of stock vests when the company achieves a key success or during a period of excellent performance. For this reason, we believe that long-term incentive pay should be primarily tied to company performance that is linked to long-term, sustained improvement in shareholder value.

Naturally, these incentives should be linked to the executive team’s success against the main goals outlined in the company’s strategic plan. This can be a complicated task. Executive teams are leery of setting performance expectations too far into the future due to the uncertainty of the business environment. The need to set goals that are measurable and meaningful is a significant factor in a plan’s success. A few key goals can be far more meaningful than a long list of performance objectives that may be difficult to track and fraught with confusion about final outcomes. Ultimately long-term incentive plans should (1) be simple enough to communicate to multiple constituencies, (2) reflect the expectations of the board over a long time period and (3) align with sustained and improved total shareholder value.

However, long-term incentives tied to key performance objectives often compete against the desire to meet annual incentive plan goals. Focus on short-term earnings performance and near-term outcomes to satisfy investor groups can be a detriment to achieving a long-term strategy. For public companies, too much emphasis is placed on quarterly results at the expense of meeting longer term objectives. Private companies have less pressure, but the tension between short-term performance and longer term strategic objectives still exists. Successfully implementing performance-based long-term incentive plans is one way to counter the pressure of shorter term thinking.

For example, most financial institutions are experiencing pressure to boost their earnings because of declining revenues due to low interest rates. Could this lead bank executives to seek higher interest rate loans with greater risks or higher market concentration in order to generate higher rates and more fees? Could this pressure to boost earnings cause executives to drift away from the long-term strategy of the bank? Of course it could; this is reasonable outcome when pressure on short-term earnings overshadows the long-term strategy of a bank; this focus could be a problem for future success. Our suggestion to counter this short-term behavior is to establish long-term incentives linked to an emphasis on loan portfolios that are more consistent with the bank’s strategic direction.

So what are some of the key issues to address if you want to implement a performance-based long-term incentive plan? As a first step, do you have an up-to-date and effective strategic plan? If not, start here. Next, you need to decide whether stock or cash is the best way to provide executive incentives. Also, determining the best time frame for vesting is another important step. We think a minimum of three to five years makes sense. However, you may want to tie the vesting to a major business initiative or a future liquidity event; these events don’t always occur on a fixed schedule. Using multiple grants (annual or biennial) can add another favorable dimension to the plan design. Having rolling vesting dates can help sustain the plan’s long-term momentum. These plan design features and many other plan design decisions must be made when implementing a new plan or moving the emphasis away from service vesting toward performance vesting.

In summary, performance-based long-term incentive plans are a recognized best practice among industry experts and corporate governance groups like ISS and Glass Lewis. With the SEC implementing new rules that will spotlight pay for performance and CEO pay, this may be an excellent time to evaluate your current executive compensation plans to make sure that executive pay is closely aligned with company performance. Finally, directors and executives should examine both the annual bonus plan and the long-term incentive plan to validate that these plans are fulfilling the long-term strategic needs of the company.

Author J. Henry Oehmann can be reached at Henry.Oehmann@MatthewsYoung.com

Read Full Post »

Finding the time and resources for board and committee development is an ongoing challenge.  But enhancing the effectiveness of your Compensation Committee can be done with a few key actions.  This blog and ones that follow will address:

  • Setting a workable Committee calendarCompensation Committee Calendar
  • Selecting membership
  • Continuing education on executive compensation

The beginning of the year is a great time to update or set up a calendar for your Compensation Committee.  Committee responsibilities and activities need to

be spelled out in advance and scheduled throughout the year to:

  • Balance the Committee’s workload
  • Allow sufficient time for review before decisions are required
  • Ensure that decisions are well-timed for effectiveness as well as meeting any regulatory requirements

The first step in building the calendar is listing and grouping activities.  You may be surprised at how many issues need to be addressed when you write them all down.  Our basic categorized list includes:

  • Compensation Philosophy Statement
    • This roadmap for guiding Committee decisions should be reviewed at least annually.
    • If you don’t have one, you would be surprised how helpful having written principles can be.
    • Market and Peer Group Review
      • Update the peer group for relevancy.
      • Gather compensation data from surveys and proxies.
      • Monitor performance versus peers.
      • Performance and Salary Review
        • Board/Committee review of CEO performance; and CEO review and report on other senior officers.
        • Committee review of CEO salary and adjust based on market/peer pay levels and executive job performance.
        • Committee review of CEO recommendations for other senior officers.
        • Annual Incentive Plan
          • Update plan in terms of participation, payout ranges, objectives, weights, and performance ranges.
          • Review performance and potential payout levels at mid-year.
          • Complete end-of-year review and approve payouts.
          • Long Term Incentive Plan (if you use stock)
            • Review existing grants and remaining share reserve.
            • Determine any need for updating plan and/or share reserve.
            • Determine new grant (type of grant, total shares, terms, CEO allocation).
            • Review and approve CEO recommendation for grants to other officers.
  • Compensation Risk Assessment
    • Conduct at least annually – ideally just after the end of the year so the Committee can look back at the prior year and plan for the year just beginning.
    • Director Compensation
      • Determine frequency of review (we recommend an annual review; but at least every third year as a minimum).
      • Conduct review and recommend changes to Board.

Of course, companies participating in government programs like TARP or those who are required to report to the SEC have a number of other requirements and activities that we won’t try to cover here.  Suffice it to say that these requirements are a significant expansion of the previous list.

Filling out the calendar is best done using a grid with the major categories of work down the left side of the calendar, and the months across the top.  This approach allows you to schedule the items in each category in logical order as well as look at the volume of Committee work in each month.

Finally, this is a task best completed by the Committee Chair, CEO, and outside compensation consultant if you have one.  You may also want your CFO and Chief Human Resources Officer involved if they interact directly with the Committee.

Please add comments below, and if you want to know more about how we can help, call me at 919-644-6962 or ask us to contact you at http://matthewsyoung.com/contact.htm.

Read Full Post »

In a previous blog entry, I talked about improving Executive Compensation Committee Effectiveness by setting up an annual Committee calendar to balance workload, set priorities, and ensure timely and effective decisions.

This follow-on blog highlights four important elements for effectiveness from the standpoint of Committee membership, structure, and decision-making authority:

  • Characteristics of effective committee members
  • Appropriate committee size and turnover
  • Balancing other committee assignments
  • Assigning sufficient authority

 

Characteristics of Effective Committee Members

Some Director backgrounds are more appropriate than others for the Compensation Committee.  Candidates with formal corporate management experience or service as professional directors tend to have a better perspective for dealing with complex compensation issues.  Directors with entrepreneurial or smaller company experience may not have faced these kinds of issues before.

 

Appropriate Committee Size and Turnover

Our experience shows that the Compensation Committee needs at least three independent members but typically not more than five.  Decision-making is streamlined with a smaller committee; but don’t get so small that you limit important interaction and having a range of perspectives that ultimately builds strong consensus.  Also, you should change no more than one-third of the committee’s members in a year.  Otherwise, you lose “institutional memory” and valuable experience and expertise that takes a while to develop.

 

Balancing Other Committee Assignments

Because of the importance placed on the governance of executive compensation, membership on the Compensation Committee should be a director’s primary committee assignment.  If at all possible, don’t place directors on both the Compensation and Audit Committees.  While you want your best directors on your most critical committees, you don’t want to stretch them too thin.

 

Assigning Sufficient Authority

And finally, all Boards of Directors should take the time to determine what level of authority the Compensation Committee will hold.  We believe that Compensation Committees are most effective when the Board assigns them specific decision-making authority.   Where full Board voting is desired or required, the Committee should always bring a specific recommendation that the Committee has developed and fully supports.

 

If you would like a sample Compensation Committee Membership Profile, we would be happy to send you one.  Click on the button below to request a copy.

Sample Executive Compensation Committee Membership Profile

Read Full Post »

For years, larger companies have routinely budgeted to increase base salaries of employees by a few percent based on what everybody else is doing. Then, the annual increase is usually spread among employees based on where they are paid in their job’s policy salary range and, hopefully, based on a merit performance score. There is a good deal of logic in such a process, but it is worth rethinking given the realities of today’s labor market.

payrollWhy does an annual increase in the guaranteed base salary make sense? The fact that it is routinely done at the same time each year gives employees a sense of security and if your strategy emphasizes low risk, steady growth with retention of a stable staff, then this approach to base salary management makes sense. On the other hand, if your organization’s strategy is for more risky growth where high levels of performance can make a big difference, perhaps a different approach to base pay would make better sense.

Maybe some of the base should be shifted over time to incentive pay. Perhaps base salary reviews should be done less often with bigger increase potentials when salary increases are eventually granted. How you mix pay between the guaranteed portion and the at-risk portion is a matter of strategy and to be effective, your pay strategy must support your business strategy. We hear HR professionals worrying about the annual 2% to 4% increase having become an entitlement. However, management of companies that have had depressed revenues during the recent economic recession have little patience for any entitlement attitude. HR professionals need to think about how their office can better support the organization’s strategy. Rethinking the annual base pay increase entitlement is a good place to start.

Of course, every organization is unique and there is no one-size-fits-all solution to managing base salaries and overall compensation. Having worked with hundreds of organizations, for-profit and not-for-profit, fast growing and declining, risk-averse and risk-tolerant, we understand the need for a custom solution. As the economy slowly improves, this is a good time to step back and question your organization’s compensation management. We would appreciate your thoughts. Please email, call or comment below.

Read Full Post »

Citi is finally getting CEO pay plans right! After losing their shareholder “say-on-pay” vote at the 2012 Annual Meeting of Shareholders, new Chairman Michael E. O’Neill, who just took over as Chairman last April, interviewed a large number of important shareholders. He was told that paying their CEO a $6 Million Incentive based on a two-year (2011 and 2012) cumulative pre-tax profit of $12 Billion, may sound like a good deal for the shareholders, but it was fraught with problems.

carrots

Incentive Pay Must Be Carefully Designed

To begin, the Company had 2010 pre-tax profit of approximately $12 Billion. So, the hurdle for earning the $6 Million was half of the actual earnings in 2010. Yes, the economy has made earnings difficult to produce, and yes, Citi is trying to overcome internal problems, but shareholders were unwilling to allow a hurdle rate that low. There were other problems with the design of the Plan.

Cumulative two-year pre-tax earnings ignores the fact that the bank could grow assets at a decreasing return on each dollar and meet the earnings hurdle while increasing their capital requirements significantly. Using volume of profit as a management performance measurement always has this inherent problem. In fact, increasing volume of profit can and often does result in lower returns on equity in banking. For that reason, shareholders can lose as management earns more, and a lose-win plan is never good.

Finally, building on the last point, there is no clear link between shareholder returns and management pay in the Plan Citi was using. A common objective of executive compensation plans is to align the interests of management with those of the shareholders. The old Citigroup, Inc. Plan did the opposite to some degree. The Board of Citigroup consists of intelligent and successful people, but they got some bad advice along the way. After Chairman O’Neill spoke with shareholders, he tasked the Board’s Compensation Committee to redesign the CEO’s Compensation Plan to address the shareholders’ concerns. He was not about to get a negative “say-on-pay” vote after his first year as Chairman.

Now, in my many years of studying and designing executive compensation plans, I have yet to see the perfect plan. It just does not exist. Business is too complex to allow for such a thing, and the need to keep the plan as simple as possible is an important constraint.  Yet, the new Citigroup, Inc. Management Compensation Plan addresses shareholder concerns with an elegantly simple design.

Executives will be granted units worth a certain amount in three years if certain performance is achieved.  Citigroup stock must perform in the top three-quarters of a carefully selected peer group of stocks of similar companies, and Citigroup’s Return on Average Assets over the three years must beat a hurdle equal to the previous year’s actual or there will be no units rewarded.  Furthermore, if the Return on Average Assets over the three years is better than the previous year by a significant percentage, then a target number of additional units will be awarded.

This design is superior to the old design because it clearly:

  1. aligns management’s interests with those of the shareholders and
  2. it is tied to relative performance compared with peers as well as the Company’s strategic goals.

There are some potential draw backs to such a plan, but the new plan is so much better than the old plan, I will not spend words on the risks in this particular blog.  Perhaps in the future, we can look at some of the potential flaws.  In the meantime, I say congratulations to Mr. O’Neill.  I may go buy some Citigroup stock!

Read Full Post »

We have helped six bank boards through CEO transitions over the last two years, and three of the new CEOs came from inside the organization.  In these cases, as you might imagine, there were  succession plans in process long before the departing CEO reached retirement age.  “Rising Stars” were identified and exposed to matters that might have been outside their normal roles, but that process helped to develop the next generation.

Outsiders' halos

Outsiders have halos!

Each of these Boards felt that it was their fiduciary responsibility to look outside as well as inside to find the best successor available.  Makes sense, but we all know that outsiders have “halos” on when the come for the interview, while inside candidates’ weaknesses are usually clearly known.  The search must, therefore, be structured to balance the playing field if there are serious inside candidates.  This is particularly tricky since many outside candidates are happily employed and only got involved because we sold them on the idea of an opportunity.  The last thing you want to do is alert their current employers until you know that they are the chosen candidate.

This is just one of the very sensitive issues that must be resolved in a succession plan.  Others include:

  • the amount of overlap between the two CEOs,
  • the structure of the Management Team’s compensation to facilitate transition,
  • a plan for managing communications during either a sudden transition or an orderly retirement succession, and
  • success planning for the first year of the new CEO’s tenure.

Every situation is different, but the list of topical issues is the same.  Board’s of smaller companies tend to put off this difficult and sensitive work.  No one wants to appear to be pushing the current CEO out, but developing inside talent takes a long time especially in a smaller company.  We have found that engaging a Board with a review of the list of issues they need to consider helps get them focused and motivated to start the planning process.  Our Firm has become deeply experienced in C-Level Succession Planning and Execution, and we are happy to educate your Board in these matters.  For a complimentary presentation of the key issues they need to consider, please reply here, call Tim O’Rourke at 919-644-6962 ext. 1109 or complete the request form on our website when you click here.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »