Upload
frederick-sparks
View
215
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
©2008 Pearl Meyer & Partners
NECC Executive Compensation ForumTrends in Long-Term Incentives
March 6, 2008
Melissa MeansVice President
Pearl Meyer & Partners(508) 630-1487
2©2008 Pearl Meyer & Partners
Agenda
Trends in Long-Term Incentives:
• Changing Landscape
• Long-Term Incentive (LTI) Usage
» Total Overhang
» Burn Rates
» New Share Requests
• Mix and Instruments Usage
» Mix
» Stock Options
» Stock
» Performance-Based Awards
• Other
» Exchange Ratios
» Ownership Guidelines
» RiskMetrics Group (formerly ISS)
3©2008 Pearl Meyer & Partners
The Changing Landscape
External influences significantly changing the use of LTI
• Perceived abuses
» Option backdating and other scandals
• SEC disclosure rules (CD&A)
» Increased transparency
» Mandated quantification
• Tax and accounting rules
» SFAS 123R
» 162(m)
• Unprecedented investor scrutiny
» Greater visibility and power
» More stringent requirements
» RiskMetrics (formerly ISS)
As a result:
• LTI remains in the forefront of public interest for the coming years
• Companies continue to re-evaluate the efficacy of their existing LTI programs
4©2008 Pearl Meyer & Partners
Usage – Total Overhang
Headline – Another consecutive year of reduced overhang levels
• Reality of expensing and shareholder pressures continue to drive companies to reduce total equity usage
The following outlines current total overhang levels for companies in the high technology industry (by industry and revenue):
Total Overhang
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
Compu
ter
Semi/S
emi E
quip
Softw
are
Comm
/Net
HW
Telec
omm
Svc
sOth
er
Under
$1B
$1B to
$3B
$3B to
$10
B
Over $
10B
Total Equity Overhang
By Industry By Revenue
5©2008 Pearl Meyer & Partners
Usage – Burn Rates
Headline – Another consecutive year of reduced burn rate levels • To reduce total equity usage on an annual basis companies are:
» Reducing participation levels
» Reducing grant values
» Changing use of LTI instruments to deliver more value using fewer shares
The following outlines current total burn rate levels for companies in the high technology industry (by industry and revenue):
Burn Rates
0.0%
0.5%
1.0%
1.5%
2.0%
2.5%
3.0%
3.5%
4.0%
Compu
ter
Semi/S
emi E
quip
Softw
are
Comm
/Net
HW
Telec
omm
Svc
sOth
er
Under
$1B
$1B to
$3B
$3B to
$10
B
Over $
10B
FY-3FY-2FY-1 (Most Recent Year)
By Industry By Revenue
6©2008 Pearl Meyer & Partners
Usage – New Share Requests
Headline – companies seeking more frequent authorization of smaller pools of available shares
The following outlines the percent of companies in the high technology industry seeking share approval in the past 3 years (by industry and revenue):
New Share Requests
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
Compu
ter
Semi/S
emi E
quip
Softw
are
Comm
/Net
HW
Telec
omm
Svc
sOth
er
Under
$1B
$1B to
$3B
$3B to
$10
B
Over $
10B
FY-3FY-2FY-1 (Most Recent Year)
By Industry By Revenue
7©2008 Pearl Meyer & Partners
Mix & LTI Instrument – Mix
Headline - Companies continuing to evaluate and rebalance the mix of LTI instruments
Companies are also using multiple instruments to deliver LTI awards
CEO LTI Mix
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Options 79% 96% 69% 59% 49%
Restricted Stock 8% 4% 29% 39% 48%
Cash 13% 0% 2% 2% 3%
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Number of LTI Instruments Used
13%
4%
57%
26%
Options Only
RS Only
Other LTI Only
Use Multiple Instruments
8©2008 Pearl Meyer & Partners
Mix & LTI Instrument – Stock Options
Headline - Stock options are on the decline for another straight year• Companies are continuing to use other LTI instruments in lieu of options to
address:» Mandatory accounting issues (SFAS 123R)
» Constraints on dilution and burn rates (vs. competitors who shifted to restricted stock)
» Incentivize the proper behaviors
The following outlines option usage levels in the high technology industry (by industry and revenue) over the past 3 years:
Stock Options Granted
0.0%
0.5%
1.0%
1.5%
2.0%
2.5%
3.0%
3.5%
4.0%
FY-3FY-2FY-1 (Most Recent Year)
By Industry By Revenue
9©2008 Pearl Meyer & Partners
Headline - Use of restricted stock (RS) continues to increase ~20%• Restricted stock can deliver the same value as options using fewer shares
Continued investor pressure when using restricted stock• Time-based awards minimum vesting over 3 years• Performance-based awards must have at least 1 year of vesting
The following outlines restricted stock usage levels in the high technology industry (by industry and revenue) over the past 3 years:
Mix & LTI Instrument - Restricted Stock
Restricted Stock Granted
0.0%
0.1%
0.2%
0.3%
0.4%
0.5%
0.6%
0.7%
FY-3FY-2FY-1 (Most Recent Year)
By Industry By Revenue
10©2008 Pearl Meyer & Partners
Headline - Many companies are implementing or investigating the use of performance metrics in an LTI plan
• Stronger link between pay and performance
• More in line with shareholder and institutional expectations
44% of the Fortune 1000 and 62% of the S&P 500 have implemented a performance-based LTI plan
• Typically a 3 year plan that pays out in stock
However, performance-based plans can be challenging to design and administer. The following outlines key deign considerations for a performance-based plan:
• Single vs. multiple measures
• Shorter vs. longer time periods
• Absolute vs. relative measures
• Cumulative vs. point-in-time measures
• Performance/payout leverage and scaling
• Consecutive vs. overlapping cycles
Mix & LTI Instrument – Performance-Based LTI
11©2008 Pearl Meyer & Partners
The key to performance-based plans:
• Keep them as simple as possible
• Limit the plan initially to the top executives, consider expansion once plan is successful
• Consider shorter measurement periods for companies of high growth or acquisitive industries
• Selection of an appropriate performance metric
• Develop an appropriate performance/payout scale
• Discuss how to address unexpected financial circumstances
• Start slowly – consider consecutive cycles
Mix & LTI Instrument – Performance-Based LTI
12©2008 Pearl Meyer & Partners
Headline - 3 ways to think about LTI exchange ratios:
• Cost Neutral Ratio
» Assume SFAS 123R option cost is 33% of FMV and RS cost is 100% FMV
» Cost neutral ratio is 3 options : 1 restricted share
» 1 RS more valuable than 3 options until FMV increases 50%
• Premium Ratio
» Whatever cost neutral ratio is “+1”
• Risk Adjusted – looking forward
Mix & LTI Instrument –Exchange Ratios
13©2008 Pearl Meyer & Partners
Stock Ownership Guidelines
Headline – Continued movement towards stock ownership guidelines
• Ownership guidelines – mandate number of shares to be owned at all times
» Best for firms using full value instruments (e.g., restricted stock)
» Often serves as quid pro quo for implementing time-based restricted stock
• Disposition guidelines – mandate number of shares to be retained on post-exercise basis
» Best for firms using appreciation only instruments (e.g., options)
Programs are encouraged and well received by institutional shareholders
Actual guidelines and compliance periods vary by position
14©2008 Pearl Meyer & Partners
RiskMetrics Group (formerly ISS)
Average Burn Rates continue to trend downwards
Shareholder Value Transfer (SVT) increased in many segments due to changes in methodology in 2007
• Full value awards valued at full 200-day average share price
• Option cancellations/forfeitures and warrants/convertible debt not considered
SVT and Burn Rate allowable caps remain about the same as in 2007
Poor Pay Practices
• Could result in a “Withhold” vote for a Director up for re-election
Pay for Performance Policy in 2008
• ~1/3 of the Russell 3000 had negative 1 and 3-year TSR as of 12/31/07
15©2008 Pearl Meyer & Partners
Looking Forward
More long-term plans driven by non-market measures
Continuing shift from options to restricted stock
• Desire to link executives with financial performance
» Recent trend of higher option concentration at top executive level
• Time-based restricted stock for mid-to-lower level employees
Continuing evolution of linking pay and performance
16©2008 Pearl Meyer & Partners
About Pearl Meyer & Partners
Pearl Meyer & Partners is the leading independent compensation consultancy serving as a trusted advisor to Boards and their senior management in the areas of governance, strategy and compensation program design.
Learn more about our expertise in: Employee Compensation Compensation Surveys Executive Compensation Board Compensation
www.pearlmeyer.com