It’s been said before in our business lifetimes – in 1987, 1990, 2000, 2001, and 2008 – that “urgent action needs to be taken to address the morale and continued motivation of executives and employees in a time of crisis.” In each case, though with different recovery times, the economic shock and downturn ultimately abated, and most companies and their employees found themselves on solid ground again.
This one feels different. A black swan pandemic suddenly sweeping the globe, a financial market reaction so severe as to be described as “violent,” and a looming recession triggered by strategies necessary to flatten the coronavirus curve have all combined to create a crisis unprecedented in modern times.
Hundreds of thousands of people have contracted COVID-19, and a significant number will die. We are acutely aware of the trillions of dollars evaporating and the worries of employees and retirees. We all know service workers and retailers who, along with millions of people in the energy, manufacturing, and travel industries, may soon be unemployed as businesses of all sizes struggle with lost revenue and liquidity issues. Whether we’re executive compensation consultants, compensation committee members, senior executives, or human resources professionals, we all must consider these larger societal issues and support federal, state, and local government responses as we reexamine rewards program effectiveness and changes in this trying time.
Of course, Pay Governance’s domain expertise is compensation consulting with a particular focus on executives and boards of directors. Concerning executive compensation, two things make this crisis different from those in the past: the timing of events and the rigidity of Say on Pay protocols.
Timing. This crisis has been no September or October surprise like several of the last economic shocks. In those instances, companies with calendar-fiscal years were able to adjust budgets, forecasts, and performance goals to economic uncertainties, and many assessed the optimal use of long-term incentive vehicles to be used in the following year. Indeed, some companies found it necessary to take drastic measures to control compensation expense, conserve shares, and ensure sufficient flexibility for awards in future years, but calendar-year companies generally had more lead time to develop reward strategies for a changed environment. Fast-forward to 2020: most calendar-year companies have been hit with this crisis after goal-based annual and long-term incentives (LTI) were approved and grants were made. Even companies that presented incentive plan targets and objectives for approval in mid-March tended to rely on Board-approved budgets ratified in January. As one CEO told their Compensation Committee on Friday morning, “there’s no chance of our hitting these goals.” Goals were nonetheless approved.
Say on Pay Protocols. Say on Pay wasn't legislated in 2008, let alone the shift toward the homogenized incentive approaches that many companies have implemented to comply with the preferences of shareholder advisory firms and governance reviewers at large institutional shareholders. Goal-based, formulaic, and fully disclosed annual incentive plans and three-year performance share unit / performance cash plans now dominate executive reward systems at most companies. In fact, it’s common for CEOs to have 70% or more of their total direct compensation tied to how well companies perform against pre-set goals that emanate from a budget or strategic plan. If discretion exists, its impact has generally been modest, either by design or in application — perhaps just 10-20% of an executive’s annual incentive award. Some find the use of non-GAAP metrics and exceptions in determining awards to be suspicious. But, the rigor upon which today’s incentive plans were built did not anticipate the extreme volatility of the current crisis.
In Pay Governance’s view, everything should be on the table. But as with any well-set table, the dishes need not be handled immediately — with one exception. Every company should assess whether its compensation committee can exercise its business judgment to address current conditions should they continue. Some companies may take comfort in administrative powers that allow the compensation committee to unilaterally assess performance and determine incentive plan results. Others may wish to go further, adding into the meeting minutes or even including in a Compensation Discussion & Analysis (CD&A) disclosure that “the Committee may consider the effect of the global pandemic and other linked economic and environmental pressures that may negatively impact results.” Consider the adage that people work harder during times of crisis, even if circumstances and shared sacrifice make it challenging to fully recognize those efforts through remuneration.
What else should we have on the table? Each company’s circumstances will be different, but all should be cognizant that any executive reward solutions must be considered in the context of the pain being felt by shareholders, employees, customers, and society in general. At its essence, what remains on the table will be determined by how well the executive compensation programs that matured during the 11-year bull market can now endure evolving business priorities, transformed operating environments, reduced confidence in forward goal-setting, volatile stock market performance, and workforce demoralization.
Without being prescriptive, here are some initial considerations that Pay Governance Viewpoints, blog posts, and other communications will address in greater detail in the coming weeks.
1. The Exercise of Discretion. Certainly, any quantification of the global pandemic’s effect should be compared to the financial and non-financial goals established before anyone knew COVID-19 would become the subject of daily headlines. Such an approach will be somewhat more feasible for non-calendar-year companies that found themselves well into their fiscal years before the pandemic occurred. Some compensation committees may wish to consider their management’s 2020 actions to ensure business continuity and long-term sustainability in evaluating performance in a holistic manner. Committees would also be well-advised to consider human resources program changes and any employee actions taken in 2020 when deciding management pay. Acknowledging the effects on employees, customers, and those less fortunate in our communities has rarely been more important.
2. Addressing Mid-Stream Incentive Plans. Tax deductibility rules underlying 162(m) required goals to be set within 90 days of a plan cycle’s inception, but these rules no longer apply. Below are a variety of options for addressing in-process incentive plans, all of which have been used for years by companies in volatile and commodity-based industries:
3. Reassessing Equity Grants. Given the current environment, historical equity grant practices may need to be reexamined. What made sense in a bull market may no longer be appropriate today:
4. Re-think Long-Term Performance Periods. During the Great Recession of 2008, it was difficult for most companies to set viable long-term goals. The concern was as much about overpayment as it was about underpayment based on the goals that would be set three years in advance. Many companies adopted a performance LTI design to change the award basis to the outcomes of three periods in which goals were annually set, measured, and averaged for an initial financial score. In this model, a three-year relative total shareholder return modifier was often used to increase or decrease the averaged financial score within a range, adding a longer-term performance condition to the award. We also saw variations on this theme as some companies adopted two-year performance cycles. As in the last recovery, shorter performance periods may be a temporary solution, with companies reverting to full three-year plans as the environment becomes more predictable.
5. Dealing with Out-of-The-Money Share Awards. While nearly every company has been affected by the crisis, companies in certain industries have lost more than 75% of their value; energy companies have seen a multi-year bear market deteriorate further, and travel and retail companies are experiencing unprecedented challenges. Some potential actions for these organizations include the following:
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Will this be a V-shaped downturn and recovery as it was in 1987, or are we truly experiencing a crisis unforeseen in modern times? No one knows, but all elements of society must do what they can to persevere.
As it relates to executive reward solutions, companies must ensure that compensation committees have the authority to use their business judgment, if they so choose, regarding the global pandemic and its repercussions. For the time being, everything else should be placed on the table — not to be immediately implemented but to be thoughtfully and deliberately considered over the following weeks and months. As solutions are evaluated, companies struggling for business continuity and long-term sustainability must be mindful of the current pain felt by their shareholders, employees, customers, and communities.
Pay Governance will return to these and other potential executive compensation strategies in subsequent Viewpoints, blog posts, and other communications. We will provide weekly updates on our website.
Read More
The societal and economic impact of COVID-19 continues to unfold, as discussed in our March 23rd Viewpoint, " Everything Should Be On The Table ." As such, there are a myriad of compensation issues companies and compensation committees will be discussing and considering in the coming days and weeks.
Pay Governance’s research of corporate public filings, earnings transcripts and news releases from a cross-section of publicly traded companies indicates that some of the first compensation-related initiatives taken by companies are focused on executive and board member pay reductions. For reasons of cash preservation, the importance of demonstrating a shared sacrifice with employees (e.g., those that have been furloughed, had compensation reduced through budget cuts and/or reduced work schedules) and affected communities, or anticipatory action in advance of seeking federal assistance, executive salaries and director compensation are being frozen, reduced or, in limited cases, deferred.
While not an exhaustive list, we have observed the following as it relates to executive and board compensation reductions:
As shown in Graphic 2, the degree to which executive salaries and board cash retainers have been reduced varies, ranging from -10% to -100%. Additionally, for executives other than the CEO, one in four companies reducing pay are using a range of decreases (e.g., -10% to -20%) as opposed to a fixed percentage. This approach seems to be particularly prevalent in companies that have applied salary actions to larger numbers of executives (i.e., not just NEOs) and often reflects reductions that are tiered by executive level (e.g., -30% for EVPs, -20% for SVPs). The majority of companies reducing pay thus far have stated or implied that these executive salary and/or board compensation actions were indefinite and would be reevaluated throughout the year.
As the charts show, the vast majority of executive and board of director pay cuts have been concentrated in those industries immediately impacted by “social distancing” and travel restrictions. As the COVID-19 pandemic continues its economic ripple across the globe, other sectors may contemplate similar actions to contain costs, manage cash flows and, perhaps most notably, recognize the economic pain being felt by employees, communities and key stakeholders.
Committees contemplating similar actions should be mindful of some key considerations including the following before taking action:
***************
General questions about this Viewpoint can be directed to Joshua Bright at joshua.bright@paygovernance.com or Chris Brindisi at chris.brindisi@paygovernance.com.
Read More
The impact of COVID-19 on company prospects and performance — as well as life in general — cannot be overstated. While some organizations may be affected temporarily, other businesses may experience more permanent changes to their operating models. Regardless of the long-term effect of the crisis on companies, almost every business is facing a dramatically changing operating environment in 2020. As such, many companies are finding that the compensation and incentive programs implemented for 2020, along with the methods used for evaluating performance, may no longer be relevant in the current environment.
At this point, most companies, apart from those that have been impacted most severely by the crisis, are just beginning to consider how they might approach the assessment of compensation programs and pay outcomes for 2020. While it is too soon for many organizations to make decisions about tactical approaches to compensation, we believe that companies would be well-advised to consider the development of a set of guiding principles for the evaluation of compensation programs prior to taking any actions.
Each company’s guiding principles should necessarily be different. This being said, below is a sample list of principles that Pay Governance believes are worthy of consideration:
These are fast moving and trying times, and Pay Governance will continue to provide its wisdom during this crisis and beyond. For additional information on other COVID-19 related compensation actions, please visit our “Compensation in Volatile Times” blog available on our website:
***************
General questions about this Viewpoint can be directed to John D. England at john.england@paygovernance.com or Jon Weinstein at jon.weinstein@paygovernance.com.
Read More
We simplify the complexities of the executive pay process. Our consultants are skilled at helping clients design and administer programs that appeal to reason, hold up under scrutiny, and successfully link executive pay to shareholder value.
View all services