Wait Wait, Don’t Quit

Written by

The Covid-19 infection rate across much of the country is in decline, but banks and other employers trying to bring workers back to the office are dealing with another problem: an acute labor shortage.

Last month acquired the nickname #striketober, as the U.S. reached a record high percentage of people quitting their jobs. The latest data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics found that 4.7 million people, or 2.9% of all employees, quit their jobs in August. Nonfarm employment as of October was 4.2 million shy of what it was pre-pandemic. Wages are climbing, and banks feel the pressure from companies like Bank of America Corp., which announced that it will pay workers at least $25 an hour by 2025.

The ability to work-from-home in such an environment has suddenly become a retention tool — no longer simply a response to the pandemic. As I head to Bank Director’s Bank Compensation & Talent Conference at the Four Seasons Resort and Club in Dallas Nov. 8 to 10, where close to 200 people will discuss those and other issues, it’s clear that flexibility is becoming the new 401(k).

At $1.6 billion State Bank of Cross Plains, in a suburb of Madison, Wisconsin, allowing non-branch staff to work from home a few days per week has become an important benefit, said Chief Financial Officer Sue Loken at a recent Bank Director conference in Chicago.

In Buffalo, New York, at $152 billion M&T Bank Corp., employees will come back to the office three days a week starting in January 2022. Some already were coming into the office voluntarily or if their work required it.

Hybrid work looks like a better alternative to most banks than remote work. An unscientific audience poll at Bank Director’s recent Bank Audit and Risk Committees Conference in Chicago found that fewer than 5% of 57 respondents thought that more than half their employees would work remotely in the future. The most popular answer was that fewer than a quarter will work remotely, in line with Bank Director’s 2021 Risk Survey conducted at the beginning of the year.

That fits with what Paul Ward, chief risk officer at $15 billion Community Bank System in DeWitt, New York, had to say at the conference. Most employees are back at the office full-time, though a few still are working remotely.

Community Bank’s senior executives believe those in-person conversations are critical to building culture at the bank. Executives at M&T Bank also felt that culture is best cultivated in person, not via video conferencing. Michele Trolli, M&T’s head of corporate operations and enterprise initiatives, told The Buffalo News last October that M&T was “living off an annuity” acquired pre-pandemic by being together and knowing each other. “And that annuity, at some point, that runs out,” she said.

Compensation Considerations in a Merger of Equals

Written by

2021 has been a very active M&A year for regional banks, with some organizations combining through a merger of equals.

As the term suggests, a merger of equals is when two banks of comparable size merge to form a larger new company. There is a lot to consider in these situations to ensure the combination effectively unlocks value for stakeholders. Developing the human capital strategy and compensation program at the pro forma bank is a key factor for the management teams and boards of directors to consider. It is critical they get this right in order to retain and engage critical talent through the key milestones in the merger and beyond. In this guide, we identify some of the key compensation-related items that must be addressed in a merger of equals.

Leadership Structure and Executive Team
In a typical acquisition, the executive team of the acquirer often stays in place and the executive team of the target may take on newly created executive roles or leadership roles in a subsidiary business. In a merger of equals, the combined executive team is typically comprised of executives from both legacy organizations. Companies should identify the best talent to lead the bank well before the close of the merger so they can seamlessly execute on the integration and develop a retention plan.

Companies must also determine if they will combine the roles of CEO and chairman of the board, or if the roles will be split between the two legacy CEOs. It is common in a merger of equals to split the roles for a defined time period. This approach gives the pro forma bank the benefit of the leadership of both legacy CEOs as it navigates how to effectively operate as a new organization and create a harmonized organizational culture.

Compensation Philosophy and Competitive Market
It is important for the newly formed entity to have a cohesive compensation philosophy promoting a “one company” mindset among employees who are from different legacy organizations. The compensation philosophy should guide how the bank now pays its employees, including mix between fixed and variable compensation, mix between cash and equity compensation and where compensation is positioned relative to the market. If the two legacy banks have different compensation philosophies, the pro forma bank should develop a strategy to harmonize these philosophies in the near-term. For example, it set a goal to pay all corporate employees using the same mix by the anniversary of the close of the merger.

The combined entity will also need to define its new competitive market. Clearly, it will need to compare itself to larger institutions than the legacy banks, but it should also consider if there are other differences that should define the competitive market, like if the two legacy banks operated in different geographies or had different operating characteristics. It is paramount that the board compensation committee and management teams identify relevant criteria to define a competitive market that best reflects the combined bank’s business.

Retention and Success Awards
Once the banks establish the compensation philosophy and define the new leadership team, it is important to consider how ongoing compensation programs can incent and retain the new team. A common approach to tie the new team together is by providing a long-term incentive award, often referred to as “success awards.” A portion of the award typically vests based on performance linked to achieving deal-based objectives such as synergies or systems conversions. A portion of the award may also vest over a period of time to provide an additional retentive hook. Success awards with performance conditions are better received by external investors and proxy advisory firms. The combined entity should also consider retention risks among the executive team, including the ability to trigger change in control severance and current equity holdings. This may influence which executives receive additional awards or larger success awards.

A merger of equals can be an exciting but also uncertain time for an organization. Early planning on the new bank’s compensation philosophy, leadership team compensation program and success and retention award approaches can help alleviate some of the uncertainty and allow the executive management team to focus on successfully completing the integration. A well thought-out program can combine the best of both legacy organizations into a harmonized compensation program that supports a “one bank” strategy and culture.

An M&A Checklist for BOLI, Compensation Programs

Written by

As bank M&A activity continues to pick up, it is crucial that buyers and sellers understand the implications of any transaction on bank-owned life insurance portfolios, as well as any associated nonqualified deferred compensation (NQDC) programs, to mitigate potential negative tax consequences.

Identify and Review Target Bank’s BOLI Holdings
The first step is for buyers to identify the total cash surrender value of sellers’ BOLI portfolio and its percentage of regulatory capital. The buyer should identify the types of products held and the amount held in each of the three common BOLI product types:

  • General account
  • Hybrid separate account
  • Separate account (registered or private placement)

In addition to evaluating historical and current policy performance, the buyer should also obtain and evaluate carrier financial and credit rating information for all products, as well as underlying investment fund information for any separate account products.

Accounting and Tax Considerations
From an accounting standpoint, the buyer should ensure that the BOLI has been both properly accounted for in accordance with GAAP (ASC 325-30) and reported in the call reports, with related disclosures of product types and risk weighting. Further, if the policies are associated with a post-retirement split-dollar or survivor income plan, the buyer should ensure that the liabilities have been properly accrued for.

The structure of the transaction as a stock sale or asset sale is critical when assessing the tax implications. In general, with a stock sale, there is no taxable transaction with regard to BOLI — assets and liabilities “carry over” to the buyer. With an asset sale (or a stock sale with election to treat as asset sale), the seller will recognize the accumulated gain in the policies and the buyer will assume the policies with a stepped-up basis.

Regardless of the type of transaction, the buyer needs to evaluate and address the Transfer for Value (TFV) and Reportable Policy Sale (RPS) issues. Policies deemed “transferred for value” or a “reportable policy sale” will result in taxable death benefits. Prior to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, the transfer for value analysis was fairly simple: In a stock transaction, the “carryover basis” exception applies to all policies, whether or not the insured individual remained actively employed. In an asset sale, policies on insureds who will be officers or shareholders of the acquiring bank will meet an exception.

The Jobs Act enacted the notion of “reportable policy sales,” which complicated the tax analysis, especially for stock-based transactions now requiring much more detailed analysis of the type of transaction and entity types (C Corp vs S Corp). It is important to note that the RPS rules are in addition to the TFV rule.

Review Risk Management of BOLI
The Interagency Statement on the Purchase and Risk Management of BOLI (OCC 2004-56) establishes requirements for banks to properly document both their pre-purchase due diligence, as well as an annual review of their BOLI programs. The buyer will want to ensure this documentation is in good order. Significant risk considerations include carrier credit quality, policy performance, employment status of insureds, 1035 exchange restrictions or fees and the tax impact of any policy surrenders. Banks should pay particular attention to ensuring that policies are performing efficiently as well as the availability of opportunities to improve policy performance.

Identify and Review NQDC plans
Nonqualified deferred compensation plans can take several forms, including:

  • Voluntary deferred compensation programs
  • Defined benefit plans
  • Defined contributions plans
  • Director deferral or retirement plans
  • Split dollar
  • Other

All plans should be formally documented via plan documents and agreements. Buyers should ascertain that the plans comply with the requirements of Internal Revenue Code Section 409A and that the appropriate “top hat” filings have been made with the U.S. Department of Labor.

General Accounting and Tax Considerations
Liabilities associated with NQDC programs should be accounted for properly on the balance sheet. In evaluating the liabilities, banks should give consideration to the accounting method and the discount rates.

Reviewing historical payroll tax reporting related to the NQDC plans is critical to ensuring there are no hidden liabilities in the plan. Remediating improperly reported payroll taxes for NQDC plans can be both time consuming and expensive. Seek to resolve any reporting issues prior to the deal closure.

Change in Control Accounting and Tax Considerations
More often than not, NQDC plans provide for benefit acceleration in the event of a change in control (CIC), including benefit vesting and/or payments CIC. The trigger may be the CIC itself or a secondary “trigger,” such as termination of employment within a certain time period following a CIC. It is imperative that the buyer understand the financial statement impact of the CIC provisions within the programs.

In addition to the financial statement impact, C corps must also contend with what can be complicated taxation issues under Internal Revenue Code Section 280G, as well as any plan provisions addressing the tax issues of Section 280G. S corps are not subject to the provisions of Section 280G. For additional insight into the impacts of mergers on NQDC programs, see How Mergers Can Impact Deferred Compensation Plans Part I and How Mergers Can Impact Deferred Compensation Plans Part II. 

Insurance services provided through NFP Executive Benefits, LLC. (NFP EB), a subsidiary of NFP Corp. (NFP). Doing business in California as NFP Executive Benefits & Insurance Agency, LLC. (License #OH86767). Securities offered through Kestra Investment Services, LLC, member FINRA/SIPC. Kestra Investment Services, LLC is not affiliated with NFP or NFP EB.
Investor Disclosures: https://bit.ly/KF-Disclosures

Attracting Talent in a Brave New World

Written by

Getting the talent your bank needs — even just getting candidates to apply and turn up for an interview — has increasingly challenged financial institutions as the country emerges from the Covid-19 pandemic. And the cost to pay them a competitive wage — and benefits — keeps climbing.

Every year in Bank Director’s annual Compensation Survey — which is sponsored by our firm, Newcleus Compensation Advisors — bank executives and directors identify managing compensation and benefit costs as a key challenge for their institution. In this year’s survey, it rates as the second-highest challenge for bank leaders, behind tying compensation to performance.

These tensions are particularly felt by community banks. Those located in urban or suburban markets face stiff competition from large employers like Bank of America Corp., which recently announced plans to increase its minimum wage over the next few years to $25 an hour. Rural banks face similar challenges along with a smaller pool of talent, particularly in high-demand areas including technology, lending, and risk and compliance.

How can your bank attract and retain the talent it needs to survive in today’s environment? We suggest that you consider the following questions as you weigh how to become an employer of choice in your community.

How flexible is your bank willing to be?
Most banks introduced or expanded remote work options and flexible scheduling in 2020. Now that operations are returning “back to normal,” more or less, bank leaders are left to question what worked and what didn’t from a nationwide experiment that occurred during abnormal conditions.

Expectations have shifted over the past year, particularly for younger, digitally-native employees — resulting in a generational divide between staff and management teams. Consider the following from MetLife’s 2021 U.S. Employee Benefit Trends Study:

  • More than two-thirds of employees who can work remotely believe that they should be allowed to choose where they work — not their employer.
  • Half of young employees in their 20s — young millennials and Gen Z — say their work/life balance has improved during the pandemic, and they’re happier as a result. Just a quarter of baby boomers agree.
  • And, crucially: More than three-quarters of employees say they want more flexible scheduling, perhaps splitting their time between remote work and the office. Conversely, the majority of companies surveyed by MetLife expect staff to return to their pre-Covid status quo.

Some employees are interested in returning to the office, but others aren’t. They’ve had months to enjoy a break from long commutes and create an environment that’s comfortable for them.

Will remote work be a passing fad, or a permanent part of the talent landscape? Even if you believe that remote work isn’t a cultural fit for your bank, be aware that you’re competing against it.

Can talented employees from outside the industry strengthen your organization?
Opening your bank up to remote work can broaden the talent pool; so can having an open mind to hiring talent from outside the financial sector. Employees can be educated on the fundamentals of banking; there are training programs all across the country. But a skilled salesperson or someone with deep technology or cybersecurity expertise can fill critical roles at your institution — no matter their background.

 Do you have a good reputation?
Bank leaders often tout the value of their culture — but it can be difficult for leadership teams to truly understand how staff down the ranks view the organization. Conducting employee engagement surveys can help bridge this gap, but also consider how your current and former employees rate your company on external review sites such as Glassdoor, Indeed and Monster.com.

While these websites often attract more negative comments than positive ones, they still can provide a clearer picture of how you’re viewed as an employer — and the perception that prospective employees may have of your organization.

Does your compensation package really stack up?
Your bank isn’t competing solely with other financial institutions for talent — it’s competing against all kinds of companies in your market. We received several comments touching on this in the 2021 Compensation Survey:

“Competing employers (not just banks) in our markets can sometimes offer better benefits. We now participate in an internship program at a major state university to develop a pipeline of young talent.” —  Chief executive of a public bank between $1 billion and $10 billion in assets 

“We operate in a highly competitive market, so retaining and attracting technology talent is always an issue. We are competing with Amazon[.com] — hiring 50[,000] workers in our market, as an example.” —  Director of a public bank between $1 billion and $10 billion in assets

Compensation surveys help banks compare their pay packages to peer institutions, but your leadership and human resources teams need to know how your bank compares to local competitors outside the industry, too. This is where boards can provide valuable insights based on their networks and experience, since they’re likely facing the same challenges in their own industries. Leverage that advice.

And consider asking your employees what they value. We’ve found this information to be invaluable to banks, allowing them to review compensation benefits and culture from the employee’s perspective.

2021 Compensation Survey Results: Fighting for Talent

Written by

Did Covid-19 create an even more competitive landscape for financial talent?

Most banks increased pay and expanded benefits during the pandemic, according to Bank Director’s 2021 Compensation Survey, sponsored by Newcleus Compensation Advisors. The results provide a detailed exploration of employee benefits, in addition to talent and culture trends, CEO performance and pay, and director compensation. 

Eighty-two percent of respondents say their bank expanded or introduced remote work options in response to Covid-19. Flexible scheduling was also broadly expanded or introduced, and more than half say their bank offers caregiver leave. In addition, most offered bonuses to front-line workers, and 62% say their bank awarded bonuses tied to Paycheck Protection Program loans, primarily to lenders and loan production staff.     

And in a year that witnessed massive unemployment, most banks kept employees on the payroll.

Just a quarter of the CEOs, human resources officers, board members and other executives who completed the survey say their bank decreased staff on net last year, primarily branch employees. More than 40% increased the number employed overall in their organization, with respondents identifying commercial and mortgage lending as key growth areas, followed by technology.

The 2021 Compensation Survey was conducted in March and April of 2021. Looking at the same months compared to 2020, the total number of employees remained relatively steady year over year for financial institutions, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor and Statistics.

Talent forms the foundation of any organization’s success. Banks are no exception, and they proved to be stable employers during trying, unprecedented times.

But given the industry’s low unemployment rate, will financial institutions — particularly smaller banks that don’t offer robust benefit packages like their larger peers — be able to attract and retain the employees they need? The majority — 79% — believe their institution can effectively compete for talent against technology companies and other financial services companies. However, the smallest banks express less confidence, indicating a growing chasm between those that can attract the talent they need to grow, and those forced to make do with dwindling resources. 

Key Findings

Perennial Challenges
Tying compensation to performance (43%) and managing compensation and benefit costs (37%) remain the top two compensation challenges reported by respondents. Just 27% say that adjusting to a post-pandemic work environment is a top concern.

Cultural Shifts
Thirty-nine percent believe that remote work hasn’t changed their institution’s culture, and 38% believe the practice has had a positive effect. However, one-quarter believe remote work has negatively affected their bank’s culture.

M&A Plans
As the industry witnesses a resurgence of bank M&A, more than half have a change-in-control agreement in place for their CEO; 10% put one in place in the last year.

Commercial Loan Demand
More than one-quarter of respondents say their bank has adjusted incentive plan goals for commercial lenders, anticipating more demand. Ten percent expect reduced demand; 60% haven’t adjusted their goals for 2021.

CEO Performance
Following a chaotic and uncertain 2020, a quarter say their board exercised more discretion and/or relied more heavily on qualitative factors in examining CEO performance. More than three-quarters tie performance metrics to CEO pay, including income growth (56%), return on assets (53%) and asset quality (46%). Qualitative factors are less favored, and include strategic goals (56%) and community involvement (29%).

CEO Pay
Median CEO compensation exceeded $600,000 for fiscal year 2020. CEOs of banks over $10 billion in assets earned a median $3.5 million, including salary, incentives, equity compensation, and benefits and perks. 

Director Compensation
More than half of directors believe they’re fairly compensated for their contributions to the bank. Three-quarters indicate that independent directors earn a board meeting fee, at a median of $1,000 per meeting. Sixty-two percent say their board awards an annual cash retainer, at a median of $21,600. 

To view the full results of the survey, click here.

In Nonqualified Benefit Plans, One Size Does Not Fit All

Written by

Employers have long struggled with the ability to attract, retain and reward key talent at their company.

Government limits and restrictions on the amount that employees and employers may contribute toward qualified retirement plans such as a 401(k) leave many highly compensated executives without enough retirement income to sustain their current standard of living.

A supplemental executive retirement plan (SERP) is a defined benefit and a great way to solve both governmental limits and the ability to attract, retain and reward talent. SERPs are typically designed to make up for a retirement income shortfall, because executives at most companies tend to be in their late 40s and 50s.

But when consultants design SERPs solely for retirement income — because the decision-makers are concerned about retirement — they often make the mistake of designing a plan that fails its primary goal: attracting, retaining and rewarding key talent.

Consider the following: Executive A is 57, married with no children. He is maxing out his company’s 401(k) plan but still has not saved enough for retirement. His employer wants to reward him for his 15 years of service and keep him for another 10 years until his retirement. Putting a SERP in place that promises to pay him 40% of his final pay for 15 years will accomplish the employer’s goal because he is only 10 years from retirement and concerned about it.

Now let’s take a look at his successor in training. Executive B is 40 years old, married and has three kids, ages 4, 6 and 8. He is contributing very little to his 401(k). His employer wants to retain him to succeed Executive A. The employer offers him the same SERP that will pay him 40% of final pay at retirement. Three years go by, and Executive B leaves the company for a higher paying job. The plan failed the employer’s goal because to most 40-year-olds, short-term incentives are king. Promising a benefit 27 years down the road does little to retain an executive in the short term.

That is where many consultants and employers make mistakes during the design process. They don’t ask themselves: If they were in a similar stage in life as the executive, what would matter most? They also fail to ask the executives being considered what’s important to them. Many employers and executives hesitate to answer honestly. That’s where a consultant can be invaluable during the planning process. Asking the important questions to establish goals is key to making a plan work effectively.

Once the bank has a good understanding of what is important to top talent, they can design a plan to accomplish the goals. Plans can pay out benefits at certain pre-set dates or life events while still employed to accomplish goals other than retirement. Here are a few examples:

  • Lump sum in 5 years for mission work.
  • Four annual payments starting in 10 years to help pay for college.
  • Lump sum at age 50 to buy a boat.

Consider the following alternative benefit design for Executive B and its value to him. Executive B is 40 years old. He is married with three children, ages 4, 6 and 8. After being interviewed, he is most concerned about paying for his children’s college. Therefore, instead of offering him a SERP that pays out at retirement, his employer offers him a SERP that allows the executive to receive some payments while still employed.

This plan allows Executive B to direct up to half of the employer contribution into a short term or “college funding” bucket. This bucket will start paying in 10 years, when his oldest child starts college. The other half of the contribution goes into a “retirement” bucket. This is set aside for supplemental retirement income.

Will this accomplish the employer’s goal? It definitely has a better chance. This two-bucket approach is of great value to Executive B, because it addresses his immediate need to save for college and also starts to build a retirement account.

Using alternative approaches to the traditional design of focusing on retirement is more important than ever. Employer can accomplish their goals using a nonqualified plan, as long as they remember that “one size does not always fit all.”

Insurance services provided through NFP Executive Benefits, LLC. (NFP EB), a subsidiary of NFP Corp. (NFP). Doing business in California as NFP Executive Benefits & Insurance Agency, LLC. (License #OH86767). Securities offered through Kestra Investment Services, LLC, member FINRA/SIPC. Kestra Investment Services, LLC is not affiliated with NFP or NFP EB.
Investor Disclosures: https://bit.ly/KF-Disclosures

Structuring Incentive Compensation Plans for 2021

Written by

Compensation committees wondering how to structure 2021 incentive compensation plans and goals should keep three principles in mind, says Laura Hay, managing director at Pearl Meyer, in a panel discussion focusing on compensation matters at Bank Director’s BankBEYOND 2020 experience.

Less complexity in a plan will bring more clarity to employees and the bank, she adds.

“Don’t overthink it,” she advises directors. “Think through what you’re trying to achieve and what would move the business forward.”

Plans should give employees “some control over the ability to control those outcomes,” she says, and should be developed with an eye toward the environment remaining uncertain for the time being. If a bank’s plan uses absolute metrics, which have performed particularly poorly in 2020, compensation committees may want to widen the performance range and reduce the absolute payout.

Hay was joined in this conversation with Bank Director CEO Al Dominick by Ken Derks, managing consultant at NFP Executive Benefits, and Todd Leone, partner and head of executive compensation at McLagan.

You can access all of the BankBEYOND 2020 sessions by registering here.

Unlocking Meaningful Compensation to Keep Essential Talent

Written by

Banks are no strangers to using nonqualified deferred compensation plans to attract, retain and motivate their employees and strengthen their succession plans.

According to the American Bankers Association’s 2019 Compensation & Benefits Survey, nearly 65% of banks report utilizing deferred compensation plans. These plans can include supplemental executive retirement plans, or SERPs, which are typically designed for the seasoned bank executive talent. Unlike a 401(k) plan, a SERP has no contribution limit or rules that mandate that all employees must be able to participate. They are purposely designed for highly compensated executives and key employees for whom the 401(k) contribution limits act as a form of “reverse discrimination” toward retirement. These limits can cause a whole host of problems if not addressed by the introduction of a SERP.

Meaningful, thoughtful compensation will be essential for banks interested in motivating and retaining key executives and talent as they continue navigating through these unprecedented times. Guaranty Bancshares’s CFO Cappy Payne called the SERP a “cornerstone” of the Addison, Texas-based bank’s compensation approach.

“[W]e have a wide variety of executive compensation and benefit plans for our senior level management,” he says. “We purposely diversify their compensation such that it increases our ability to attract, retain and motivate the talent we need to differentiate in this incredibly tough economic environment.”

SERPs are often offered alongside several other types of long-term incentive compensation vehicles. Long-term plans can include stock options, stock appreciation rights, phantom stock, restricted stock, restricted units, performance shares of units and combinations of two or three plans. All of these programs are also a form of deferred compensation, like a SERP, but don’t offer as much customization as a SERP. Additionally, most institutions use bank owned life insurance as an indirect funding approach.

A bank may design the SERP so the executive receives a benefit at a later date — like retirement or after 15 years of service. The benefit of the SERP may be issued as a lump sum, a series of payments or combination thereof. It can also have performance criteria added as a motivational incentive. And because there are no contribution limits, this ability to customize and design around one executive team generates a significant ROI. Payne says Guaranty “strongly believes” in the customization of its long-term compensation plans.

“We find customization increases the appreciation of our efforts. In addition, when used with other plans like the annual incentive plan, and other stock-based long-term incentives, we believe we are able to sustain bank leadership that creates a successful banking atmosphere,” he says.

But SERPs aren’t perfect; just like any other executive compensation and benefit plan, it’s critical that bank executives and boards understand their disadvantages. One disadvantage is the funds that accumulate for a SERP are not protected from bankruptcy and creditor claims in the event of insolvency. SERP participants become general creditors of the bank. Still, the plans offer significant advantages and can be incredibly attractive to banks as employers.

  1. They are easy to implement.
  2. The don’t require IRS approval.
  3. They can be customized to the executive team and included as a retirement benefit.
  4. Banks can use BOLI to help recover their costs and offer a split-dollar life insurance benefit while employed.

All of these advantages combined make for a powerful compensation cocktail that, when used in conjunction with other plans and communicated appropriately, is dynamite.

Banks are under more pressure than ever before to succeed. The pandemic, low interest rates and political uncertainty all contribute to questions and uncertainty in the workplace — including among top executives. SERPs can be a powerful tool in the hands of visionary banks. The flexibility afforded in a SERP is second to none. Finally, it’s just smart business to make sure banks can differentiate themselves while being sustainable by attracting, retaining and motivating the best talent possible.

Focus on Survival

Written by

Comp-WP-Report.pngThe pressures brought to bear upon the banking industry as a result of Covid-19 and the related economic downturn promise to exacerbate two long-term challenges facing bank boards and management teams: tying compensation to performance, and managing compensation and benefits costs.

In early July, the U.S. remained “knee deep in the first wave” of the Covid‑19 pandemic, according to Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. States paused or began rolling back their efforts to reopen businesses and public areas. Tens of millions of Americans were unemployed. By September, newly reported cases remained above infection levels in March and April nationally. Many states were experimenting with school reopenings, and case counts were rising in the U.S.

“I’m really concerned about it,” said William Demchak, chairman and CEO of PNC Financial Services Group, who warned of an impending wave of loan defaults in a July interview. “I don’t know that it’s going to devastate us, but I think it’s going to put us into a period of really slow growth.”

Bank Director’s 2020 Compensation Survey, sponsored by Compensation Advisors, was conducted in March and April, just as Covid-19’s broad reach became clear, leading banks to embrace remote work and respond to the monumental task of issuing Paycheck Protection Program loans.

The survey highlights key concerns for bankers in this unusual environment, which will be explored in this white paper. How will bank boards evaluate CEO pay? What about director compensation and efforts to refresh the board? Finally, will banks be prepared for the impending turnover in the C-suite once baby boomers retire?

Forward-looking banks could emerge stronger from this crisis, says Flynt Gallagher, president of Compensation Advisors. “This environment is an opportunity for them, because it gives them the ability to make the changes they’ve been wanting to make,” he says. With so many Americans unemployed, more high-quality talent is available, and he believes institutions should find a way to bring them into the organization — even if a position isn’t open.

“You never go wrong when you get good people,” Gallagher says.

To read more about addressing board and CEO pay challenges, read the white paper.

To view the full results to the survey, click here.

Evaluating Executives’ 2020 Performance

Written by

Bank boards know that the world has shifted dramatically since January, when they drafted  individual executives’ performance expectations. Using those outdated evaluations now may be a fruitless exercise.

As the impact of the pandemic and the social justice movements continue to unfold across the United States, boards may not feel that they have much more clarity on performance expectations currently than they did back in March. At many banks, credit quality has replaced loan volume as the key operating priority. Unprecedented interest rate cuts have further deteriorated earnings power.

Many boards of directors are revisiting how to evaluate the executive team’s individual performance for fiscal year 2020, considering these new realities for their businesses. Individual performance evaluations are a tool for evaluating leadership behaviors and abilities; as such, it sends a clear indication of what the board values from their leaders. After a year like this, all stakeholders will be interested to know what the board prioritized for their bank’s leadership. 

Considerations for Updated Individual Performance Evaluations
This year has been defined by unprecedented developments that broadly and deeply impact all stakeholders. More than any other industry, banks have been called on to support the country using every tool in their toolkit. Reflecting this broad impact, bank boards may find it useful to establish a revised framework for evaluating leadership performance using six “Critical Cs” for 2020:

  • Continuity of Business: How quickly and effectively was the bank able to transition to a new operating model (including remote work arrangements, staffing essential workers in office or branch, etc.) and minimize business disruption?
  • Customer Satisfaction: How were customers impacted by the change in the operating model? If measured, how did the scores vary from a normal year?
  • Credit Quality: Where are the trends moving and how are executives responding? Did the institution face legacy issues that took some time to address and may be compounding current issues?
  • Capital Management: What balance sheet actions did executives take to strengthen the bank’s position for the future?
  • Coworker Wellbeing: What was the “tone at the top”? How did executives respond to the needs of employees? If measured, how did the bank’s engagement scores vary from other years?
  • Community Support: What did the bank do to lead in our communities? How effective was the bank in delivering government stimulus programs like the Small Business Administration’s Paycheck Protection Program?

For publicly-traded banks, the compensation discussion and analysis section of the proxy statement should provide a thorough description of the rationale and process used for realigning these criteria and the evaluation approach used to assess performance. Operating results are likely to be well below early-year expectations for most banks; as a result, shareholders will be keenly interested in how leadership responded to the current environment and how that informed pay decisions by the board.

This year has created an unprecedented opportunity to test the leadership abilities of the executive team. Using the six “Critical Cs” will help boards assess the performance of their leadership teams in crises, craft a descriptive rationale for compensation decisions for fiscal year 2020, as well as evaluate leadership abilities for the future.