7 Things Bank Boards Should Focus on in the Year Ahead


board-9-10-18.pngThe world of corporate governance today has a brighter spotlight on boards of directors than ever before. While bank regulatory relief has provided a long-awaited respite, bank examiners seem to be zeroing in on governance, director performance and board succession. Here are 7 things directors should have on their radar screens in the year ahead:

  1. Defining Innovation. Digitization and innovation are the buzzwords, but truly embracing the transformations taking place all around us can be daunting.  Pondering how technology has altered our client relationships and acquisitions means thinking out of the box, which may be a challenge for some directors and bank executives. A refresh of the bank’s website is not an innovation—it is table stakes.  True innovative thinking requires more proactivity and planning, and likely some outside perspectives as well. Boards should encourage management to craft a plan to address to these challenges, which are key to remaining relevant.
  2. Talent Management. Historically, boards viewed talent management as the purview of executive leadership and the CEO, except when it came to CEO succession. In today’s talent-deficient environment, though, boards need to hold the CEO and senior team much more accountable for developing the next generation of leaders and revenue generators. If your bank wants to perform above the mean, then the senior team must be composed of very strong players well suited to execute your strategic plan. A true linkage between the business strategy and human capital strategy has never been more critical for success and survival.
  3. Revisiting Compensation Strategies. Balancing the tradeoffs between enhanced compensation packages and performance/accountability has become a significant challenge for compensation committees and CEOs. In this competitive talent climate, banks need to make sure that their compensation practices properly reflect the bank’s market and goals, motivate the right behaviors, and incentivize key players to both perform, and remain, with the institution. Fresh board thinking in this area may be appropriate, particularly for banks that have been less performance driven with their incentive programs, or do not have the currency of a publicly listed stock as a compensation tool.
  4. Enhanced Accountability and Self-Assessment. Just as boards need to truly hold their CEO accountable for institutional performance, boards need to hold themselves accountable as well. Governance advocates are pushing for boards to assess their own performance, both as a group and individually. Directors should have the fortitude to evaluate their peers—confidentially, of course—to identify areas for improvement. Directors should be open to this feedback, and work to improve the value they bring to the institution.
  5. Onboarding New Directors and Ongoing Training. Plenty of data reinforces that new executives as well as board members contribute more rapidly when there is a formal approach to ramping up their knowledge of the company. Expectations of new directors should be clear up front, just as any new employee. A combination of information and inculcation into the institution provides context for decision-making; clarifies the cultural norms; and often reveals the hidden power structures, including the boardroom. A strong onboarding program forms the foundation for ongoing board education. There should be an annual plan for each director’s education to maintain currency, refresh specific skills, and to stay abreast of leading governance practices.
  6. Board Refreshment. Are we truly building a board of diverse thinkers with the range of skills needed to govern appropriately today? Age and tenure have become flashpoints around continued board service, in reality they avoid dealing with declining contributions and underperforming directors. Every board seat is a rare and precious thing, and needs to be filled with someone who broadens the collective skills and perspectives around the board table. Board nominating and governance committees need to manage accountabilities for existing—and particularly for prospective—directors, and be willing to make the tough calls when needed. Underperforming directors should be encouraged to raise their game or be asked to step aside.
  7. Leading by Example. In today’s information-driven society with endless social media channels and instant visibility, C-Level leaders and board members are under the microscope. Lapses in judgment, breaches of policy or inappropriate behavior, once validated, must be dealt with quickly and decisively. The company’s brand reputation and credibility are always at risk. The board itself—along with the CEO, of course—must set the standard for ethics and compliance and lead from the front. Every day.

Bank Boards will continue to be under scrutiny no matter the environment. More importantly, a bank’s board must be a strategic asset for the institution and provide strong oversight and advice. The expectations of good governance have never been higher, and successful boards will raise their own performance to ensure success and survival.

Compensation Governance in Today’s Economy



Despite recent shifts in the economic and regulatory environment, bank boards still need to keep a close eye on many of the same issues—including risks related to your bank’s compensation practices, as McLagan Partner Gayle Appelbaum explains in this video. She also spells out how talent pressures, and the expectations of regulators and investors, will continue to keep banks on their toes.

  • Key Practices for Boards and Compensation Committees
  • Why You Can’t Relax in Today’s Strong Economy
  • The Need for Heightened Corporate Governance

What To Know About BOLI Today



Bank-owned life insurance is a common tool that helps financial institutions offset the costs of employee benefits, and boards should review the BOLI program every year. Steve Marlow and Kelly Earls of Bank Compensation Consulting explain what boards should know about BOLI, including the impact of tax reform.

  • Why Banks Purchase BOLI
  • Evaluating Existing Programs
  • Impact of Bank Size on BOLI Options
  • How Tax Reform Will Affect BOLI

Executive Compensation: Understanding the Tax Law’s Full Impact


compensation-3-12-18.pngOn December 22, 2017, President Trump signed into law the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which amended certain provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. Bank boards and management teams should take time to familiarize themselves with these changes, as several amendments to the Code relate to the payment of executive compensation.

For corporate executives and compensation committees, the change to the Code that has garnered the most attention concerns an amendment to Code Section 162(m). Prior to the Act, Section 162(m) imposed a $1 million cap per executive on the tax deduction a public company could take on compensation paid to its chief executive officer and three other highest paid executive officers, excepting the chief financial officer—generally, the “named executive officers” included in the company’s annual proxy. Historically, most companies relied on an exemption for performance-based compensation to avoid this limit, which was fully deductible even if it exceeded $1 million. The new tax law has eliminated the performance-based compensation exemption.

In addition, the tax law has expanded coverage of Section 162(m) to apply to all Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) reporting companies (i.e., companies required to file reports under Section 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, which includes many companies required to file due to public debt), rather than solely those whose common stock is registered with the SEC. It also expanded the group of executives subject to the deduction limit to include not only the named executive officers during the current taxable year—now including the CFO as a “named executive”—but also any person who was a covered executive for any prior taxable year beginning after December 31, 2016. Companies subject to Section 162(m) should review their incentive plan documents, incentive award agreements, severance agreements and employment agreements in light of the removal of the exemption for qualified performance-based compensation because these documents may have been drafted to account for the Section 162(m) performance-based compensation exemption that no longer applies.

In addition, the Act amended Code Section 83 by adding a new subsection (i) regarding deferred taxation of equity compensation. Section 83 generally governs the amount and timing of income inclusion for property, including employer stock, transferred to an employee in connection with the performance of services. Under Code Section 83(a), most individuals must recognize income for the tax year in which the employee’s right to the stock is transferable or no longer subject to a substantial risk of forfeiture. This changes for some employees with the new Section 83(i), which allows non-executive and non-highly compensated employees of privately-held corporations to elect up to a five-year deferral in the taxation of illiquid shares issued to them upon the exercise of nonqualified options or the settlement of restricted stock units (RSUs), if certain conditions are satisfied. The options or RSUs must be granted under an equity compensation plan in which at least 80 percent of a company’s full-time U.S. employees are granted awards with the same rights and privileges. The amounts of the awards may vary by employee as long as each employee receives more than a “de minimis” grant—i.e., all participating employees must be eligible to receive a legitimate economic benefit. This deferred tax election is not available to the CEO or the CFO—or to certain persons related to them—or to any person who within the past 10 years was one of the four highest paid officers of the corporation or an employee that holds 1 percent of the company’s stock. Under this new regime, eligible employees of private companies receiving stock through equity compensation arrangements may consider making an election under Section 83(i) to defer taxation on such compensation.

The IRS is expected to issue guidance on these changes, particularly the amendments to Section 162(m). Stay tuned.

How to Give Employees a Slice of the Tax Reform Pie


compensation-3-2-18.pngThe $1.5 trillion tax law that was signed in December reduces the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 21 percent, and should provide an economic windfall for U.S. companies as well as the banking industry. The legislation does include some negative impacts to executive compensation by ending the performance-based exemption through Internal Revenue Code Section 162(m) for compensation over $1 million, but overall, the change in tax rate should bring additional revenue to all companies. Employees are expecting a slice of the pie.

Several Fortune 500 companies, including Wells Fargo & Co., AT&T, JP Morgan Chase & Co., U.S. Bancorp, Wal-Mart, Apple and The Walt Disney Co. have given employees special bonuses, and in certain instances have raised the minimum wage to $15 per hour. These bonuses and raises were given without consideration to employee or company performance, and may set expectations or encourage a feeling of entitlement to future compensation increases regardless of performance.

Community banks should exercise caution when making special salary adjustments and bonus payouts. Salary increases and bonuses without performance or market-driven reasons will drive up fixed costs for the bank, which could impact the achievement of future budget or profitability goals. Raising the minimum wage may also cause salary compression at lower levels of the organization, and make differentiating pay between managers and employees, or high performers and low performers, difficult.

Be Strategic with Salary Increases
Because employee expectations for pay increases are high in relation to the potential for the organization to reap additional profits, we recommend that banks make strategic changes to their salary increase methodology.

One such change is to increase the overall budget for salary increases. A study conducted by Blanchard Consulting Group at the end of 2017, which included over 100 banks, found that the average projected salary increase in the banking industry is 3 percent for 2018. Instead of raising the minimum wage, an alternative would be to increase the salary increase budget from 3 percent to 3.25 or 3.5 percent. This would allow all employees to enjoy the windfall from the additional income projected from tax reform, and maintain the bank’s ability to tie performance and market position into the salary increase process. For example, if an employee is meeting performance expectations, that person would be eligible for the higher base salary increase of 3.25 percent. If the employee is exceeding performance expectations or the salary is below market, that employee may get a higher increase. If the employee is meeting some expectations or no expectations, that individual may get half of the budgeted increase or no increase at all.

Use the Windfall to Increase the Bonus Pool
In regard to employee bonus plans, your bank may consider increasing its annual incentive plan payout levels to coincide with the anticipated increase in bank profitability. For example, if the target bonus payout was 4 percent of salary (or about two weeks’ pay) for staff-level employees, the bank may want to increase the target payout to 6 percent of salary because of the additional profits from the tax reform law. In order to pay out this 6 percent bonus, end-of-year bank profitability goals still need to be met, which keeps the employee’s focus on performance and does not encourage a feeling of entitlement to the bonus payout.

We also recommend that a threshold payout—the minimum performance level at which a bonus may be paid—be incorporated into the incentive plan design. The payout may be linked to a performance goal that is similar to the previous year’s profitability level, with a bonus amount equal to the previous year’s payout. This methodology could also be used for officer and executive plans that typically incorporate higher payout opportunity levels.

If your bank considers this approach, we recommend testing the reasonableness of the program by examining the total payouts of your bonus plan for all employees (staff and executives) as compared to total profits. Typically, if a bank is meeting budget, the bonus plan will share approximately 10 percent of the profits with all employees through cash incentive payouts. If the bank is exceeding budget—for example, profits are 20 percent above the target—the bank may share 15 to 20 percent of the profits with employees.

The passage of tax reform has created an expectation with employees across the nation that their compensation packages will be positively impacted. Despite the expected positive effect on bank income, it is still a difficult environment for banks due to regulations and increased competition. We recommend that banks be strategic in allocating increased profits into a compensation plan that rewards employees for performance and ensures that the bank is meeting or exceeding its annual goals.

Getting Ready for Proxy Season: Changes to Section 162(m)


proxy-2-17-18.pngThe tax law signed by the president on December 22, 2017, makes a significant change to the ability of public companies to deduct compensation paid to top executives.

Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code limits a public company’s ability to deduct compensation of “covered employees” in excess of $1 million each year, but the old tax law provided a broad exception for certain types of performance-based compensation. A “covered employee” had been defined as any employee who, as of the last day of the taxable year, was the chief executive officer (or individual acting in that capacity) or an employee whose compensation is required to be reported to shareholders in the proxy statement because he or she is one of the four highest compensated officers, other than the CEO. As board members and compensation committee members of public companies are aware, the nuances and exceptions to section 162(m) limits were an important consideration in setting annual and long-term compensation for executives.

Below, we briefly explain the new limitations on the deductibility of executive compensation under Section 162(m), and offer some next steps for boards and compensation committees to consider in the first quarter of 2018. Public boards and compensation committees will need to take action on this before proxy season.

Performance-Based Compensation Exception Repealed
Historically, performance-based compensation, such as stock-option income and compensation paid only on the attainment of performance goals, was excepted from the $1 million deduction limitation. The new law repeals this exception, and may change the approach of compensation committees regarding the mix of salary, bonus, performance awards and equity grants in compensation. Also, some plans that required shareholder approval due to the performance-based compensation exception will no longer require shareholder approval for deductibility.

CFOs Again Subject to Section 162(m)
The new law amends Section 162(m) to specifically include a publicly-held corporation’s principal financial officer as a “covered employee” that is subject to Section 162(m). This corrects an unintended gap that had left CFOs excluded from Section 162(m), due to changes in 2007 to the Securities and Exchange Commission’s executive compensation disclosure rules. For companies that had already included their CFO as a “covered employee,” this will not result in a change. However, for companies which had not included the CFO as a “covered employee,” this change limits the deduction for that executive.

Once Covered, Always Covered
If an executive is a “covered employee” subject to Section 162(m) in 2017 or any later year, the new law provides that he or she remains a “covered employee” for all future periods, including after termination of employment for any reason, including death. This eliminates the ability to deduct, for example, severance payments made after termination of an executive’s employment, to the extent that the severance results in compensation in excess of the limit.

Expansion of Covered Companies
Previously, Section 162(m) applied to a company issuing any class of common equity securities required to be registered under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The definition of a publicly held corporation subject to Section 162(m) is expanded by the new law to include any corporation “that is required to file reports under Section 15(d) of [the Securities Exchange Act of 1934]”. This change would subject private corporations with public debt that triggers Section 15(d) reporting to the $1 million deduction limitation.

Limited Grandfathering Rule
The new law grandfathers in compensation provided pursuant to a written binding contract in effect on November 2, 2017, so long as it was not modified in any material respect on or after November 2, 2017.

Next Steps
These rules are complicated and, with the grandfather rules, will require close attention by companies in advance of preparing their 2018 proxy statement. We recommend that boards and, as appropriate, compensation committees, do the following.

  • Educate the compensation committee on changes to the tax code.
  • Review all employment agreements, change in control agreements, severance plans, equity plans and cash bonus plans to determine if they qualify for grandfathering.
  • Evaluate the impact on bonus payment decisions for 2017.
  • Evaluate the non-equity bonus plan design for 2018.
  • Begin to redraft the Compensation Discussion and Analysis (CD&A) and other relevant sections of the proxy statement.
  • Determine which plans will be subject to shareholder approval going forward.

In addition to the changes that will need to be made to proxy statements to reflect the updates to Section 162(m), the SEC’s pay ratio disclosure requirements were not modified by the new tax legislation and are in effect for the upcoming proxy season as well.

Addressing Gaps in Executive Disability Coverage


Risk continues to be an important issue for the banking industry. But what about the personal risk facing a bank’s valued executive? How should personal risks be addressed within a banker’s executive compensation plan and more specifically, what is the impact to the compensation plan if the executive becomes permanently disabled?

The Income Replacement Problem
Group long-term disability (LTD) plans provide excellent coverage for most workers, but leave gaps for highly compensated employees (HCEs). This is due to limitations on the amount of base salary covered, and the lack of coverage for bonuses, stock-based compensation and retirement plan contributions, including 401(k) plans and nonqualified plans such as supplemental executive retirement plans (SERPs). As a result, HCEs often end up with only 30 to 50 percent of their earnings protected, while most broad-based employees achieve more significant income protection. The following chart, which is an example, provides an illustration.

Title Base Salary Base Total Annual Compensation Total Monthly Compensation Monthly Group LTD* % Comp. Replaced
CEO $200,000 $150,000 $350,000 $29,167 $10,000 34%
SVP $175,000 $100,000 $275,000 $22,917 $8,750 38%
VP $100,000 $30,000 $130,000 $10,833 $5,000 46%
AVP $75,000 $15,000 $90,000 $7,500 $3,750 50%
Manager $50,000 $5,000 $55,000 $4,583 $2,500 55%

*60 percent of base salary to a maximum of $10,000 monthly benefit

Many HCEs are unaware of this potentially significant loss in earnings should they become disabled.

As another complication, retirement plans stop being funded when a disability occurs. For example, an HCE no longer contributes to the 401(k), and therefore no longer receives the matching company contribution. If the HCE has a nonqualified plan like a SERP, the plan normally provides for vesting in the accrued liability at the time of disability but does not provide additional credits to the account after the disability occurs. With a drastically reduced monthly income, it is difficult, if not impossible, to save for retirement.

While it can be an uncomfortable topic, and most people do not think it will happen to them, the fact is that disabilities do occur. But bankers are in the risk mitigation business: Once they understand this risk, they typically want to do something about it.

An Integrated Solution
Combining group LTD coverage with individual disability coverage provides the executive with a solid, well-thought out plan that can solve the gap in coverage, help attract and retain top talent, and keep the bank’s costs in check. By using company-sponsored individual policies rather than retail individual policies, the policies can be issued on a guaranteed issue basis and at a significant discount. Furthermore, the premiums are fixed, and the policies are portable and can’t be cancelled. Below is an example:

Title Total Monthly Compensation Monthly Group LTD* Individual Disability Income Total Disability Income % Comp. Replaced
CEO $29,167 $10,000 $11,875 $21,875 75%
Sr. VP $22,917 $8,750 $8,438 $17,188 75%
VP $10,833 $5,000 $3,125 $8,125 75%
AVP $7,500 $3,750 $1,875 $5,625 75%
Manager $4,583 $2,500 $938 $3,438 75%

The policies can be offered on a voluntary basis, and paid for by the employee or by the company. If company-paid, many banks invest in bank-owned life insurance (BOLI) as a way to offset and recover the cost, while others feel the expense is not that significant. In either case, it is well worth the expense as another tool to attract and retain top talent.

The shortfall in income replacement is a real problem for higher income earners should they become disabled. With the recent decrease in corporate tax rates, now would be a great time to explore solving this issue. Corporate-sponsored individual disability programs, when integrated with a group disability program, can protect HCEs from this risk in a cost-efficient manner for the employee and the company, while also providing one more important element in the ongoing desire of the bank to attract and retain key officers.

Compensation Issues That Can Determine the Success of Your Acquisition


compensation-9-6-17.pngMergers and acquisitions continue to be an important business strategy for many community and regional banks. The compensation areas that receive the most attention are change-in-control (CIC) related severance payments and the equity holdings that typically increase in value upon the change. The CIC severance payments that are covered under employment and severance agreements are often estimated and are frequently a part of the conversation prior to the actual CIC. Equity and deferred compensation programs that have accelerated vesting upon a CIC are also generally reviewed ahead of time. The executive groups that have these compensation programs get plenty of attention from the key parties involved in a transaction. However, there are also many non-executive related compensation issues that can have a big impact on the ultimate success of a merger or acquisition.

Once the transaction is complete and the executive related compensation payouts have been settled, there is a combined organization that needs to operate successfully. It is possible that the two organizations had significantly different compensation philosophies in place and one of the key first steps is to clearly identify and communicate the compensation philosophy of the merged bank going forward. For example, if one organization believes in leading the market and the other likes to “lag” the market on pay, you’ll need to determine the future direction. A strong compensation philosophy that guides the compensation decisions and clearly communicates the preferences of the organization will help accelerate the pace of the transition.

Additionally, the combined organization will need to determine the appropriate market benchmarking data to utilize. The bank is now larger following the the transaction and this creates a situation where new peers may be appropriate and new benchmarking surveys or data cuts may be necessary. The bank may have expanded into new states and/or regional markets, which impacts the external market benchmarking process. It is critical to identify the appropriate market data to use for external benchmarking and market competitiveness.

Another potential challenge after an acquisition is the possible need to combine and/or introduce formal salary grade structures. If both organizations had a salary structure system in place there will need to be a determination on whether adjustments need to be made to the future structure. If one organization did not have any salary grades in place, then they will likely need to be introduced to the concept. It can take some time to educate managers and employees as to how these salary systems work. The bank should have a non-discriminatory, market competitive, easily manageable and communicated salary structure to use.

Another common challenge is the realization that the actual pay ranges for certain positions within the combined organization are significantly different. This could be attributed to the differing compensation philosophies of the organizations, differing market locations and competitiveness, or simply differing pay practices that have developed over time. The first step to resolving these potential issues is to review the various positions and identify the significant pay differentials that exist. After identification, the challenge is to assess why the differences have occurred and if there isn’t a clear reason—for example, a geographical differential like a rural versus urban location–then the tough part becomes what to do about these internal pay differences. For example, should the pay grade be changed and/or different levels created for a job title?

Possibly the most significant challenge after a transaction is the combination and/or introduction of incentive-based pay methodologies. Most likely there are some differences in place between the two organizations. One may have a completely discretionary system and the other a true performance-based system. These differences often lead to cultural challenges, because formal systems generally emphasize the importance of pay for performance more heavily than discretionary systems. If both banks have formal performance-based incentives in place, then the challenge will be combining the plans and identifying the key differences that need to be resolved. Examples of differences would be the award opportunity levels, participants included in the various tiers and plans, types of goals used, documentation of the plans, and the award tracking systems in place. Someone will need to review the various incentive plans and determine how to best mesh the current practices for the future.

There are a number of compensation related challenges that can impact a successful merger. The challenges spread beyond the executive related severance payments, and continue well after the change-in-control event occurs. Careful consideration and planning should be used to harmonize differing compensation philosophies and practices through the compensation landscape of the combined entities. Compensation philosophies need to be reviewed, salary structures and market benchmark methodologies may need adjustment, and incentive plans will need to be combined or revamped. Finally, a timeline and communication strategy will need to be developed to ensure a successful compensation environment going forward.

A Cautionary Tale for Compensation Committee Members


committee-8-25-17.pngThe Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) recently took an enforcement action in the form of a consent order against a bank director that serves as a cautionary tale for the banking industry. The consent order, agreed to by and between the OCC and a director and former senior vice president of a small national bank in Wisconsin, reminds bank boards of directors of their fiduciary duties with respect to executive compensation and the consequences of breaching those duties. In particular, this action puts board compensation committee members on notice that they may be found liable for unsafe or unsound executive compensation practices that occur on their watch.

Enforcement Action Details
The consent order described that the director had a longstanding affiliation with the bank, serving in multiple operational positions throughout her tenure, culminating in her election to the bank’s board of directors in 2005. Despite these 32 years of service, the OCC’s findings in the consent order focused on the director’s relatively short period of service on the board’s executive compensation committee, where she served from 2010 to 2013.

During this period, it appears, based on a notice of charges issued in 2016 and a $1.6 million civil money penalty issued in 2017—both against the bank’s former chief executive officer (who also held the titles of president and chairman of the board)—that this individual abused his power and used it to reap excessive compensation from the bank. In particular, the notice of charges cited a report finding that the former CEO “was a dominant influence in all aspects of bank operations,” which ultimately led to insider abuse with respect to compensation and breaches of his fiduciary duties.

Based on such abuse and the resulting action against the former CEO, the OCC apparently then turned its attention to the director. Indeed, the consent order identified the director’s conduct during the period of 2012 to 2013 as the relevant period leading to the issuance or the consent order. During this time, the OCC said that the director failed to do the following:

  • Oversee or control the use of bank funds by its former CEO for his personal expenses despite knowing that he had previously used bank funds for personal expenses.
  • Ensure that disinterested and independent directors determined and approved the compensation of the bank’s former CEO, thereby allowing him to receive excessive compensation.
  • Recuse herself from voting on the bank’s former CEO compensation even though she had a conflict of interest because he was personally indebted to the director and her husband in an amount exceeding $2 million.

Based on these failures as a member of the board’s executive compensation committee, the OCC concluded that the director engaged in conduct satisfying 12 U.S.C. 1818(i) and ordered her to pay a civil money penalty in the amount of $5,000.

Takeaways for Bank Directors
As banks continue to report an uptick in regulatory inquiries and examination findings focusing on executive and incentive compensation, agency enforcement actions relating to compensation issues may become more common in the coming years. This is a trend that is developing even in the face of recent reports that some of the federal banking agencies are likely to postpone consideration of currently proposed regulations regarding incentive compensation required under the Dodd-Frank Act.

Boards should utilize this trend and the lessons learned from the consent order as a reminder to periodically review compensation arrangements and compensation standards at their bank to ensure they are adequately fulfilling their fiduciary duties. Such reviews should critically analyze executive and incentive compensation arrangements and seek to ensure that bank and board policies governing such arrangements meet regulatory expectations. In addition, boards should periodically inquire about and analyze any relationships board compensation committee members may have with senior management to be able to confirm the independence of the committee members.

Compensation Planning In Today’s Talent Market



How do banks attract young employees and retain key executives? David Fritz Jr. and Patrick Marget of Executive Benefits Network explain that bank compensation plans should appeal to multiple generations and outline how Bank-Owned Life Insurance (BOLI) can offset compensation costs.

  • Challenges in Attracting & Retaining Employees
  • Focusing on Long-Term Incentives
  • BOLI’s Role in Compensation Planning