In the wake of the financial crisis, all the big banks had to change executive compensation plans to reduce risks. Regulators are keeping a close eye on these plans and sometimes requiring a mountain of paperwork to document them. Here, Scott Law, the executive vice president and director of compensation at $58 billion asset Zions Bancorporation, talks about how the changes have impacted his company.
The first quarter of every fiscal year finds compensation committees and management teams wrestling with setting performance goals for the coming year’s incentive arrangements. What does that process look like for your institution? If your company hasn’t conducted a ground-up assessment of the goal setting process in recent years, consider taking a fresh look at your approach this year.
How does your institution select the performance measures? In Pearl Meyer’s recent survey, Looking Ahead to Executive Pay Practices in 2016 – Banking Edition, respondents indicated the following three factors as having the greatest influence on performance measure selection:
We would argue that the “long-range or strategic plan” should carry substantially more influence in the selection of performance measures than the other two factors–doing so also takes substantially more effort and intentionality. In contrast to plucking some high profile measures from the approved budget, copying what peers are doing, or appeasing institutional investors or their advisors, selecting measures that effectively support the long-range or strategic plan requires a multi-step line of thinking that starts with the end goal in mind (long-term growth in enterprise value) and drills down to very specific actions that need to occur now in order to achieve the end goal.
Some practical steps in the process include the following:
Outline the company’s business objectives and strategy and the drivers of long-term value creation. Then select short- and long-term incentive performance measures that directly tie to the achievement of milestones toward these goals.
Identify and focus on the centerpiece financial metrics that will signal success within your company, your industry and the global economic environment.
Incorporate both “lag” metrics (that reward achievement) and “lead” metrics (that spur desired new actions and behaviors).
Once the measures are selected, how does your institution set performance expectations? Respondents to our survey identified the following five factors as having the greatest influence on their performance goal setting process:
For performance measures that can tie directly back to the annual budget, the budget is a very common way to establish “target” performance expectations. This can be effective and appropriate, so long as there is high confidence among the board and management team that the annual budget represents the proper amount of rigor deserving of target incentive payouts. But the budget is not terribly helpful at setting performance expectations appropriate for “threshold” or “stretch/maximum” payouts. This is where observations regarding historical performance, both for your institution and your peers, can be extremely helpful.
Evaluating actual performance against the selected measures over the last several years (preferably five or more) can provide excellent information about the likelihood of achieving specific performance outcomes and can help you to be confident that the appropriate rigor is represented at all payout opportunity levels (i.e., threshold, target and maximum). A rule of thumb for the rigor of performance expectations is as follows:
Threshold performance/payout should be achievable about 80 percent of the time
Target achievable 50 percent to 60 percent of the time
Stretch/Maximum achievable only 10 percent to 20 percent of the time
Observing historical performance is an excellent way to calibrate the performance expectations with the respective payout opportunities and to understand directional trending on specific measures.
Most of the attention and speculation by investor groups surrounds the potential for insufficient rigor in the performance expectations, relative to the payout opportunities. This is a valid concern. It’s also a valid concern when performance expectations are unreasonably high, relative to payout opportunities, because that could discourage employees or potentially encourage them to expose the bank to excessive risks in pursuit of otherwise unattainable levels of performance. A little effort and historical data can go a long way toward addressing both concerns.
Selecting incentive performance measures and establishing the performance expectations are not routine, one-meeting-per-year exercises. If conducted in a thoughtful, intentional manner, your incentive plan design in the first quarter of 2016 can truly support your business strategy and drive behaviors that lead to growth in the value of your company. Make 2016 the year that you challenge—and improve—your incentive goal-setting process.
Banks frequently ask the question: Who should be included in their various performance-based incentive plans? Of course the answer to this question isn’t clear cut. This article attempts to put some clarity—and statistics—behind this decision for both cash-based and equity-based incentive plans.
Cash-Based Incentive Plans The eligibility for performance-based annual cash incentive plans ranges from zero employees to all employees. Yes, some banks still use a completely discretionary cash incentive or bonus program. The discretionary approach is not best practice, but is still prevalent. Today’s employees want to know what they need to do in order to receive a bonus, and companies are better served by giving these employees some clarity.
Budgeting for performance-based cash incentives can be relatively easy. Start by determining how much you are willing to share and what you can afford to share. It is recommended that you establish a minimum profit amount, or income trigger, that must be achieved before any cash incentive is paid. This gives you some cushion and protects your company and shareholders from paying bonuses it can’t afford. Once you have built in the cushion, run some cost estimates based on your eligible employees and their potential incentive awards.
The truly difficult part for performance-based cash incentive plans is the goal setting. Identifying overall company goals should not be complicated (lean on your strategic plan), but the individual and department goals may be challenging. It’s easiest to establish goals and track performance for production-focused positions. However, for operations-focused positions, companies sometimes decide to either base these positions’ annual incentive solely on corporate goals or “throw their hands up” and move to discretionary goals. It’s not easy, but banks should work to establish objective goals. You may not get it perfect the first time, but keep working on it. Goal setting is a process that you get better at over time.
So who should participate? Our Blanchard Consulting Group 2015 Bank Compensation Survey (which included 124 public and private banks and 140 positions) gathered data on bonus payments, incentive award opportunity levels, and the prevalence of performance-based incentive plans. The survey showed that the use of performance-based incentive plans increases with the size of the organization (from 41 percent prevalence in banks below $500 million in assets to 72 percent prevalence in banks above $1 billion in assets). The target award opportunity levels generally ranged from approximately 30 percent of salary for executives down to 2 percent of salary for entry level positions. One interesting finding from the survey was that every position had cash bonus/incentive amounts being paid. This doesn’t mean every bank paid bonuses to everyone, or that they were all based on performance, but it does mean there were at least a number of banks that paid bonuses all the way throughout the organization. Ultimately, the decision is up to each bank, but it is recommended that all full-time positions be eligible to participate in the cash incentive plan.
Equity-Based Incentive Plans The days of having stock-option plans that include all employees in the bank are long gone. Equity-based plans are far more prevalent in the executive and officer group than other employees. However, some banks are still using equity at lower levels in the organization. The Blanchard Consulting Group 2015 Bank Compensation Survey gathered data on equity plan prevalence, employee eligibility in banks with a plan, and grant prevalence over a multi-year period, from 2012 to 2015.
The findings showed that much like cash incentive plans, the prevalence of equity-based plans increases with the size of the organization: 26 percent of banks below $500 million in assets have equity-based plans and 55 percent of banks above $1 billion in assets have them. The most interesting findings from our equity review surrounded the eligibility data. Not surprisingly, 70 percent of executive level positions had equity plans. These numbers dropped to below 10 percent for some entry level positions, but surprisingly, the mid-level positions showed eligibility in the 20 percent to 40 percent range. The actual grant prevalence data over a multi-year period was generally above 75 percent for executives and stayed above 40 percent for many mid-level positions. This shows that banks with an equity plan are using it well below the executive level.
In summary, it seems clear that banks are leaning towards including more of their employee base in their cash and equity-based incentive plans when they have these programs. This requires extra work in administration and communication, but hopefully is creating an engaged staff that is driving towards the success of the bank in a unified way.
As more executives near retirement age, many banks are realizing their equity vesting provisions may be motivating unintended behaviors. Do your bank’s retirement provisions encourage executives to:
Provide advance notice of retirement to facilitate planned succession?
Assist in their transition?
Remain engaged and motivated through the last day on the job?
Remain interested in the bank’s success following retirement?
Unfortunately, many retirement provisions don’t consider these important objectives and in some cases motivate the opposite behaviors.
Current and Emerging Retirement Provisions
Forfeit Forfeiting all unvested equity may be used as a means to retain executives, but this practice can unintentionally encourage executives to wait around for equity to vest when the executive is no longer fully engaged.
Fully Accelerate Accelerating unvested equity upon retirement allows executives to announce and retire whenever they want without losing any equity. However, if an executive communicates an intention to retire two months before an equity award, does the company make the award? Not doing so could impede the executive’s motivation to provide advance notice of pending retirement. However, full acceleration can limit the retention value of awards once the executive reaches (early) retirement eligibility.
Prorate Proration provides executives with a portion of unvested equity based on the amount of time the executive has worked during the vesting period, regardless of when the grant was made. The bank may be uncomfortable with executives receiving value from recent grants, while executives may feel that they are forfeiting earned compensation. Below are three potential solutions to this concern which combine proration with acceleration:
Holding Period. Participant must have received the grant at least 6-12 months prior to retirement in order for vesting to accelerate or performance awards to vest.
Prorated 12 Month Period. The amount of award that accelerates or vests is based on the portion of time worked during the first year after grant. If a participant works for six months following a grant, he/she would receive value of half the award. This alternative is more generous and does not create as much of a cliff timeline.
Most Recent Grant Pro Rata. Equity accelerates in full except for the most recent grant (made in the last 12 months) which would vest pro rata based on the full vesting period of the award (e.g., if stock options vest ratably over 4 years, a participant who works for six months during year one would receive one-eighth of the award).
Continue Vesting Continued vesting is an emerging practice with benefits for the executive and the bank. Continued vesting allows the executive to retire without forfeiting all or a portion of outstanding awards. Instead, the awards continue to vest on the original schedule. This also encourages the executive to leave the bank in sound condition and facilitate transition. Another benefit for the bank is that continued vesting helps reinforce non-compete or non-solicit agreements because the bank can cease vesting if the executive violates the restrictive covenant.
Committee Discretion Some committees want the discretion to determine retirement treatment on a case by case base. This treatment acknowledges that each executive is different and each retirement situation is unique. However, this approach puts a significant pressure on the committee and may be perceived unfair by executives if the discretion is not applied consistently.
Retirement Definition Banks should also review the retirement definition to ensure it remains appropriate. If a bank’s retirement age is 65, what is the treatment if an executive is hired at age 64? Some banks define an age plus service definition such as age 65 and 5 years’ service or an age and service definition to recognize early retirement (e.g. 55 age plus 10 years’ service or age plus service equals 75). For these definitions, banks may want to consider including a “retire from the industry” requirement in their retirement definition.
Performance Awards Should performance award payout be based on target or actual performance? Awards paid based on actual performance at the end of the performance period could encourage the retiring executive to leave the bank in sound condition.
Vesting Schedule Finally, the vesting schedule may also impact which type of retirement provision a bank chooses. For example, if time-vested restricted stock vests ratably over three years (i.e. 1/3 per year), a forfeiture provision would not be as detrimental to the executive as if the award was cliff vested.
Choosing the right retirement treatment is a more strategic decision than ever before. Banks should review their long-term incentive plans to ensure they are meeting desired objectives.
U.S. Bancorp emerged from the financial crisis as a desirable workplace for talented employees, enabling the bank to better attract and retain talented employees. In this presentation, Jennie Carlson, executive vice president of human resources, outlines U.S. Bancorp’s transparent and analytical process to identify, reward and engage top employees. Millennials are changing how banks groom the next level of executive talent, which includes an increased commitment to diversity.
In the normal course of M&A events, compliance with Section 280G of the Internal Revenue Code to be an eleventh hour thing. In very general terms, 280G applies to compensation paid to an employee in connection with the employer’s change in control. It’s not that the merger partners don’t care at all about this provision in the tax code, it’s just that there are a lot of other issues—like the merger agreement itself—that need to be settled first. However, waiting until the last minute can have adverse financial implications for the selling bank and its employees, so here are a few ideas for 280G planning.
Specifically, 280G makes “excess parachute payments” nondeductible to the employer and subject to a 20 percent excise tax payable by the employee if the aggregate payments equal or exceed three times the employee’s base compensation. An employee’s “base amount” is the average of W-2 compensation for the five years before the year of the transaction. To avoid 280G’s negative consequences, an employee’s change in control payments must be no more than one dollar less than three times the base amount.
For example, if we assume Employee A has a base amount (i.e., five-year average) of $200,000, the maximum change in control payment she could receive without triggering 280G is $599,999 (i.e., $1 less than $200,000 times three. If payments to Employee A equal or exceed $600,000, then any amount in excess of $200,000 (i.e., the base amount) will be nondeductible and subject to the excise tax.
Cutbacks and gross ups are the most common form of 280G planning. A cutback provision in a contract ensures that no amount will be paid in excess of the 280G threshold. In contrast, a gross up provision ensures that the employee will be made whole for any excise tax.
Another 280G planning method is managing the base amount. The more advance managing that can be done, the better. Still, some planning can be done even in the calendar year prior to a transaction. Any increase in the base amount will serve to also increase the threshold amount. As such, employers can consider (1) increasing base salary payable in the year (or years) preceding the year of a transaction; (2) accelerating calendar year bonuses, which are typically paid in the spring of the following calendar year, to December of the current calendar year; or (3) encouraging an employee to exercise vested stock options in the year prior to the transaction. Any of these three could have an impact on the base amount.
A little more complex approach would be an employer’s affirmative action to accelerate the vesting of restricted stock or accelerate the settlement of restricted stock units to the year before the year of a transaction. Also, keep in mind that payments with respect to certain restrictive covenants can have value that is not counted as a change in control payment.
Finally, employers should note that in certain circumstances, 280G provides for a “cleansing” shareholder vote. If at least 75 percent of shareholders agree to the change in control payments, regardless of amount, they will not be subject to 280G’s bad consequences.
If selling the bank is one of the strategic options you are considering, you should give some thought to these planning opportunities in an effort to avoid 280G problems.
The compensation committee has been on the hot seat for several years. Outrage regarding executive pay and its perceived role in the financial crisis has put the spotlight on the board members who serve on this committee. Say-on-pay, the non-binding shareholder vote on executive compensation practices, was one of the first new Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) requirements implemented as part of the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act in 2010. Since that time, public companies have responded to shareholder feedback and changed compensation programs and policies to garner support from shareholders and advisory firms such as Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS) and Glass Lewis & Co. In recent years, only 2 percent of public companies have “failed” their say-on-pay vote. The significant majority of public companies (approximately 75 percent of Russell 3000 companies) received shareholder support of 90 percent or greater during the 2015 proxy season. Today, companies with less than 90 percent should increase their shareholder outreach, as a dip below that level is often an indicator of emerging concerns.
Compensation committees can’t sit back and relax on these results. The SEC’s proposed rule for pay versus performance disclosure (published in April) and the final rule for the CEO pay ratio (published in August) will further intensify the focus on executive pay and require compensation committees to dedicate much more time and energy to evaluate and explain their pay decisions in light of these new disclosures. Fortunately, implementation of the CEO pay ratio is delayed until the 2018 proxy season while the SEC has not yet adopted final rules for the pay versus performance disclosure (as of September). It is hard to predict what influence these additional disclosures will have on shareholders’ say-on-pay votes. What is clear is that boards will need to monitor these and other pending Dodd-Frank Act rules (i.e. mandatory clawback, disclosure on hedging policies, incentive risk management) in the coming year.
In the meantime, however, boards may face increased shareholder scrutiny in key governance areas.
Proxy access, the ability of significant shareholders to nominate board members on the company’s proxy ballot, achieved momentum in 2015 when New York City Comptroller Scott Singer submitted proxy access proposals at 75 public companies as part of his 2015 Boardroom Accountability Project. We expect proxy access proposals will remain a focus among activist shareholders during the 2016 proxy season. Dissatisfaction with executive compensation and board governance are often the reasons cited by shareholders seeking proxy access.
Institutional shareholders and governance groups have also started to focus on board independence, tenure and diversity. Institutional investors such as Vanguard and State Street Global Advisors consider director tenure as part of their voting process and ISS includes director tenure as part of their governance review process. This could lead to a push for term and/or age limits for directors in the near future. While many companies use retirement age policies as a means to force board refreshment, it is unclear if that will be enough. Boards would be wise to start reviewing their board composition and succession processes in light of their specific business strategies but also in consideration of these emerging governance and shareholder perspectives.
The intense scrutiny by investors and proxy advisors of public companies’ compensation and governance practices shows no signs of abating. Bank boards will need to develop their philosophies, programs and policies with an acknowledgement of emerging regulations and perspectives. Board composition and processes such as member education, evaluation, nomination and independence will gain focus. Executive pay levels and performance alignment will continue to be scrutinized based on new disclosures mandated by Dodd-Frank. The spotlight on pay and governance is not winding down, but rather widening and both the compensation and governance committees will need to spend more time addressing these issues in the years to come.
As the 2015 calendar gets shorter, are you hedging bets that your next Compensation Discussion & Analysis (CD&A) will wow shareholders and ensure a strong say-on-pay vote next year? Or are you hoping to bluff your way through the next proxy season? Between regulatory changes and a high level of public scrutiny, it’s never too early to begin focusing on your executive compensation disclosures.
Why Communication Strategy Matters More Than Ever Effectively communicating your compensation plan and its link to the bank’s business and leadership strategies is a growing priority among boards and management teams. As we all know, executive compensation—and the regulation surrounding it—is increasingly complex. A well-planned and artfully delivered disclosure document can improve chances of a favorable say-on-pay outcome and potentially bolster your defenses against shareholder activism. At a minimum, it can help improve overall shareholder engagement and build communication between the board, management and other stakeholders.
The Ante: Emerging Compliance Requirements Unfortunately, the Dodd-Frank Act’s many provisions are still looming and it’s only a question of time before the final proposals on matters such as the CEO pay ratio, pay-for-performance, and clawbacks are implemented. These fast-changing rules can make it difficult to keep up from a communication perspective. How might these new mandates complicate or conflict with your compensation strategy and how can a public bank ensure they’re fully compliant, while delivering the most effective story to shareholders and employees about the executive pay programs?
Remember—balance is the key. With so many requirements coming, it will be necessary to offset the potential complication of your message with clear details on your compensation design and its alignment with the bank’s business strategy. Within the regulatory context, there’s an opportunity to discuss:
How executive compensation supports your business strategy and leadership talent goals;
How compensation is defined;
How performance is viewed;
How sound governance and risk management is practiced; and
What you pay your executives and why.
It’s not just public banks that face these issues. While private entities aren’t required to disclose, many feel the resulting public pressure to communicate more and can benefit from the following guidelines.
The Winning Hand: Moving Beyond Compliance to Tell Your Story Obviously, compliance is important, but companies need to continue shifting program design focus from compliance to a compensation philosophy that supports the long-term business strategy.
Results from Pearl Meyer’s 2015 OnPoint Survey: The New Normal of Annual Compensation Disclosure, offer several points to consider as you begin the CD&A development process. Perhaps most surprising is that ”reader-friendliness” of the CD&A is just as important to compensation committees as technical accuracy. In fact, making the content easier to read/understand ranked as the number one request compensation committees make to staff regarding the CD&A. Survey results also indicate those companies who rate their CD&A as “excellent” or “very good” experience a higher percentage of yes votes for say-on-pay from shareholders than companies who don’t rate their CD&A as high.
There are three ways to ensure you “win the hand” in regards to your pay communications to shareholders:
Take advantage of emerging trends for content and design. There have been big changes over the past five years in how information about pay is presented within the CD&A. Content needs to be accurate, complete and concise while keeping in mind that shareholders are the target audience. Incorporating elements such as executive summaries and visuals that illustrate year-over-year pay levels, mix of variable versus fixed pay, and realizable/realized pay help organize the story and pull the reader through the document. The survey results show a clear pattern: companies with favorable views of their communication use these methods far more than companies who believe their CD&A is only fair or needs improvement.
Leverage the experts to develop and deploy your message. Using internal corporate communications practitioners, graphic designers, and external writers can be worth the expense. Survey results show that companies who have relied on communication experts to help develop content typically have excellent or very good communication effectiveness and almost 80 percent of these companies are using at least one professional resource.
Adjust your timeframe. The quality of executive compensation disclosure is more important today than ever and the quantity of information required is growing. Therefore, it it’s never too early to get started! Our survey confirmed that those who began working on their disclosures before the close of the fiscal year reported excellent or very good communication effectiveness. It’s a safe bet to follow their lead.
Taking this disciplined approach to communicating the value of your programs should pay off in the long-term and can help your board successfully move ahead with strategy-based design.
The Dodd-Frank Act, regulatory guidelines on compensation risk and shareholder advisory votes on executive compensation have all contributed to an increase in the compensation committee’s responsibilities and time requirements. That pressure is compounded this time of year as committees enter their “busy season.” The fourth quarter is the start of many critical and often scrutinized committee activities: reviewing performance, approving 2015 incentive awards and developing 2016 performance incentive plans. This article provides a sample full year committee calendar and a checklist of activities and actions compensation committees should be focusing on during Q4 2015 and Q1 2016.
It is best practice for compensation committees to define and schedule their annual activities for the year in advance. A well-defined calendar helps members better plan and prepare for the critical, and often timely, decisions that are required. There are three key cycles to the annual calendar: Assessment, Program Design and Pay Decisions.
Assessment occurs during the more “quiet” months following the prior year’s performance cycle where pay decisions are made, but before the start of the next performance cycle when a new program starts. For companies whose fiscal year follows the calendar year, this typically occurs between June and October (following most public company annual meetings). While there may be less pressure to approve and take action during this time, the analysis conducted during this phase will be critical for decisions made later in the year. Compensation committees should use this time to reflect on the pay program and decisions of the prior year and assess peer, market and regulatory trends that might influence programs in the coming year. This is a perfect time to conduct robust tally sheets, assess the pay and performance of your company relative to peers, conduct peer/competitive benchmarking, and if you are a public company, review say-on-pay results and conduct shareholder outreach. Information reviewed during this phase provides the foundational knowledge needed for the upcoming design and decision cycles.
Program Design typically occurs in the late fall and early winter (e.g. November–January), when compensation committees review the assessment phase results and begin defining total pay opportunities and programs for the upcoming year (i.e. base salary, annual and long-term incentive opportunities and performance goals). Compensation committees should pay careful attention to performance metric selection and goal setting to ensure proper pay-performance alignment. It is also critical to ensure the incentive plans support sound risk management practices. Many banks will complete their annual incentive risk review at this time. This is also an opportune time to consider implementing or revising compensation policies or practices, perhaps in light of shareholder feedback.
Pay Decisions occur in the late winter (e.g. January–April). During this phase, performance evaluations are conducted and decisions are made related to incentive payouts. Pay opportunities for the new year are also set, including annual incentive opportunities and long-term incentive grants. All banks should have conducted their risk assessment review by this time as well. Once Section 956 of the Dodd-Frank Act is finalized, banks will be required to provide documentation of their risk review to regulators. For companies whose fiscal year ends at the end of the year, this will occur during the same timeframe, in the late winter or early spring. This is also a very busy time for public companies that are required to document the prior year’s pay decisions in the proxy in preparation for shareholder review. Many committees spend several meetings discussing these issues.
Periodic activities include, but are not limited to: executive and board succession planning, incentive risk assessment, board and committee evaluations, consultant evaluations, benefit plan review, employment agreement/severance arrangement review and shareholder engagement.
Ongoing updates throughout the year include incentive payout projections and regulatory updates.
Below is an illustration of a typical compensation committee annual cycle with a check list of key activities for Q4 and Q1:
Today’s environment of increased scrutiny on executive compensation and governance requires compensation committees to spend more time fulfilling their responsibilities. Having a well-planned calendar, with a heightened focus on the “off season” assessment activities, can help committees be better prepared for the many critical year-end decisions.
*Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code allows public companies to deduct performance-based compensation above $1 million if it meets specific requirements.
Privately held banks, including Subchapter S banks as well as mutuals, are no different than publicly traded banks in their efforts to provide meaningful compensation plans for their key officers. Privately held banks must compete with public banks when attracting and retaining key officers and producers.
Publicly held banks typically offer restricted stock or incentive stock options to key employees. This is much more difficult for privately held banks due to a lack of available shares or illiquidity of the stock. Therefore, privately owned banks competing for talent often require more creativity.
While some privately held banks offer stock options, restricted stock or restricted stock units (RSUs), these types of plans are uncommon. Rather, privately held banks that want to provide rights of ownership to executives often use synthetic equity such as Phantom Stock Plans (PSPs) and Stock Appreciation Rights (SAR) plans. While these plans have an earnings impact to the bank, they do not have a per-share dilution as no actual shares are issued.
Competition for top talent is strong. Assuming the bank offers a competitive salary and an annual incentive plan, the challenge is the ability to offer a long-term incentive/retirement plan. The following types of plans are often used to attract and retain key executives and include:
Supplemental executive retirement plans (SERP) can be designed to address an executive’s shortfall that would result if the executive only had social security and the bank’s qualified plan to provide retirement income. Generally, under the terms of a SERP, an institution will promise to pay a future retirement benefit to an executive separate from any company-sponsored qualified retirement plan. The benefit is typically expressed as a fixed annual dollar amount or as a percentage of final compensation.
Deferred compensation plans (DCP) allow the bank to make contributions to the executive’s account using a fixed dollar amount, fixed percentage of the executive’s compensation, or a variable amount using a performance-based methodology. The DCP can also allow the executive to defer his or her current compensation.
Split dollar plans allow the bank and the insured executive to share the benefits of a specific BOLI (Bank-Owned Life Insurance) policy or policies upon the death of the insured. The agreement may state that the benefit terminates at separation from service or it may allow the executive to retain the life insurance benefit after retirement if certain vesting requirements are met.
Survivor-income plans/death benefit-only plans specify that the bank will pay a benefit to the executive’s survivors (beneficiaries) upon his or her death. The benefit may be paid in a lump sum or in annual payments over a specified time period. Typically, the bank will purchase BOLI to provide death proceeds to the bank as a hedge against the obligation the bank has to the beneficiaries. The benefits are paid directly from the general assets of the bank.
Picking the right plan design is only part of the process. Striking the proper balance between making the plan attractive to executives but not excessively expensive to the company are also significant factors when designing the benefit plan. Nonqualified plans can be customized to each executive, avoiding a cookie cutter approach by allowing flexibility in the amount of the benefit, vesting schedule, non-compete provisions, timing of payments and duration of payments. For example, assume you provide a substantial retirement benefit to a 40-year-old executive, but provide no vesting until age 65. The executive will likely not see it as a valuable benefit since most 40-year-olds think they will retire long before age 65. Likewise, if the executive is fully vested at age 55, the executive may not be motivated to stay past that age.
The plan must also provide a fair benefit upon death, disability and change in control. The payment terms can be customized to fit the needs of the executive while remaining in compliance with IRC Section 409A of the tax code. A properly designed nonqualified plan can enhance the bank’s bottom line by attracting and retaining top talent, but doing so in a way that is cost-efficient to the bank.
With over 30 years of history, BOLI has proven to be an effective tool to help offset and recover benefit expenses. While many public banks purchase BOLI to recover the cost of general benefit liabilities only, many privately held banks purchase BOLI for the same reason, but also include recovering the cost of nonqualified plans. BOLI is a tax-advantaged asset whereby every $1 of premium equates to $1 of cash surrender value (CSV) on the bank’s balance sheet. The CSV is expected to grow every month and earnings are booked as non-interest income on a tax preferred basis. From a cash flow perspective, BOLI is a long-term accrual asset that will return cash flow to the bank upon the death of the respective insured(s). BOLI is an investment asset that currently generates a return in the range of 2.50 percent to 3.50 percent after all expenses are deducted, which translates into a tax equivalent yield of 4.03 percent to 5.65 percent (assuming a 38 percent tax bracket).
Summary Privately held banks must compete with all types of organizations for talent. Their future is dependent on their level of success in attracting and retaining key executives. The use of nonqualified plans, when properly chosen and correctly designed, can make a major impact on enhancing long-term shareholder value.
Equias Alliance offers securities through ProEquities, Inc. member FINRA & SIPC. Equias Alliance is independent of ProEquities, Inc.