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.
Boards are increasingly looking for ways to appropriately align pay and performance for bankers in the face of the disruptive changes in the industry.
Post-financial crisis, many bank boards shifted to a scorecard approach as a way to improve their compensation governance and accountability. However, industry disruption has sparked an evolution of the scorecard itself.
Before the financial crisis, determining annual bonus payouts at banks was a singular, annual event. The compensation committee and the CEO compared the bank’s current financial results to the prior year, assessed the operating environment, considered last year’s bonus pool and adjusted bonus accruals accordingly. Higher performers got a little more than prior year; poor performers looked for new jobs.
Following the financial crisis, a search for improved compensation governance and accountability ushered in a movement to construct incentive plans with payouts specifically tied to financial outcomes. This resulted in the popular financial scorecard approach used by many banks today.
Most scorecards include “hardwired” financial goals (usually earnings per share, net income and return on equity), banking-specific metrics (deposits, credit quality metrics and expense management) and a component that reflects “individual” or “discretionary” evaluations of performance.
Scorecards have served the industry well and addressed concerns that the lack of transparency into banking incentive plans resulted in shareholders being unclear of exactly what performance they were rewarding. The industry is now in the midst of a new phase of disruption that has banks reexamining their business models and entering a period of significant transformation.
In response, boards are increasingly enhancing the qualitative component of their scorecards to add balance and encompass the progress executives have made against clearly articulated strategic business objectives (SBOs). These strategic components balance the “backward-looking” nature of financial metrics with a “forward-looking” assessment that focuses on improving future financial performance.
Trends in Strategic Business Objectives An SBO is a goal or metric that generally supports a key business priority and can be measured and objectively evaluated. For many boards, delivering against SBOs is critical to ensuring sustainability of their franchise. While growing earnings per share is a proven measure of current business success, achieving other critical outcomes is essential to creating long-term value for shareholders.
Detailed SBOs are specific to each bank and reflect where the bank is in its life cycle or period of transformation. Recently, we have observed banks incorporating the following eight categories into their SBOs for bank bonus plans:
Executing the Digital Strategy: Depending on the bank’s current digital state, this category evaluates the success of critical milestones, such as percentage of paperless customers, “app” rollout and usage rates and expansion of service offerings through the digital interface.
Technology Enhancements: This can include initiatives such as cybersecurity upgrades, automated fraud detection and general infrastructure enhancements like enterprise resource planning rollout.
Corporate Development: This objective centers on the bank’s execution of its M&A strategy. It reflects the board’s evaluation of acquisitions, divestitures and integrations throughout the year. Banks often set goals based on quality, rather than quantity, to avoid incentivizing “bad deals.”
Branch Strategy: This rewards the expansion, contraction or footprint-specific goals tied to the bank’s strategy for brick-and-mortar branch presence.
Fee-Income Initiatives: Boards want to compensate for successful growing non-interest income from existing products, new products and complimentary service offerings.
Customer Metrics: This can be measured through various means, such as net promoter score, internal customer satisfaction ratings, call center resolution rates and client retention statistics.
Compliance: This generally focuses on the performance against anti-money laundering (AML) objectives and other regulator-specific compliance priorities.
Risk Management: Boards define this SBO by evaluating process-related rollouts, infrastructure enhancements and talent upgrades across the risk function.
Banks are looking to drive their key initiatives during this time of significant transition in the industry. To do so, they are increasingly using SBOs to underpin the strategic drivers of future value creation in their business. Linking these initiatives to annual incentive compensation can communicate the importance of the strategies to the organization, and align compensation to the successful execution of these strategies.
Bankers looking to grow revenue from their treasury departments will need the support of branch staff to drive the effort.
Banks large and small sometimes struggle to maximize the lucrative opportunity of their treasury departments. To increase revenue, it is vital that employees in the branch discuss treasury products with new and existing customers. Here are six steps to get started.
Step 1: Create a Top-Down Directive Everyone from the bank president to newly hired employees should understand the importance that treasury revenue plays in overall operations. Banks should not rely on branch staff to execute this initiative. Leadership must prioritize discussing and promoting treasury products if they hope to see a pickup in demand and improvement in revenue. All employees should be on board, and there should be a top-down directive from upper management on the importance of cross-selling treasury products.
Step 2: Set Goals and Metrics for Employees After bank leadership has discussed the importance of treasury products and how they can serve customers’ needs, they should set measurable and attainable goals for branches and staff.
Banks should monitor and track the actual performance against the set goals over time and follow up on them. Recognize bank employees that meet or exceed expectations, which will boost motivation.
Step 3: Run an ACH Report Tap into existing customers by mining Automated Clearing House data. Merchant services providers can provide a list of ACH descriptors that allows banks to identify customers who are using processing services outside the bank. From there, executives will need to determine what other products their existing customers are using. These leads are invaluable, and this is an easy way to identify cross-selling opportunities for existing customers who already have a trusted relationship with the bank. Banks should assign an employee to follow up with all the customers on these reports.
Step 4: Incentivize Referral Activity Executives should incentivize their employees to promote treasury products through referral bonuses, commissions, referral campaigns and recognition. Use these campaigns regularly, but change them so they remain enticing for employees. One place to start could be with a quarterly referral campaign partnered with the current merchant services provider, which can be mutually beneficial and bolster excitement about treasury department offerings.
Step 5: Require Treasury Products with New Business Loans Banks can also require customers to add certain treasury products as a loan covenant on new business loans. However, they should take pains to consider the needs of the prospective customer before requiring a product.
Adding this requirement means it will be vital to have treasury management specialists involved in initial meetings with prospective customers. After a proper needs assessment, they can craft a customized proposal that includes treasury products that will be of most use to the customer.
Step 6: Educate Staff Bank employees will always be hesitant to bring up products that they do not fully understand, and may be concerned about asking questions. Education is central to combatting this, and the success of any effort to promote a bank’s treasury department.
Banks should implement cross-training seminars to educate all employees about product offerings. It should also be ongoing to keep employees engaged, and can include webinars, lunch-and-learns and new employee boot camps, among other approaches.
Outside director compensation has been on the minds of shareholders and compensation committees after a 2017 court decision and a continuing focus of proxy advisory firms that recommend how institutional investors vote on matters presented to public company stockholders.
In late 2017, the Delaware Supreme Court issued a decision involving claims of excessive nonemployee director compensation at Investors Bancorp, a Short Hills, New Jersey-based bank. In that case, the court applied a higher legal standard to decisions made by directors about their own compensation.
Since the 2017 decision, other cases have been settled involving similar claims against public companies, and more new cases were filed in 2018. The two primary proxy advisory firms have also shown an enhanced focus since the 2017 decision on compensation awarded to outside directors.
With these cases in mind, focus on outside director compensation continues, and public companies especially should review their decision-making processes about discretionary stock equity plans and non-employee director compensation.
Stockholder claims concerning the conduct of directors generally are subject to review under the business judgment rule, where the presumption is that the board acted in good faith, on an informed basis and in the best interests of stockholders.
In cases where the business judgment rule applies, the court will not second-guess a board’s business decision.
Before the Investors Bancorp decision, this was the standard applied to cases challenging director compensation decisions, with a few exceptions. In the cases where the Delaware courts reviewed challenges to director compensation approved by directors themselves, the courts recognized a stockholder ratification defense for director compensation in cases in which stockholders had approved the following:
An equity plan that provides for fixed awards
The specific awards made under an equity plan
An equity plan that includes “self-executing” provisions—awards that are determined based on a formula specified in the plan without further discretion by the directors
An equity plan that includes “meaningful limits” on director compensation—a cap on the awards that could be made to nonemployee directors
In cases where a company can take advantage of the stockholder ratification defense, the company can seek dismissal of the stockholder claim under the business judgment rule.
In the Investors Bancorp case, the Delaware Supreme Court considered the scope of stockholder ratification of director compensation decisions for the first time in more than 50 years, and in doing so limited the ratification defense when directors make equity awards to themselves under an equity incentive plan.
The Delaware court determined that the more onerous rule—the “entire fairness” test—applies, where a plaintiff can show a majority of the board was interested or lacked independence regarding the decision, or would receive a personal financial benefit from the decision.
For equity grants awarded to directors under the plan, that test requires the board to prove equity incentive awards they grant themselves are fair to the company and its stockholders. The Delaware court found that while the stockholders in the Investors Bancorp case had approved the general parameters of the equity plan that contained a limit on the aggregate amount of stock awards that could be made to directors, they had not ratified the specific awards to directors and, therefore, the business judgment rule did not apply.
The decision therefore calls into question whether the ratification defense is still feasible for plans that contain only “meaningful limits” on director awards. The Delaware Supreme Court sent the case back to the lower court to review under the entire fairness standard, and that case is currently pending.
Key Takeaways Boards and compensation committees should consider the following to mitigate potential risks in implementing equity incentive plans or making awards to directors under existing equity incentive plans:
Careful consideration of peer group selection
Retention of a compensation consultant experienced in banking
Whether to include director compensation limits in equity plans
Ensuring that director compensation decisions are made after a robust process that accounts for market practices and peer group practices
And finally, boards and compensation committees should carefully describe the decision-making process and other key factors for equity awards to nonemployee directors in the company’s annual proxy statement.
The $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.
There was a lot of optimism among the crowd of more than 200 during the first full day of Bank Director’s 13th annual Bank Compensation & Talent Conference Tuesday, which included bank CEOs, board members and human resources executives. It was almost as if the prior day’s rains had passed and the day’s breeze and sunshine at The Ritz-Carlton, Amelia Island, lightened the mood. For instance, a full 95 percent of the audience in a poll felt that a bank can create a culture of innovation.
Here are a few takeaways from the conference to consider:
Culture is key to one’s future success. Regardless of size, bank executives and board members exert tremendous influence on the long-term culture and success of an institution. Culture manifests in various ways. It may be the board asking challenging questions. It might be figuring out the right incentive structures to encourage growth without undue risk.
Doug Kennedy, president & CEO of Bedminster, New Jersey-based Peapack-Gladstone Bank, a $4.7 billion asset bank, talked about organic growth, while Frank Leto, president & CEO of Bryn Mawr Bank Corp. in Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania, which has $3.48 billion in assets, explained his approach to growing through a combination of organic growth and targeted acquisitions. His bank has done eight deals in nine years. Juxtaposing their leadership styles reminded the audience that there is not a one-size-fits-all approach to scaling a company.
Having talked with both Kennedy and Leto onstage and off, I’m impressed with their commitment to their teams, communities, investors and clients. Determining the right pay structure for the CEO is not a routine exercise, so I’m sure I’m not the only one apprehensive about the soon-to-be-disclosed CEO-employee pay ratio for public companies. Specifically, this Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) rule requires companies to include in the proxy statement the median employee’s total compensation, the CEO’s total compensation and the ratio of the two.
I can see the unfortunate headlines in local markets when news comes out. Susan O’Donnell, partner with Meridian Compensation Partners, stressed the urgency for banks to begin the process of collecting relevant data and developing communication plans if they have not already started, given the rule goes into effect for proxies filed in 2018. Don Norman Jr., partner with the law firm Barack Ferrazzano Kirschbaum & Nagelberg in Chicago, worried that this new requirement may inadvertently punish those banks that hire a lot of entry-level positions, as such salaries will increase the ratio.
Another challenge ahead for banks is the need to recruit tech talent. I was a bit perplexed to see that in our audience poll, 44 percent still cite finding commercial lenders as the top recruitment challenge for their banks. I would have thought that tech talent—which received a mere 9 percent of the vote—would have dominated the poll given the accelerating pace of change driven by the digitization of financial goods and services.
Another result that surprised me? Sixty-six percent believe their bank has the right executive-level talent in place to guide the bank’s technology initiatives and implement innovative solutions throughout the organization. Given how much angst exists for the future of banking—and the supposed lack of next generation leadership, 66 percent aren’t worried about having the right people in place at all. It might be true that the current generation of banking executives will be able to lead the way in finding and recruiting new talent, but still, I wonder this may be easier said than done.
Still, I remain optimistic about the future of the banking industry as a whole. This conference has always been a meeting ground for the banking industry’s key leaders to meet, engage with one another and learn. Indeed, most of the speakers talked about culture and growth along with compensation, recruitment, training and development. Programs like these help bank officers and directors to think about the challenges ahead and how they might solve them. While sunny days will not be on every day’s outlook, I do sense a true note of optimism.
Regulatory attention on incentive compensation is heightened following the Wells Fargo scandal, posing a greater burden to boards and management teams. Todd Leone and Gayle Appelbaum of McLagan, part of Aon plc, explain what tools banks should use to mitigate compensation risk and the questions boards should be asking about incentive compensation arrangements.
Increased Scrutiny on Compensation Plans
Tools to Mitigate Compensation Risk
Questions to Ask About Incentive Compensation
Balancing Compensation Risk with Attracting Talent
Commercial banking is a core business for most regional and community banks. It is a key driver of profitability as well as organizational growth, and frequently serves as the entry point to many of the bank’s other businesses, such as wealth management, treasury services and deposit gathering. The competition for talent and growth within commercial lending has never been higher, and as a result, commercial lenders continue to be among the mostly highly paid and highly incentivized individuals in the bank. It is of critical importance therefore to think carefully about maximizing your bank’s return on its lender compensation by thoroughly evaluating your incentive programs for this group. Do the plans motivate the right behaviors, properly consider risk elements and successfully align compensation with performance?
Incentive Goals The first step in evaluating the effectiveness of the incentive plan for the commercial lending group is evaluating the business priorities of the lending group.
What is the preferred balance between profit and growth for each of the commercial businesses?
How should your business segmentation impact your plan design? For example, does the bank need multiple incentive plans to align with segmentation between C&I and commercial real estate, or one incentive plan covering multiple loan types?
What are the cross-selling or referral expectations for lenders?
What products and behaviors should your lenders pursue in order to encourage sticky relationships with your commercial clients?
What is the performance culture of the commercial lending group, and how can the incentive plan reinforce it?
What are the bank’s goals for specific types of commercial business in terms of client type, industry and loan size? For example, if the bank prioritizes C&I loans due to their typically higher level of fee income and associated deposits, rather than larger CRE loans, the incentive plan should reflect that priority.
These are just a few examples of the types of questions that bank board members and executives should be asking right now as they evaluate their commercial lender incentive programs. In order to properly contribute to the bank’s overall success, the incentive plan design and performance goals must reflect the bank’s priorities for the commercial lending group.
The exhibit below highlights some of the most common productivity goals used for commercial lenders at regional and community banks. Data is taken from a flash survey of regional and community banks that was conducted by McLagan earlier this year and that covered a variety of commercial lending topics.
Aligning Pay With Performance In addition to identifying plan goals vis-à-vis departmental priorities, it is important to evaluate the alignment of incentive awards with the performance necessary to earn those awards. In short, what is the bank’s return on its incentive payments to lenders? If performance and awards are not appropriately aligned, the bank may be overpaying for mediocre performance or not appropriately rewarding its high performers, either of which can have a negative impact on long-term corporate performance.
Robust performance and payout modeling is particularly important when a new or revised incentive program is implemented—changes to plan payout methodologies may necessitate changing performance expectations for lenders. For example, if incentive payout targets are increased in order to remain externally competitive, do performance targets need to increase as well in order to provide an appropriate return to the bottom line?
Risk Considerations While lender productivity generally has the biggest impact on plan awards, incentive plans cannot ignore risk considerations. The actions of commercial lenders today can have a significant impact on the bank’s credit quality and profitability in future years, and incentive plans should be designed to mitigate any behaviors that are not in line with the bank’s risk policies. In some cases, risk factors may be included as specific objectives under the incentive plan. More frequently, mechanisms outside of the core plan are used to safeguard against risky behaviors or poor risk outcomes. Common plan mechanisms include credit quality payout triggers, clawbacks that seek to recapture pay that has already been awarded, and deferrals that pay out based on long-term risk outcomes, among others.
In summary, commercial lenders can have a significant impact on your bank’s organizational success, and your commercial incentive plan can have a significant impact on the business and behaviors that your lenders pursue. As you begin to plan for 2018, take time now to evaluate the alignment between goals and business needs, payouts and performance, and plan features and risk policies. Doing so will help your bank maximize the potential organizational impact of its commercial incentive dollars.
It seems almost everyone with a bank account knows the story: a relatively small group of people within a large organization committed fraud by opening unapproved customer accounts in order to earn performance bonuses under a production-based incentive plan. The scandal badly bruised the bank’s stellar reputation, forced the CEO to step down, and resulted in a significant loss of shareholder value, before the election turned the tide for many bank stocks.
It has also prompted a widespread industry examination of retail incentive practices. Whether it is through the OCC’s horizontal review of sales and marketing practices or board requests at smaller community banks, the industry is taking a look at both the cultural aspects of sales expectations and the design and controls of the programs themselves.
In November 2016, Pearl Meyer conducted a survey of actions banks are taking to address the potential issues uncovered by the scandal. This study included 57 respondents representing both small and large institutions across the country. The key outcomes indicate that four out of five banks have had an internal or external inquiry regarding their retail incentive plan practices. Most banks are unlikely to make significant changes to their retail incentive plan design and instead are focusing on communication and training as well as enhanced documentation, controls and monitoring.
The aftermath of the Wells Fargo scandal will be that banks are expected to examine their retail incentive programs and the controls supporting them. To that end, we believe there are five questions that banks should ask and answer with respect to their retail incentive programs.
What does our plan reward? About half of respondents to our bank survey indicated using volume metrics and cross-selling metrics (55 percent and 47 percent respectively), which have been criticized as a part of the scandal. However, few are planning to discontinue these metrics (6 percent to discontinue volume and 4 percent to discontinue cross-selling). Use of either metric may put additional pressure on banks to demonstrate how their controls and administrative procedures curtail fraud or misconduct.
Approximately 70 percent of respondents use growth metrics and 34 percent use profitability or revenue, which are much more difficult to manipulate. Nearly one-third have a discretionary component for branch or individual performance that can help reinforce positive behaviors and “right size” awards.
How is our plan monitored? Participants received inquiries from executive management (72 percent) and their boards (51 percent) who may be unfamiliar with the specific details of the retail incentive programs. Banks are addressing the additional oversight through increased monitoring and controls (46 percent) and greater reporting to senior management or the board (42 percent). Reporting elements need to remedy the fact that boards have a responsibility to ensure the bank’s incentive compensation arrangements do not encourage inappropriate risk. Directors often have no visibility into retail incentive plans, have no easy way to quickly understand the impact, do not know what their rights or authority are in understanding, determining, and remedying the risk, and have no plan for how to react. These issues need to be addressed to appropriately monitor the risk.
Are our expectations reasonable? The last element of reporting—how many employees are meeting performance goals—can identify unreasonable expectations or flag the need for better training or management. Collecting performance data over time to see trends in performance, expectations and payouts may also prove useful.
What are our customers experiencing? More than a quarter of respondents indicated that they will develop or enhance their customer complaint process. The process should not only handle specific complaints but also aggregate the complaint types to identify systematic breakdowns in the customer experience.
Are we staying true to our values? Critics have indicated that perhaps the largest failing at Wells Fargo was an environment where branch staff feared that nonperformance would result in job loss. Monitoring of employee satisfaction by business line and mechanisms to provide feedback without repercussions can help identify problems before they escalate.
Given the large-scale publicity of the Wells Fargo scandal, someone—customers, employees, regulators, or shareholders—will likely ask how your retail incentive program is different and what you have done to protect against fraud or misconduct. Accordingly, banks should conduct an assessment of retail incentive plan designs, risks and controls, as well as gain a better understanding of the branch sales culture and leadership.
The problem with creating an incentive plan is that your employees just might do whatever you incentivize them to do. If you pay bonuses based solely on earnings growth, then you might not only get growth in earnings but also really bad loans that eventually sink the bank. If you don’t include the quality of the bank’s ratings with regulators in the performance metric for your CEO, then you might end up with a bad regulatory rating.
During Bank Director’s Bank Executive and Board Compensation Conference on Amelia Island, Florida, yesterday, it became clear that many banks in the wake of the financial crisis are beginning to incorporate a variety of mechanisms to incentivize the behavior they want from their employees and management.
Fifty-nine (59) percent of banks in a Blanchard Consulting Group 2016 survey of more than 200 public and private banks have some kind of formal performance-based incentive plan for management. Only 22 percent have a bonus plan that is solely discretionary, according to the survey. This is of increasing importance for publicly traded banks as well. The shareholder advisory group Institutional Shareholder Services recommends that at least 50 percent of a CEO’s shares be tied to performance, said Gayle Appelbaum and Todd Leone of consulting firm McLagan.
Sixty-eight (68) percent use net income as one of the metrics in their performance-based incentive plan for the CEO. Seventy percent use it as a metric when evaluating the senior management team. It is more difficult for management to manipulate net income in their favor compared to return on assets or return on equity, said Mike Blanchard, CEO of Blanchard Consulting Group.
In a survey of the audience at the conference, which consisted of roughly 225 attendees, 35 percent used asset quality as the primary non-profitability metric in their incentive compensation plan. Regulators want to see other metrics besides profitability in bank incentive compensation schemes. “Be careful if you have profits only,” Blanchard said. Building in a little bit of discretion for the board in setting senior management pay is a wise idea, rather than basing incentives solely on metrics, Blanchard said. That could give the board more flexibility when something has gone wrong.
Banks are increasingly using clawback measures or deferral of pay to reduce the risk of their compensation plans. A clawback measure could be similar to one used by Wells Fargo & Co.’s board recently when departing CEO John Stumpf forfeited $41 million in unvested stock and Carrie Tolstedt, the former head of consumer banking, forfeited $19 million, following a fraudulent account opening scandal. Clawing back unvested stock is helpful because it’s difficult to clawback pay when the executive has already received it, and presumably, spent it. Some banks are adding clawback provisions to their incentive compensation plans that allow the board to clawback for unethical behavior or reputational damage to the firm.
With Wells Fargo in the headlines, questions about incentive pay and motivating the right behavior were a big focus of the conference, although not the only one. Most speakers thought Wells Fargo’s crisis was more related to its culture and how management responded to problems, rather than its incentive plan.
Chris Murphy, the chairman and CEO of 1st Source Bank in South Bend, Indiana, a $5.4 billon asset institution, talked during a panel discussion at the conference about building integrity and character among staff. If someone violates the basic values of the company, he wants other employees to know why that person was let go. A reputational crisis could hurt the bank financially but it’s an even bigger deal than that. “We now understand a little better the impact of little things building up over time,’’ he says. Lying is a nonstarter. “You can’t have anyone lying in any way, shape or form in your organization.”