1500 Broadway
New York,
New York 10036
(646) 367-4460
Fax: (212) 898-1148
jfreda@jfreda.com
www.jfreda.com
Workshop Agenda
February 23, 2007
1.
Validation of marketplace
acceptance: For any principles to be credibly presented as
marketplace determinations of fair play, it was agreed that there should be
an actual vote of acceptance by representative groups of both investor and
management decision-makers. Discussions included suggestions of membership
organizations that would have the operational ability to poll members and an
interest in supporting marketplace alternatives to regulatory processes.
Meeting participants supported Forum efforts to develop appropriate
validation procedures that could be applied efficiently to both the sample
questions and the model for advisory voting, above, as well as to other
marketplace standards.
2. Review
of analytical alternatives: Several meeting participants argued the
advantages of alternative analytical standards or methodologies in
evaluations of options and other equity-based compensation practices, as
well as other aspects of executive compensation. Note was made, for
example, of certain mutual fund reporting requirements that could be adapted
to the reporting of operating company executive compensation. While only
some of the meeting participants were familiar with the issues being debated
by compensation analysts, there was consensus support for encouraging
rigorous professional examination and definition of analytical alternatives
as a foundation for healthy marketplace competition. The Forum will
therefore organize a special workshop for qualified professionals to prepare
a report on analytical alternatives and associated information reporting
requirements.
Points of
Discussion - February 23, 2007 Workshop
1.
The current measures of stock awards
a.
Burn rate
b.
Stock overhang
2.
The pitfalls of the current measures
a.
Stock overhang is not taken into account in almost any analysis of
corporate value
b.
The stock overhang does not really take into account the impact of
the stock awards
c.
Companies do not report incentive pool numbers or success sharing
rations
i.
Cash (annual incentive, profit sharing and sales commissions)
ii.
Stock (un-levered companies would perform much better)
d.
ISS is in a central location in this process, but there information
is both flawed and not available
3.
What Can Investors, Analysts, Consultants and Boards Do?
a.
Investors:
Buy and sell stock based on financial outlook. They are very interested in
this sharing ration or load placed on the stock by management (and all
employees). What should be the proper ratio?
b.
Analysts: Need to take
the success sharing ration in their corporate analysis.
i.
For example, if a stock
rises to $50 and it triggers a large payout, this should be taken into
account when valuing a stock.
ii.
CD&A rules require that
prior stock awards be taken into account when making future awards.
c.
Consultants: They need to
take this into account stock overhang, burn rate and incentive ratios into
account in their advice to management and the board. A greater awareness of
corporate valuation is needed.
d.
Boards: Need to make sure
that investors are getting the information that they need and that the
consultants and management are providing adequate information so that they
can an informed decision.
4.
What can be done?
a.
Incentive compensation
decisions need to be tied to a unified approach.
b.
Stock overhang needs to be
taken into account when making incentive decisions
c.
More compensation needs to
be tied to financial goals that are tied to the financial success of the
company
d.
A ratio needs to be
created for each company that will indicate how much is allocated to
management and shareholders (similar to a mutual fund)
e.
A clearinghouse of
information needs to be created that will encourage this effort.
i.
This can be accomplished
in many ways, but the easiest way is for major providers of information to
estimate the effect of incentive plans on stock price.
Reading
Materials
1. Gordon,
Jeffrey N., Executive Compensation: If There’s a Problem, What’s the Remedy?
The Case for “Compensation Discussion and Analysis”
2.
Gabaix, Augustin &
Landier, Augustin, Why Has CEO Pay Increased so Much?
3.
Frederick W. Cook & Co., Inc.,
2006 Cost of Management Ratios
4.
Memo on Cost of Management
Ratios
5.
Hall, Brian and Murphy,
Kevin, The Trouble with Stock Options
|