• Home
  • Executive Benefits
    • Supplemental Executive Retirement Plans – SERP
    • Split Dollar Loans
    • Deferral Plans
    • Welfare Plans
  • Revenue Strategies
    • Bank/Business Owned Life Insurance – BOLI
    • Corporate Owned Life Insurance – COLI
    • Insurance Company Owned Life Insurance
    • Managed Accounts
    • Guaranteed Income Contracts
    • Fee Income Strategies
  • Asset Protection
    • Estate Planning
    • Business Succession Planning
    • Key Person Planning
  • About
    • R. Scott Richardson, JD
    • Brenda R. Haag
    • Bruce F. Barge
    • Chris A. Richardson
    • Debra Hardimon
    • Fannie Mae Pantaleon
    • Gary Wilberg
    • Jeff Prescher
    • Joe Tripalin
    • Patrick J. Costello
    • Philip Aderton
  • Resources
    • Blog
    • Events >
      • 2019 Client Conference
      • History – Calendars by Year >
        • 2017 Client Conference
        • 2015 Client Conference
    • Video Education
  • Contact
  • Home
  • Executive Benefits
    • Supplemental Executive Retirement Plans – SERP
    • Split Dollar Loans
    • Deferral Plans
    • Welfare Plans
  • Revenue Strategies
    • Bank/Business Owned Life Insurance – BOLI
    • Corporate Owned Life Insurance – COLI
    • Insurance Company Owned Life Insurance
    • Managed Accounts
    • Guaranteed Income Contracts
    • Fee Income Strategies
  • Asset Protection
    • Estate Planning
    • Business Succession Planning
    • Key Person Planning
  • About
    • R. Scott Richardson, JD
    • Brenda R. Haag
    • Bruce F. Barge
    • Chris A. Richardson
    • Debra Hardimon
    • Fannie Mae Pantaleon
    • Gary Wilberg
    • Jeff Prescher
    • Joe Tripalin
    • Patrick J. Costello
    • Philip Aderton
  • Resources
    • Blog
    • Events >
      • 2019 Client Conference
      • History – Calendars by Year >
        • 2017 Client Conference
        • 2015 Client Conference
    • Video Education
  • Contact
IZALE Financial Group

Blog

What Is the Pay Ratio Rule & Why Should You Care?

12/9/2016

0 Comments

 

By Greenberg Traurig, LLP from the AALU Washington Report

MARKET TREND:  The increased and sustained focus on executive compensation since the enactment of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd-Frank”) likely will gain momentum in light of the impending requirement under Section 953(b) of Dodd-Frank that such companies disclose information comparing their CEO’s compensation to the median compensation of their other employees (the “pay-ratio rule”).

SYNOPSIS:   Although the disclosure under the pay-ratio rule for calendar-year reporting companies likely will not be required until the spring of 2018 when such companies file their proxy statements in respect of 2017, in light of the complexity and anticipated implications associated with the disclosure, companies are advised to begin formulating their implementation approach now.  The rules include flexibility on methodology with respect to identifying a median employee, and the approach to selecting a methodology that best fits the company is likely to vary due to multiple factors, including industry.
TAKE AWAYS:   Companies required to disclose under the pay-ratio rule should take the following steps:

  • Reporting companies are advised to begin discussing implementation approaches with their compensation committees well in advance of the time in which the 2017 proxy is prepared.  Thoughtful consideration should be given to the employee profile of the company and whether such profile is typical to the industry and/or the company’s peer group.  If the company or the compensation committee engages a compensation consultant, he or she may be in a position to provide data on models and methodologies found to be best suited to an industry to illustrate accurately the ratio and median employee compensation.

  • In many cases, companies may benefit from analyzing 2016 compensation to estimate the likely ratio, experimenting with different methodological approaches.  

  • Under the pay-ratio rule, a registrant is permitted to supplement the required disclosure with explanatory narrative discussion or additional ratios, provided that such additional disclosure is not misleading, is clearly identified, and is not presented with greater prominence than the require disclosure. Accordingly, thought should be given to a complementary narrative disclosure that will help round out for shareholders whether and how the ratio reflects the company’s pay philosophy, efficiency, and other similar considerations.

  • As with the introduction of any new and recurring disclosure, the manner of presenting the information and the methodology employed should be determined with an eye to consistency across disclosure years, as any change in approach in future years likely will trigger explanatory disclosure regarding the change.

  • Regardless of what methodology is ultimately chosen, companies should consider any potential implications indirectly resulting from the required disclosure (for example, if the employee population is unionized in whole or part, the disclosure may impact collective agreements, and in any event, may create employee relations concerns and/or disrupt periodic pay negotiations for those whose pay is below the median).

  • Companies may wish to stay apprised of developing positions within the institutional shareholder and proxy advisor communities regarding ratios that are deemed unacceptable or egregious.

MAJOR REFERENCES:    Section 953(b) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act; Item 402 of Regulation S-K of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933; Compliance & Disclosure Interpretations for Regulation S-K updated October 18, 2016.
Listen to the Audiobook!
Get the Full Report
OVERVIEW

Objectives.  In August 2015, the Securities Exchange Commission (“SEC”) adopted a final rule regarding implementation of Dodd-Frank’s pay-ratio disclosure rule, which may impact many public companies.  Broadly understood, the intent of this rule is to increase transparency on compensatory practices within a public company, to contextualize CEO pay within the company, and to provide shareholders with information that may assist them in conducting the advisory “say on pay” vote also required pursuant to Dodd-Frank.

Requirements. Under the pay-ratio rule, in addition to existing disclosure obligations with respect to the compensation of CEOs and certain other executives, reporting companies generally must disclose (1) the annual total compensation of the CEO, (2) the median of the annual total compensation of its employees (other than the CEO), and (3) the ratio of those two amounts.

Application & Timing.  The pay-ratio rule is applicable with respect to a registrant’s first fiscal year beginning on or after January 1, 2017, and the disclosure is required in registration statements, proxy and information statements, and annual reports that require executive compensation disclosure.  As a practical matter, the required disclosure generally will begin showing up in filings around spring 2018.  Under the pay-ratio rule, certain reporting companies are exempted from the disclosure obligation, including any company that qualifies as a smaller reporting company, emerging growth company, or foreign private issuer.

IDENTIFYING MEDIAN EMPLOYEES

The pay-ratio rule provides some flexibility in identifying the median employee:
  • While the rule makes clear that, in establishing the relevant employee population, the company must take into account all of its employees and those of its consolidated subsidiaries (regardless of whether full- or part-time, temporary or permanent, seasonal or otherwise, and U.S. or non-U.S. (subject to two limited exceptions)), the company may determine such employees as of any date within the last three months of its last completed fiscal year.
  • In addition, although the annual total compensation for the median employee must be calculated consistently with the existing rules under Item 402(c)(2)(x) of Regulation S-K for the CEO’s compensation, the company may use reasonable estimates in calculating the elements comprising annual total compensation.
  • Finally, although the median employee must be an actual employee, the employee group from whom the median employee is selected may be the full population, or the company could instead use another reasonable method (such as statistical sampling or reasonable estimates), and the company may identify the median employee from the relevant population or sample using annual total compensation determined as described above or another compensation measure, provided it is consistently applied.
  • The median employee need only be identified every three years absent a change in the employee population or compensation arrangements that would materially impact the pay ratio disclosure. Note that the company will need to disclose and explain its choices in these matters, including any material assumptions, permitted adjustments (such as cost-of-living adjustments in certain cases), and estimates involved.

RECENT GUIDANCE

On October 18, 2016, SEC staff of the Division of Corporate Finance published interpretive guidance on the pay-ratio rule.  The five Compliance & Disclosure Interpretations (“CDIs”) further clarified the parameters for determining the median employee:

  • The first CDI addresses the use of a “consistently applied compensation measure” other than annual total compensation in identifying the median employee.  It notes that the latitude on this point was due in part to concerns over compliance costs had the rule required the company to calculate the annual total compensation for all employees.  This CDI confirms that any measure that reasonably reflects the annual compensation of employees is permissible, although the appropriateness of an alternative measure will be assessed based on the facts and circumstances of the company (such that, for example, a company that routinely grants equity awards to a significant number of employees could not reasonably rely only on cash compensation as the applicable measure).
  • The second CDI makes clear that a registrant may not rely exclusively on hourly or annual rates of pay as the alternative compensation measure, although reliance on such rates may be acceptable as an element of the measure where actual time worked is also factored in (thereby avoiding a measure based on annualized pay rather than actual pay).
  • The third CDI clarifies that, in applying the alternative compensation measure, the registrant is not required to use a time period that includes the same date on which the employee population is determined, and is not required to use a full annual period.
  • The fourth and fifth CDIs address individuals who are furloughed or independent contractors as of the date the employee population is determined, and conclude that the registrant must apply a facts and circumstances analysis to whether the individual should be included as an employee for purposes of the rule (although the rule generally does exclude workers who are employed, and whose compensation is determined, by a third party who is unaffiliated with the registrant, but who provide services to the registrant’s consolidated group as independent contractors or “leased” workers).

CONSIDERATIONS

On its face, the disclosure required by the pay-ratio rule is relatively straightforward.  However, the apparent simplicity of this requirement belies a fair amount of complexity and certainly will require reporting companies to make meaningful and considered determinations regarding implementation. The expectation among commentators and practitioners is that the disclosure is likely to draw general scrutiny, including significant attention from shareholders.  Accordingly, it is of strong importance that companies take deliberate steps in advance of the disclosure to ensure that what they ultimately file fairly and accurately reflects their practices.  We note, however, that President-elect Trump has made broad statements regarding plans to change or eliminate many of the Dodd-Frank rules, which may impact implementation of the pay-ratio rule. As the scope and timing of any changes is far from certain, AALU will continue to track and provide updates on any notable developments.

TAKE AWAYS – STEPS TO TAKE:       
  • Reporting companies are advised to begin discussing implementation approaches with their compensation committees well in advance of the time in which the 2017 proxy is prepared.
  • Thoughtful consideration should be given to the employee profile of the company and whether such profile is typical to the industry and/or the company’s peer group.  If the company or the compensation committee engages a compensation consultant, he or she may be in a position to provide data on models and methodologies found to be best suited to an industry to illustrate accurately the ratio and median employee compensation.
  • In many cases, companies may benefit from analyzing 2016 compensation to estimate the likely ratio, experimenting with different methodological approaches.  
  • Under the pay-ratio rule, a registrant is permitted to supplement the required disclosure with explanatory narrative discussion or additional ratios, provided that such additional disclosure is not misleading, is clearly identified, and is not presented with greater prominence than the require disclosure. Accordingly, thought should be given to a complementary narrative disclosure that will help round out for shareholders whether and how the ratio reflects the company’s pay philosophy, efficiency, and other similar considerations.
  • As with the introduction of any new and recurring disclosure, the manner of presenting the information and the methodology employed should be determined with an eye to consistency across disclosure years, as any change in approach in future years likely will trigger explanatory disclosure regarding the change.
  • Regardless of what methodology is ultimately chosen, companies should consider any potential implications indirectly resulting from the required disclosure (for example, if the employee population is unionized in whole or part, the disclosure may impact collective agreements, and in any event, may create employee relations concerns and/or disrupt periodic pay negotiations for those whose pay is below the median).
  • Companies may wish to stay apprised of developing positions within the institutional shareholder and proxy advisor communities regarding ratios that are deemed unacceptable or egregious.

DISCLAIMER

This information is intended solely for information and education and is not intended for use as legal or tax advice. Reference herein to any specific tax or other planning strategy, process, product or service does not constitute promotion, endorsement or recommendation by AALU. Persons should consult with their own legal or tax advisors for specific legal or tax advice.

WRM 16-47 was written by Greenberg Traurig, LLP
Jonathan M. Forster
Martin Kalb
Richard A. Sirus
Steven B. Lapidus
Rebecca Manicone

Counsel Emeritus
Gerald H. Sherman 1932-2012
Stuart Lewis 1945-2012
0 Comments

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply.

    IZALE Financial Group

    As an independent firm, we’re driven by close client relationships. For you, that means that our technical expertise is yours to rely on. 

    RSS Feed

    View my profile on LinkedIn

    Archives

    September 2018
    August 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    November 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    March 2015
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013


    Categories

    All
    1035 Tax Deferred Exchange
    2018
    401K
    457f Plans
    AALU
    Articles
    Asset Man
    Asset Management
    Asset Protection
    BalancedComp
    Bank
    Banking
    Bank Owned Life Insurance
    Bankruptcy
    Banks
    Basel III
    Beneficiary
    Benefit Plans
    Benefits
    Board Of Directors
    BOL
    BOLI
    Brian Smedley
    Bruce Barge
    Business Owned Life Insurance
    Capital Conservation Buffer
    Capital Management
    Capital Requirements
    CBAI
    CDI
    CEO
    CFO
    Chris
    Chris Richardson
    Clawback
    Cole Frago
    COLI
    Common Equity
    Commuity Bank Of Trenton
    Community Banking
    Community Banks
    Compensation
    Connecticut Court
    Consumer Protection Act
    Consumer Protection Act Of 2010
    Corporate Owned Life Insurance
    Corporate Taxation
    CPA
    Credit Rates
    Credit Union
    Credit Union Magazine
    Credit Union National Association
    Credit Unions
    CUES
    CUNA
    DBO
    Death Benefits
    Divorce
    Dodd Frank Wall Street Reform
    Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform
    Econocheck
    Economic Forecast
    Employee Benefits
    ERISA
    Estate Planning
    Estate Tax
    Estate Trust
    Executive Benefits
    Executive Compensation
    Executive Retirement Plans
    Family Legacy
    FDIC
    Fee-based Checking
    Fee Checking
    Fee Income Strategies
    FICA
    Finance Industry
    Financial Education
    Financial Executives
    Financial Managers Society
    Financial Planning
    Finanical Reporting
    Fintect
    Fiscal Year 2015
    Fixed Income
    FL
    FMS
    Fmstv
    FRS
    Gary Wilberg
    Gerald H. Sherman
    Gift Tax
    Greenberg Traurig
    Greene V. Commissioner
    Guggenheim Partners
    House Ways And Means
    IDProtect
    Incentive Based Compensation
    Incentive-based Compensation
    Income Tax
    Inherit
    Inheritance
    In-Laws
    Insurance
    Insurance Premium
    Insurance Tax Liability
    Investment Portfolio
    Investments
    IRA
    IRC
    Irrevocable Trust
    IRS
    IZALE
    IZALE Financial Group
    IZALE Testimonial
    JB Barnes
    Jobs Act 2017
    Joe Tripalin
    Jonathan Barnes
    Jonathan M. Forster
    Ken Kies
    Key Person Life Policy
    Las Vegas
    Leadership
    Legacy Planning
    Life Insurance
    Life Policy
    LLP
    Martin Kalb
    Matt Bush
    Media
    National Credit Union Administration
    NCUA
    Non-interest Income
    Non-profit
    Nonqualified Deferred Compensation
    Nonqualified Plans
    Obama Administration
    Orlando
    Pay Ratio Rule
    Phil Aderton
    Philip Aderton
    Premarital Planning
    President Obama
    President's Budget
    Press
    Press Releases
    Profit Sharing
    PRS
    Rebecca Manicone
    Regulationry Issues
    Regulatory Capital Calculation
    Regulatory Environments
    Resources
    Retirement
    Retirement Plan
    Revenue Strategies
    Richard A. Sirus
    Risk Management
    Roth
    R. Scott Richardson
    SBLI Term Life Insurance
    Scott Richardson
    SEC
    Secure Checking
    SERP
    Small Business Resale
    Social Security Tax
    Split Dollar Plans
    Steve Brown
    Steve Fichtenbaum
    Steven B. Lapidus
    Stock Exchange
    Stuart Lewis
    Tax Benefit
    Tax Code
    Tax Court
    Tax Cuts
    Tax Cuts And Jobs Act Of 2017
    Tax Deductions
    Tax Deferred Assets
    Tax Incentives
    Tax Law
    Tax Liabilities
    Tax Planning
    Tax Refor
    Tax Reform
    TCJA 2017
    The Forum
    Trust
    Trustee
    Trusts
    US Supreme Court
    Washington Report
    Webinars
    Webinar W.O.W.S.
    WRMarketplace
    WRNewswire

Client Log-In

Log in to Pangburn
Log in to RBOLI.com

Contact

 855-492-5334 | Contact
Join Our Mailing List
© 2011 - 2019 IZALE Financial Group. All rights reserved. Login.
​Effective June 9, 2017, all individuals who provide advice to retirement plans, including Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs), must abide by the fiduciary standard.  What does the fiduciary standard mean?  This means that your advisor must put your interests first before their own or that of the firm, make prudent recommendations, charge reasonable compensation and make no misrepresentations to you regarding recommended investments.  The recommendations made by your advisor must be based upon your specific investment needs and objectives.  The fiduciary standard is applicable to any recommendations that your advisor makes to you, the client, for your retirement account. 

Please note the firm does have policies and procedures in place to monitor this level of fiduciary responsibility for our clients.
IZALE Financial Group does insurance business in California as IZALE LLC Insurance Agency
This site is published for residents of the United States only. Representatives may only conduct business with residents of the states and jurisdictions in which they are properly registered. Therefore, a response to a request for information may be delayed until appropriate registration is obtained or exemption from registration is determined. Not all of services referenced on this site are available in every state and through every advisor listed. For additional information, please contact Scott Richardson at 855-492-5334 .