rémunération

L’Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance publie une intéressante synthèse portant sur la rémunération des hauts dirigeants en période post-pandémie : « Evolving Compensation Responses to the Global Pandemic » (par Mike Kesner, Sandra Pace et John Sinkular, 7 novembre 2020).

Résumé :

• For many of the companies severely harmed by the global pandemic, immediate cost-cutting measures were necessary to protect the business including furloughs, layoffs, suspended 401(k) matching contributions, and base salary reductions for most/all of the workforce.
• Many of these companies approved their fiscal 2020 annual and long-term incentive (LTI) plans and prior LTI performance awards (i.e., 2018-2020 and 2019-2021 cycles) without any consideration for a global pandemic. These incentives often represent ≥50% of an executive’s annual compensation (≥70% in the case of the CEO), and it is highly likely the performance-contingent incentives are tracking to a zero payout and time-vested restricted stock units (RSUs) have greatly diminished in value.
• The reduced value of realizable compensation directionally aligns with companies’ pay-for-performance (P4P) philosophies; however, the reductions are largely based on an unprecedented shutdown of the global economy due to health concerns and a reshaping of how many companies will “do business” now and into the future.
• Severely harmed companies are assessing the near- and long-term implications of the downturn on all stakeholders and determining if changes to annual and long-term incentive programs are appropriate to balance the company’s talent goals with its P4P philosophy.

À la prochaine…

Dans un article du Financial Times (« European companies were more keen to cut divis than executive pay », 9 septembre 2020), il est observé que les assemblées annuelles de grandes entreprises européennes montrent des disparités concernant la protection des salariés et la réduction des dividendes.

Extrait :

Businesses in Spain, Italy, the Netherlands and the UK were more likely to cut dividends than executive pay this year, despite calls from shareholders for bosses to share the financial pain caused by the pandemic.

More than half of Spanish businesses examined by Georgeson, a corporate governance consultancy, cancelled, postponed or reduced dividends in 2020. Only 29 per cent introduced a temporary reduction in executive pay. In Italy, 44 per cent of companies changed their dividend policies because of Covid-19, but just 29 per cent cut pay for bosses, according to the review of the annual meeting season in Europe.

This disparity between protection of salaries and bonuses at the top while shareholders have been hit with widespread dividend cuts is emerging as a flashpoint for investors. Asset managers such as Schroders and M&G have spoken out about the need for companies to show restraint on pay if they are cutting dividends or receiving government support. “Executive remuneration remains a key focal point for investors and was amongst the most contested resolutions in the majority of the markets,” said Georgeson’s Domenic Brancati.

But he added that despite this focus, shareholder revolts over executive pay had fallen slightly across Europe compared with 2019 — suggesting that investors were giving companies some leeway on how they dealt with the pandemic. Investors could become more vocal about this issue next year, he said.

One UK-based asset manager said it was “still having lots of conversations with companies around pay” but for this year had decided not to vote against companies on the issue. But it added the business would watch remuneration and dividends closely next year.

Companies around the world have cut or cancelled dividends in response to the crisis, hitting income streams for many investors. According to Janus Henderson, global dividends had their biggest quarterly fall in a decade during the second quarter, with more than $100bn wiped off their value. The Georgeson data shows that almost half of UK companies changed their dividend payout, while less than 45 per cent altered executive remuneration. In the Netherlands, executive pay took a hit at 29 per cent of companies, while 34 per cent adjusted dividends. In contrast, a quarter of Swiss executives were hit with a pay cut but only a fifth of companies cut or cancelled their dividend.

The Georgeson research also found that the pandemic had a significant impact on the AGM process across Europe, with many companies postponing their annual meetings or stopping shareholders from voting during the event.

À la prochaine…

Dans un article intitulé « The Pandemic and Executive Pay », Aniel Mahabier, Iris Gushi, and Thao Nguyen reviennent sur les conséquences de la COVID-19 en termes de niveaux de rémunération des CA et des hauts-dirigeants. Portant sur les entreprises du Russell 3000, cet article offre une belle synthèse et est très parlante.

Extrait :

Is Reducing Base Salary Enough?

While salary reductions for Executives are greatly appreciated in this difficult time and are meant to show solidarity with employees, the fact is that base salary is only a fraction of the often enormous compensation packages granted to CEO’s and other Executives. Compensation packages predominately consist of cash bonuses and equity awards. Even though 80% of the Russell 3000 companies have disclosed 2019 compensation for Executives, we have not witnessed any companies making adjustments to these figures in light of the crisis, even for companies in hard-hit industries.

Edward Bastian, CEO of Delta Airlines, has agreed to cut 100% of his base salary for 6 months, [1] which equals USD 714,000, but still holds on to his 2019 cash and stock awards of USD 16 million, which were granted earlier in 2020. [2] Another interesting case is MGM Resorts International, where CEO Jim Murren was supposed to stay through 2021 to receive USD 32 million in compensation, including USD 12 million in severance. According to the terms of his termination agreement, he would not receive the compensation package if he left before 2021. [3] However, days after he resigned voluntarily in March, MGM announced that his resignation would be treated as a “termination without good cause”, which would qualify him to receive the full USD 32 million package. [4] In the meantime, 63,000 employees of MGM have been furloughed and will possibly be fired. [5]

Furthermore, activist investors have begun to feel unhappy about some executive pay actions amid the pandemic. CtW Investment Group, an investor of Uber, urged shareholders to reject Uber’s compensation package at the Annual General Meeting since it includes a USD 100 million equity grant to the CEO. [6]

While the ride-hailing company has suffered from a USD 2.9 billion first quarter net loss in 2020 [7] and planned to lay off 6,700 employees [8] (about 30% of its workforce), its CEO Dara Khosrowshahi only took a 100% base salary cut from May until the end of 2020, [9] which totals USD 666,000, and took home a USD 42.4 million pay package for 2019.

The same investor also urged shareholders of McDonald’s to vote against the USD 44 million+ exit package, including USD 700,000 in cash severance, for former CEO Stephen Easterbrook, who was fired last year over violation of company policies due to his relationship with an employee. [10]

The investor’s efforts failed in both instances and the CEO’s took home millions of dollars while their companies are struggling.

Since the COVID-19 outbreak, a number of public companies have gone bankrupt. Nevertheless, large sums of compensation were paid out to their Executives. Retailer J. C. Penney paid almost USD 10 million in bonuses to top executives [11] and oil company Whiting Petroleum issued USD 14.6 million in bonuses for its C-suite, [12] just days before both companies filed for bankruptcy.

Another school of thought is that the practice of issuers deferring executive salary cuts into RSUs will give rise to huge payouts in the future when the market eventually recovers and share value increases. This means that Executives who deferred their base salary have made a sacrifice that ultimately will benefit them, defeating the purpose of pay cuts.

Although the economic impacts of the pandemic on businesses are still on-going, the number of pay cuts announced has slowed since the end of May. As the effects continue to unfold over the next months, we expect companies to continue to re-evaluate their executive compensation policies. COVID-19 has changed daily lives, business operations, and the economy. Even though we will only know the full extent of impact in the second half of 2020, COVID-19 will certainly change executive pay and corporate governance practices in the future.

À la prochaine…

Le High Pay Centre anglais vient de publier son rapport 2019 sur la rémunération des hauts dirigeants : « HPC/CIPD Annual FTSE 100 CEO Pay Review – CEO pay flat in 2019 ». Je vous laisse découvrir les chiffres, mais j’attire votre attention sur les conséquences de la COVID-19.

Extrait :

Covid-19 pay cuts

• 36 FTSE 100 companies have announced cuts to executive pay in response to the COVID-19 crisis and economic downturn. 
• While most of the 36 companies have used a combination of measures to cut pay, the report suggests these are mainly superficial or short-term. The most common measure, taken by 14 companies, has been to cut salaries at the top by 20%. However, salaries typically only make up a small part of a FTSE 100 CEO’s total pay package.
• 11 companies have cancelled Short-Term Incentive Plans (STIPs) for their CEOs while two other firms have deferred salary increases for their CEOs. None of the 36 companies have chosen to reduce their CEO’s Long-Term Incentive Plan (LTIP), which typically makes up half of a CEO’s total pay package.

À la prochaine…

L’Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance publie un bel article sur les conséquences de la COVID-19 sur la rémunération des hauts dirigeants des entreprises américaines : « COVID-19 and Executive Pay: Initial Reactions and Responses«  (de Stephen Charlebois, Phillip Pennell, and Rachel Ki).

Extrait :

Though businesses have managed executive pay programs through tough economic conditions before, they now must do so under an unprecedented confluence of external expectations and scrutiny, from the advent of Say on Pay to increased shareholder engagement to the beginning of an era of stakeholder primacy.

While results vary across industries, findings indicate that a majority of U.S. corporations have not yet formulated a response to COVID-19 on executive pay but anticipate taking some form of action later in 2020.

What should you take away from the results of this survey?

• There is no universal response. Findings indicate a variety of approaches influenced by company outlook, industry dynamics and broader context
• That said, most companies are delaying action until there is greater clarity. Companies that already made pay decisions are generally waiting until payout determinations to see if adjustments are necessary, and those that have not yet made decisions in 2020 are delaying until the impact of COVID-19 is better understood
• Companies acting now are doing so out of necessity and are primarily in the hardest-hit industries where immediate cash preservation is a key priority

What are key considerations going forward?

• Timely, effective communication is key. Shareholders, employees and customers are all closely monitoring the actions companies are taking in response to the crisis; if decisions are made, transparent and honest communication can build positive alignment and strengthen relationships with key stakeholders
• Align executive pay with the stakeholder experience. Company actions are being closely monitored and the expectation is that shareholder experience should be reflected in compensation decisions (i.e., significant shareholder value losses or headcount reductions are accompanied by lower pay outcomes for executives)
• Establish objective principles for using discretion. While quantitative metrics may be difficult to rely on at this time, establishing a list of factors for Committees to consider if they decide to apply discretion at the end of the year will allow companies to demonstrate that decisions were made in ways that demonstrably tie back to business context.

À la prochaine…

Le MÉDAC produit un intéressant billet sur l’état de la baisse de rémunération de la haute direction dans le contexte de la COVID-19 : « Réduire le salaire d’un PDG et accroître sa rémunération en même temps » (Dominique Lemoine, 5 juin 2020).

Extrait :

Des chefs de direction se targuent d’avoir renoncé à une partie de leur salaire dans le contexte de la pandémie, mais leur conseil d’administration pourrait modifier leur régime de rémunération globale pour préserver leur train de vie.

Selon l’agence de presse Associated Press (AP), dans le contexte du dévoilement d’une étude Equilar/AP au sujet de la rémunération de 329 chefs de la direction d’entreprises inscrites à l’indice boursier S&P 500, des investisseurs et actionnaires restent sur leurs gardes, car des CA considèrent revoir les objectifs de performance de leur chef de direction, afin de les rendre plus faciles à atteindre dans le contexte actuel, donc de rendre plus accessibles les incitatifs financiers liés à la performance.

De plus, par exemple, des CA pourraient aussi décider d’octroyer de plus gros blocs d’actions à leur chef de la direction, de manière à « compenser les chutes des valeurs boursières plus tôt cette année, comme plusieurs entreprises avaient fait après la crise financière de 2008 ».

Dans les deux cas, « le risque est que s’il y a un fort rebond du marché, cela pourrait mener à une manne financière », selon la directrice générale adjointe du Council of Institutional Investors, Amy Borrus, citée par l’AP, d’autant plus que « le marché a déjà récupéré plus de la moitié de ses pertes », ajoute l’AP.

De son côté, la firme de gestion d’actifs Vanguard considère que les cibles de performance ne devraient pas être rendues plus faciles à atteindre, parce que les formes de rémunération non garanties devraient demeurer non garanties.

Faire bonne figure

Selon l’AP, la rémunération globale 2020 des chefs de direction sera examinée à la loupe en 2021, par exemple aux assemblées annuelles, par les actionnaires, les investisseurs potentiels et les parties intéressées, comme le public.

« Vous ne pouvez pas être l’organisation qui a mis à pied des employés […] et dont le chef de direction a néanmoins reçu des hausses de salaire et de bonis », selon une associée du cabinet-conseil Compensation Advisory Partners, Melissa Burek, elle aussi citée par l’AP.

Selon Vanguard, les CA devraient considérer la dimension sociale de leurs décisions en matière de rémunération des hauts dirigeants, la manière dont ces décisions seront perçues par le public, ainsi les risques réputationnels pour l’organisation liés à l’octroi au mauvais moment de rémunérations déconnectées de la réalité et du vécu des parties intéressées, comme les employés et la communauté.

À la prochaine…

La COVID-19 amène à faire des choix délicats en matière de gestion des RH et des parties prenantes. Le New York Times propose un article intéressant de M. Schwartz intitulé « Pay Cuts Become a Tool for Some Companies to Avoid Layoffs » (24 mai 2020) sur le dilemme entre réduction de la rémunération ou licenciement. La première option semble avoir plus de succès…

Extrait :

It was late and Martin A. Kits van Heyningen feared he was letting the team down at the company he co-founded, KVH Industries. Rather than lay off workers in response to the coronavirus pandemic, he had decided to cut salaries, and when he emailed a video explaining his decision at 3 a.m. last month, he was prepared for a barrage of complaints.

Instead, he woke to an outpouring of support from employees that left him elated.

“It was one of the hardest things I’ve done, but it turned out to be the best day of my life at work,” said Mr. Kits van Heyningen. “I was trying to keep their morale up. Instead, they kept my morale up.”

Even as American employers let tens of millions of workers go, some companies are choosing a different path. By instituting across-the-board salary reductions, especially at senior levels, they have avoided layoffs.

The ranks of those forgoing job cuts and furloughs include major employers like HCA Healthcare, the hospital chain, and Aon, a London-based global professional services firm with a regional headquarters in Chicago. Chemours, a specialty chemical maker in Wilmington, Del., cut pay by 30 percent for senior management and preserved jobs. Others that managed to avoid layoffs include smaller companies like KVH, a maker of mobile connectivity and navigation systems that employs 600 globally and is based in Middletown, R.I.

The trend is a reversal of traditional management theory, which held that salaries were sacred and it was better to cut positions and dismiss a limited number of workers than to lower pay for everyone during downturns.

There is often a genuine desire to protect employees, but long-term financial interests are a major consideration as well, said Donald Delves, a compensation expert with Willis Towers Watson.

“A lot has happened in the last 10 years,” Mr. Delves said. “Companies learned the hard way that once you lay off a bunch of people, it’s expensive and time-consuming to hire them back. Employees are not interchangeable.”

A recent study by the Conference Board with Semler Brossy, an executive compensation research firm, and Esgauge, a data analytics firm, found that 537 public companies had cut pay of senior management since the crisis began. The study did not specify whether any had also cut jobs, however.

To be sure, if the crisis lasts longer than expected and the economy keeps shrinking, it is possible these salary reductions will not be enough to stave off job cuts. Other large corporations have cut salaries as well as jobs to stem coronavirus-related losses.

Still, the sudden nature of the economic threat has created a different mind-set among some managers than existed during the last recession, Mr. Delves said. Some companies did try to cut pay rather than jobs back then, but the impulse seems more widespread now.

“What we’re seeing this time around is more of a sense of shared sacrifice and shared pain,” he added.

When the pandemic hit, HCA was increasing revenue and adding employees, said its chief executive, Sam Hazen, “and to put them out on the street because of some virus just wasn’t something I was going to do.”

With stay-at-home orders covering much of the country and bans on elective surgery in many states, HCA’s hospitals were left with a revenue shortfall. The company suspended its share repurchases and quarterly dividend to bolster its financial position, and it reduced capital spending.

Mr. Hazen donated his salary for April and May to an internal fund for employees in distress, while senior management took a 30 percent pay cut. White-collar employees at lower levels saw their compensation reduced by 10 to 20 percent.

All in all, about 15,000 employees were affected, out of a total of 275,000. The company does not expect the pay reductions to extend beyond June.

HCA also created a pandemic pay program that allowed more than 120,000 nonexecutive hospital employees to receive 70 percent of what they earned before the virus hit. Employees, including union members, are also being asked to forgo a raise this year.

(…) Aon, with 50,000 workers around the world, was even more aggressive about reducing salaries. Top executives there gave up 50 percent of their pay, with most remaining employees getting a cut of 20 percent.

“We wanted to say no one would lose their job because of Covid-19,” said Greg Case, Aon’s chief executive.

Mr. Case said he was heartened because overseas employees, who had the right to reject the salary cuts, overwhelmingly accepted them. About two-thirds of Aon’s work force is outside the United States.

But Mr. Case said the company was bracing for long-term disruption. “The risk on the horizon is potentially much greater than 2008-9,” he said. “We are preparing for scenarios that are multiples worse than that.” Aon says the need for the pay cuts will be reviewed monthly.

Avoiding layoffs will leave Aon better prepared for when the economy does rebound, Mr. Case said. “When clients need us most, we will be there,” he said.

Certainly, for chief executives and the highest-ranking officers, salary cuts are not as painful as it would first appear. That’s because for most, the bulk of their compensation comes in stock awards, said Amit Batish, manager of content and communications for Equilar, a private research firm that tracks executive pay.

“Salaries are a drop in the bucket for most executives, but it does send the message that we are helping out the organization,” he said.

Still, the fact that a few companies were able to avoid layoffs by reducing salaries raises the question of whether more businesses could have averted job cuts in the last two months.

With government unemployment benefits available for laid-off workers, many American companies were quick to cut their work forces, said Kathryn Neel, a managing director at Semler Brossy. “In European countries, where wages were subsidized, they managed to keep more people on the payroll,” she added.

Sharing the pain more broadly this way might have prevented the unemployment rate from hitting its highest level since the Great Depression while also better positioning companies for the eventual recovery.

Firms that cut heavily in 2008-9 were not ready when the economy eventually rebounded, according to Gregg Passin, a senior partner at the human resources consulting firm Mercer. “They lagged companies that were more cautious about cutting people,” he said.

A no-layoffs policy also builds loyalty. “No one wants to be in a situation where their salary is cut,” Mr. Passin said. “But we really do believe the way you treat employees today is the way they’ll treat you tomorrow.”

À la prochaine…