Author: ERI

What Do Nonprofit Jobs Pay and Where Are They?

Posted on | by ERI

Sometimes a nonprofit job looks good.  Maybe you have made enough money to accept a lowersalary to work for a mission you are passionate about, or maybe any job looks good when you are not working. But what do nonprofit jobs pay and where exactly are they?

ERI’s compensation research shows that a CFO in a human services charity with $10 million in revenue in New York State would typically earn about $112,000 annually, while a similar CFO in a NYS for-profit company with $10 million in revenue averages nearly twice as much — almost $209,000 including the cash bonus! But health care sector salary differences tend to be minimized, as nonprofit hospitals must typically pay closer to for-profit rates to attract qualified candidates.  So the nonprofit versus for-profit salary differential varies with the type of nonprofit.  Get more salary information on nonprofit and for-profit salaries at www.erieri.com.

If you are not discouraged yet, the newly released national Nonprofit Employment Trends Survey (http://www.nonprofithr.com/clientuploads/2011EmploymentTrendsSurvey_WebReady.pdf) has some ideas about where to look for that nonprofit job. Analysis of the responses from over 450 nonprofits revealed the following trends:

  • Nearly 25% decreased the number of staff in 2010, but 60% said they intend to hire or are considering hiring this year.
  • Where new hires come from depends on the position level:
    • Entry-level:  50% from outside the nonprofit sector.
    • Experienced: 40% from within, 40% from other nonprofits, and 20% from outside the sector.
    • Senior/executive level: 25% from within, 50% from other nonprofits, and 20% from outside the sector.

The largest job growth will be at mid-sized and large organizations and in direct services, such as counseling, tutoring and mentoring programs (35%), along with program management/support (18%) and fundraising/development (15%).

To find candidates, nonprofits first use informal networking with colleagues and friends and formal networking with other nonprofits. Next, most used are online editions of local newspapers and Craigslist, followed by Idealist.org, CareerBuilder.com, and Monster.com.

So if you want that nonprofit job, try to maximize your networking opportunities:

  • Take a locally offered course in nonprofit management and finance.  Learn what you need to know and also meet others.
  • Sign up as a volunteer to help nonprofits with marketing, accounting and other areas and pick up some training, field experience, and networking opportunities.
  • Volunteer at a local charity whose mission you believe in. You never know where it will lead and whether you will meet a person there who could help in your job quest.

Executive Compensation: Reporting Equity Values

Posted on | by ERI

Executive compensation is almost synonymous with equity compensation given that 60% or more of executive pay is aligned with equity instruments. The two most prevalent pricing models used to value equity compensation are Black Scholes and Binomial (Lattice). Understanding the fundamental design of these models can aid the executive compensation practitioner to manage the information requirements for disclosure, to assess effective equity plan designs, and to enhance compensation communications.

Since 2005, the accounting regulations Financial Accounting Standard (FAS) 123R and its subsequent replacement, ASC 718, in 2009, have required companies to report the fair value (FV) of all equity-based compensation which becomes an expense that directly affects the income statement. The Black Scholes or Binomial models are used by most (if not all) publicly traded corporations to report the FV of equity compensation.  These models take into consideration plan design characteristics, allow for sensitivity analysis with volatility assumptions, and reflect exercise behavior realities. The standard inputs to both models are:

Current stock price

Exercise price

Risk free interest rate

Expected dividends on stock

Expected stock price volatility

Expected term of option

Companies are required to disclose in Annual Reports / 10-K filings the assumptions and input values used in these valuation models. Determining the value for expected term relies on the behavior of employees who hold options and is less predictable. For private firms (who tend to use Black Scholes), the expected volatility of their stock is also less predictable since they have no trading history like public firms. The stock price, exercise price, risk free interest rate, and expected dividends tend to be more stable inputs to the models.

According to a June 2010 Radford Survey, the number of companies adopting the Binomial model for FV calculations has increased over 1149% since 2003 (see http://www.radford.com/home/ccg/valuation_services/Binomial_Model.pdf). The Binomial (Lattice) model is more dynamic, lends itself to simulation techniques, and allows for a range of values for volatility, risk free interest rate, and expected term. Becton Dickinson adopted the Binomial model in 2004 and its recent Annual Report disclosed sets of 3-years of assumptions and inputs used in the valuing its stock appreciation rights (SARs).

For both models, there is a generic version plus several variations that capture granular assumptions to make the models more predictive, albeit more complex. Depending on the complexity of the equity programs, the business model in which the organization operates, and the cost/benefit trade-off of adopting a more complex pricing model, it can incorporate one or more of these additional variables:

  • Expected holding period and exercise history (both pre- and post-termination).
  • Vesting period and company-specific exercise rules.
  • Termination rate or forfeiture rate (the probability of a vested option being canceled).
  • Blackout periods and arrangements for automatic exercise.

Plan Ahead for Executive Compensation Consultant Independence

Posted on | by ERI

Additional Dodd Frank rules related to executive compensation will likely be approved before the end of 2011. One of the rules is disclosure of compensation consultant independence. The rule will likely require disclosing answers to the following questions:

  • Did the compensation committee retain a compensation consultant?
  • Was a risk assessment conducted to determine if there is a conflict of interest with the work performed by the compensation consultant?
  • What was the outcome of the assessment, and how were any identified risks addressed/mitigated?

This rule is similar to the legislation enacted in 2000 regarding independence of auditing firms and the non-audit services they provide which may impair independence. A similar thought process will be needed to demonstrate independence by reviewing and disclosing the following:

  • Other services provided by the compensation consultant’s employer
  • Compensation consultant’s ownership of stock of the company
  • Relationship between the consultant and a member of the compensation committee
  • Policies/procedures of consultant’s employer designed to prevent conflicts of interest
  • Fees paid to the compensation consultant’s employer as a % of employer’s total revenues

Executive compensation consulting firms typically offer supplemental services which may compromise independence and create potential conflicts of interest. Figuring out how independence should be addressed may require prohibiting other services to be provided by the consulting firm. A common practice used by some organizations to diffuse the independence concerns is to not use a compensation consultant every year but rather every two or three years, allowing for some trending for the new plans and pay programs. Another solution is to define a process establishing “arms length distance” for services received or rendered by the consulting firm or client organization to ensure no conflict of interest. Some supplemental services that may impinge on the consulting firm’s independence are:

  • Market pay survey databases and related salary administration services
  • Non-qualified deferred compensation consulting
  • Actuarial and valuation services
  • Insurance brokerage and investment advisory services
  • Tax financial planning and/or investment advisory services
  • Human resource outsourcing services
  • Executive search and individual executive advisory services

To further illuminate this independence concern, there was a recent study, “Compensation Consultant Independence and CEO Pay,” published January 2011 suggesting that compensation consultants that also provide “other services” positively correlated to compensation consultant recommending higher executive compensation pay levels. (For additional information, use this link and click on “one-click” download: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1735506).

An outgrowth of this independence requirement is the increased use of “boutique” executive compensation consulting firms that do not “sponsor” executive compensation surveys/data and exclusively use third party surveys. Many of the principals of these boutique firms are former executives of the global HR Consulting firm that offer services in executive compensation:

New IRS Rules Ahead for Unreasonable Nonprofit Compensation?

Posted on | by ERI

Nonprofits may face some new rules on setting executive compensation and self-dealing if Congress acts on recommendations from Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA), ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee. Although this report focuses on media-based ministries, it also includes recommendations that would change which organizations are given nonprofit status by IRS, expand penalties on self-dealing, and establish new regulations on setting executive compensation for all nonprofits.

Current Requirements: 

Public charities now must report each year on how they set executive compensation. The IRS says that process should include:

  • Documenting the compensation policies and procedures in advance and including them in board minutes.
  • Collecting comparable salaries (for like services, in like enterprises, in like circumstances).
  • Setting compensation in advance on the basis of appropriate comparability data.
  • Making sure that no one involved in setting salaries has a conflict of interest.
  • Reporting all economic benefits to officers, directors, and key employees on Form 990.

The IRS now allows an organization to establish a rebuttable presumption of reasonableness (meaning the burden of proof that the compensation is unreasonable is on the IRS) if nonprofits use an independent survey of comparability data. Information and software that easily provide the necessary analyses can be obtained from ERI’s Nonprofit Salary Assessor, SalariesReview, Abbott, Langer Association Surveys, and other salary survey sources that specialize in the nonprofit sector.  But that may now change.

The Grassley Report Recommendations
The report recommends that Congress consider allowing IRS to give charity status only if an organization expressly prohibits excess benefit transactions to disqualified persons. Also, it calls for:

  • Imposing penalties if a manager had a “reason to know” an action was wrong, rather than the current standard of “knowingly participated in or approved” it.
  • Extending the penalties for excess benefit transactions to the organization if its board does not include sufficient independent members.
  • Replacing the rebuttable presumption standards with stronger guidelines and more reporting requirements on how compensation was determined.
  • Clarifying guidelines for how “comparable” pay is determined, including when for-profit comparisons are appropriate.

These are pretty radical changes and no one knows whether Congress will take them seriously or not. But in the meantime, all nonprofits should be clear that the public is concerned about nonprofit compensation and IRS compliance efforts are ongoing.

Nonprofit Compensation When Times are Tough

Posted on | by ERI

Setting compensation in nonprofits is tough these days – you need to attract and retain the needed staff, managers, and executives, but work within a tight budget that may even be shrinking. And prepare to explain (and perhaps defend) your salary decisions when questioned by funders, donors, media, members of the public, and perhaps clients and staff members.

Typically salaries represent well over 50% of an organization’s budget, so compensation mistakes are costly. Nonprofits stand to lose valuable staff or waste scarce resources and even forfeit their credibility within their communities. Some basic concepts to keep in mind about nonprofit compensation:

• What you need to pay is dependent on the labor market for the job. For example, a nonprofit hospital seeking a CEO has to compete for talent with for-profit and government hospitals, and the search could be statewide, or nationwide. A small nonprofit providing after school programs looking for an Executive Director would value other human services experience in the same area. Typically, the smaller the size, the more local the search.

• Size of the organization is important for executive jobs. Compensation for management tends to rise with revenues/assets, whether nonprofit or for-profit. The logic is that the bigger the size, the more dollars, revenue, clients, etc., are affected by management decisions.

• For non-management jobs, what counts is years of experience, not size of organization. if a company doubles in size, the director of accounting (management) may get a raise, but a bookkeeper probably won’t – an additional bookkeeper will be hired to do the extra work. So pay for the lower level job tends to be based on the experience the job requires or the experience of the incumbent.

• For non-management jobs, specific nonprofit experience is necessary. When looking for a receptionist, the desired qualities are friendliness, good organizational skills, etc.—similar experience in a company or government agency would also be relevant.

Whatever the compensation decisions, nonprofits must follow the practices required by IRS – collect the appropriate data and use them to make defensible decisions that reflect the organization’s compensation philosophy. Nonprofit resources need to be spent right – enough for compensation to attract, retain, and motivate the staff, while leaving sufficient dollars to achieve the organizational mission. And that becomes even more challenging in difficult economic times.

Quiksilver Executive Compensation Disclosures in 2011 Proxy Statement Filing

Posted on | by ERI

Let’s take a closer look at the disclosures related to executive compensation in the Compensation Discussion & Analysis (CD&A) section of Quiksilver’s recent proxy statement, filed February 9, 2011 for its upcoming annual meeting on March 22, 2011. Some of the key highlights are as follows:

  • The compensation committee did not use a compensation consultant or any professional third party consulting services for fiscal year 2010 to evaluate their executive compensation programs.
  • Annual Base Salary: Philosophy is to pay a base salary that is at or above the midpoint of the applicable salary range for “similarly situated” companies; the compensation committee has not identified a specific or consistent group of companies that is similarly situated.
  • Annual Discretionary Cash Bonus: This is paid out based on financial and operating performance, as well as the executive officer’s individual performance in the prior fiscal year. Quiksilver recently announced that it adopted a formal incentive cash bonus plan.  The compensation committee intends to establish specific financial targets and personal objectives for each named executive officer under this plan with respect to the 2011 fiscal year; a Form 8-K was also filed in this regard.
  • Long Term Incentive Plan (LTIP): The LTIP pays a percentage of base salary based on EPS growth with a maximum of 200% of the salary. There were no payments for the fiscal year ending October 2010. The board has no plans to issue new awards and it currently has no awards outstanding.
  • Equity Based Compensation: Quiksilver has a Discretionary Stock Option Grant and Restricted Stock Program. Although discretionary, it restricts the administrators from being able to set the grant date price lower than the fair market value of stock on the day of grant. Grant size and vesting triggers are completely discretionary.There were no grants of restricted stock made to an executive in the fiscal year 2010.
  • Perquisites: This includes health and group term life insurance benefits, supplemental long-term disability benefits, 401(k) matching, and a clothing allowance. The committee eliminated a component of the COO’s expatriate allowance, which previously provided him with a monthly stipend to cover educational and other general cost-of-living expenses.
  • Severance/Change in Control: Each named executive officer has an agreement in place for five possible termination scenarios: with cause, without cause, good reason, retirement, and change in control. The Golden Parachute 280G excise taxes are not triggered based on these agreements.

Compared with the prior year filing, the severance agreement reported this year increased significantly (i.e., from 80%, up to 148%).

After highlighting these disclosures, it is worth reviewing the company’s overall stock price history.

Stock Price History: 
http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/ZQK 

It appears Quiksilver has been struggling for the past two years.  In the event they are a possible target for acquisition, perhaps this can explain the severance agreements being adjust proactively. For additional information, see a Wall Street Journal article by Brendan Conway as well as a Seekingalpha.com article by Brian Sozzi.

Restricted Stock Awards: Changing Executive Compensation

Posted on | by ERI

Top executives often receive equity in the company as a large proportion of their total compensation. Which equity instruments corporations use to make those equity awards has changed significantly over the past decade. The use of Stock Options (SOs), where executives have the right to purchase company stock at a certain price after vesting, has dropped dramatically, being replaced with Restricted Stock Awards (RSAs), where, after vesting, ownership of the stock is automatically transferred to executives.

ERI Economic Research Institute has documented changes in top executive compensation since 1997, when RSAs comprised about 10% of the average top executive compensation, and SOs represented 43%. By the end of 2010, the picture was dramatically different. RSAs accounted for 31% of total compensation, while SOs were only 27%. There are some good reasons why RSAs are often a more attractive form of equity compensation for both employers and executives.

The Executive Perspective:

When companies issue SOs and business performance doesn’t improve, executives have options that are worth nothing. Even if the stock price is higher than the award price, executives have to take action to realize a benefit. RSAs, on the other hand, are never underwater and, when vested, do retain value, even if the value is less than the stock price when awarded. Also, there are some tax rules where executives can have a more favorable effective tax rate once the RSA is vested by filing certain information with the IRS and the employer within 30 days of the grant. (See http://www.fairmark.com/execcomp/sec83b.htm for more information on this Section 83(b) election.)

The Employer Perspective:

Equity compensation is intended to motivate executives to stay with the company and make decisions from an owner’s viewpoint. The accounting cost of SOs are less than RSA, so organizations will award more SO than RSAs.  The larger grant sizes coupled with lucrative upside, SOs can foster more risk taking where executives can artificially inflate the stock price for personal gain. On the other hand, since RSAs tend to be smaller grants, they are less dilutive and are preferred among executive populations that have conservative business practices.

Example:

An SO is granted at $20 per share but trades at $10 when the option vests. The stock option is worth $0.00. However, an RSA granted at $20 that trades at $10 when vested is still worth $10. The SO is underwater and has no value, while the RSA has retained 50% of its value.

Nonprofit Oversight – More Scrutiny from IRS Ahead for Churches?

Posted on | by ERI

Tax-exemption for churches and religious organizations is an area Congress hasn’t looked at in decades, but Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA), ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, is interested in changing that. His staff conducted an investigation of media-based ministries that constituents brought to his attention, with the stated goal of coming up with recommendations to encourage good governance that would preserve confidence without inhibiting religious freedom.

The report released in January 2011 includes some ideas for consideration by Congress that would impact how religious organizations report compensation and participate in elections.  Currently, churches are not required to file an annual Form 990, and IRS has limited rights to investigate them. See http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf for more details. However, church employees do have to report their incomes on income tax returns.

 Some key issues and recommendations:

  • Parsonage allowances. Ministers can now exempt housing costs from their taxable income and the report raises some questions about how the exemption is used. For example, what exactly is a “minister”? On how many homes can the exemption be taken? Congress is urged to decide if the parsonage allowance should be limited to one primary residence or a specific dollar amount and consider other possible limits and definitions.
  • Revising the tax code to allow church inquiries. Presently, the IRS is restricted in investigating churches. The report suggests enforcement could improve if IRS were allowed to investigate disqualified persons or organization managers that may have received an excess benefit.
  • Scrutiny of gifts to churches and charitable organizations. Some churches say that, because their ministers do not receive salaries, they are not employees, and therefore gifts should not be treated as taxable income. Court decisions on this issue have varied. The report suggests implementing regulations that these should be treated as taxable income if the organization “facilitated” the donations (for example, by asking members to make contributions to the minister).
  • Changes in electioneering prohibition. The current lobbying rules and regulations fornonprofits are imprecise.  With no ‘bright line’” between issue advocacy and partisan politics, the IRS and the courts have been challenged to consistently determine what is permitted and what is not. The report recommends that current electioneering prohibitions be replaced with a limitation similar to lobbying restrictions for other nonprofit organizations or that the federal election law be used for expenditure limits and electioneering communications.

Whether or not Congress will act on the suggestions in this report is not yet known. However, this report is a significant effort to start the discussion of allowing the IRS to improve and clarify its efforts to ensure that churches are complying with the requirement for a public benefit purpose.

Executive Compensation: Which Companies Are Proactive with Say-On-Pay?

Posted on | by ERI

With the heightened sensitivity toward executive compensation pay levels, there have been recent announcements indicating that companies are adjusting pay decisions relative to their organization’s performance and overall economic conditions. Some announcements related to executive compensation show that companies are proactively adapting.

  • Bank of America kept the base salary of CEO Brian Moynihan flat at $950,000, but his pay package will include $9.05 million in restricted stock units.  No senior executives will receive cash bonuses.  Three other senior executives at the Charlotte, N.C.-based bank are getting salary increases of 6.25 percent, to $850,000 from $800,000, in addition to stock awards.
  • In January 2011, Citibank reported a $10.6 billion profit for 2010 and announced that the base salary of its CEO, Vikram Pandit, was adjusted to $1.75 million.  In 2008, Citibank received a $45 billion bailout from taxpayers and soon after, in February 2009, the CEO reduced his pay to $1.00 until the firm returned back to profitability.  Pandit declined a bonus for the 2010 performance year.

Also encouraging, some companies recently took say-on-pay requirements into consideration during their annual shareholders meetings:

  • Becton, Dickinson held its annual shareholder meeting on February 1, 2011, and its shareholders approved management’s say-on-pay proposal regarding executive compensation and voted to hold say-on-pay votes annually.
  • At Monsanto’s annual meeting on January 25, 2011, the agriculture company’s investors voted for an annual advisory vote on executive compensation: 62.2% for annual, a 35.9% for triennial, 1.4% for biennial, and 0.5% abstentions.  The Board announced they would implement the annual advisory vote on executive compensation although it was non-binding.

With the advent of say-on-pay requirements, we will continue to see more collaboration between Boards of Directors and shareholders, as well as alignment of executive compensation decisions with shareholders and pay-for-performance relative to external market conditions.

Executive Compensation: Say-On-Pay

Posted on | by ERI

This week the SEC approved the non-binding Say-On-Pay rule. This is one component of the executive compensation provision of the Dodd Frank Act, a comprehensive financial regulatory reform enacted due to the collapse and near demise of many industry giants, like Lehman Brothers and AIG. The executive compensation provisions are intended to discourage companies from awarding lucrative packages that encourage risky behavior. Other components of the executive compensation provision include clawbacks (e.g., recouping executive compensation in the event of an accounting restatement), compensation committee and adviser independence, enhanced compensation disclosures, and corporate governance.

Shareholders can now vote on executive compensation packages, at minimum, once every three years. They also will have separate nonbinding votes on golden parachutes, which are compensation arrangements with executive officers in connection with merger transactions. The timeline for implementing the new rules is set for 2011 annual meetings for public companies with public investors owning greater than $75 million worth of shares. Smaller companies will have until 2013.

Although the Say-On-Pay rule is nonbinding, companies must disclose in public filings whether they followed the shareholder vote. If the Board does not make adjustments to executive compensation based on the shareholder vote, it may face negative repercussions like dissension between the Board and shareholders, the wrath of major shareholder advisory firms, a negative impact on investor confidence and public image, and directors may not get re-elected. In the UK, a similar rule has been in place since 2002 and, as a result, has more effectively linked pay to performance, improved communication among boards, management, and institutional investors, and aligned shareholders and management.

Currently, there are some 80 companies that have already implemented Say-On-Pay prior to this recent SEC approval. To date, shareholders at only three companies — Motorola, Occidental Petroleum, and KeyCorp — have voted against executive compensation packages.  Shareholders have voted against tax gross-ups, in which executives receive compensation to reimburse them for taxes on perquisites.

How should companies prepare to implement say-on-pay?

  • Establish formal communication plans
  • Proactively identify potential executive pay issues and concerns in advance
  • Make transparent the rationale behind their executive pay programs in the proxies’ Compensation Discussion and Analysis section
  • Partner with proxy advisors
  • Work with key institutional shareholders