You can read GRG's submission here:
Godfrey Remuneration Group
Wednesday, 7 December 2016
Submission Relating to Changes to the Corporations Act In Regard to Employee Share Schemes
Recently the Australian Government Treasury
released a request for submissions on how the Corporations Act could be amended
to facilitate the use of employee share schemes. In particular it is querying
the current requirements in relation to disclosure, which are often an
impediment to equity based remuneration. In response, GRG has prepared a
submission, which we feel gives clarity to the issues and provides a simple
solution.
Wednesday, 15 October 2014
Employee Share Scheme (ESS) Taxing Provisions to be Amended at Last
On 14 October
2014 the Government announced proposed changes to the ESS taxing
provisions that will come into effect on 1 July 2015. The proposed
changes fall into two broad categories being those that apply to:
• start-up companies which will be unlisted companies that have been incorporated for less than 10 years and have turnover of not more than $50 million, and
• other companies including ASX listed companies.
The start-up concession will apply to options and allow tax deferral for up to 15 years (currently 7 years) and will tax any benefits as capital gains when the shares are sold. Similar provisions may apply to offers of shares.
For other companies the ESS provisions will enable ESSs to be classified as either up front taxed or tax deferred depending upon the rules of the plan. If tax deferral applies then options may be taxed at the time of exercise (currently when any real risk of forfeiture and dealing restrictions cease to apply) and the benefit taxed will be the excess of the market value of a share over the exercise price and any other amounts paid in relation to the option. This change seems likely to overcome the current problems where an option holder may be taxed before exercise on a value that cannot be realised because the exercise price in not less than the market value of a share. This change may re-open the door for options to be used for long term incentive purposes.
The current regulations that may be used to value unlisted shares and rights are also to be updated.
You can read more from the official release here:
http://www.dpmc.gov.au/publications/Industry_Innovation_and_Competitiveness_Agenda/employee_share_schemes.cfm
• start-up companies which will be unlisted companies that have been incorporated for less than 10 years and have turnover of not more than $50 million, and
• other companies including ASX listed companies.
The start-up concession will apply to options and allow tax deferral for up to 15 years (currently 7 years) and will tax any benefits as capital gains when the shares are sold. Similar provisions may apply to offers of shares.
For other companies the ESS provisions will enable ESSs to be classified as either up front taxed or tax deferred depending upon the rules of the plan. If tax deferral applies then options may be taxed at the time of exercise (currently when any real risk of forfeiture and dealing restrictions cease to apply) and the benefit taxed will be the excess of the market value of a share over the exercise price and any other amounts paid in relation to the option. This change seems likely to overcome the current problems where an option holder may be taxed before exercise on a value that cannot be realised because the exercise price in not less than the market value of a share. This change may re-open the door for options to be used for long term incentive purposes.
The current regulations that may be used to value unlisted shares and rights are also to be updated.
You can read more from the official release here:
http://www.dpmc.gov.au/publications/Industry_Innovation_and_Competitiveness_Agenda/employee_share_schemes.cfm
Sunday, 9 March 2014
ATO Draft Public Ruling on Use of Employee Remuneration Trusts (Including Employee Share Trusts for LTI Plans)
On 5 March
2014 the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) released a draft Tax Ruling for
public comment. Its focus is on employee
remuneration trust arrangements and represents a significant change of attitude
to some well accepted practices. . The affected trust arrangements potentially include
employee share trusts that have long been used in relation to executive long
term incentive plans. They facilitate a tax
deduction for the company and enforcement of dealing restrictions.
At first
reading the focus seems to be on plans that were designed to gain other
benefits for companies or employees. Any
employee share schemes involving trusts particularly those where loans are
provided by the trustee or assets are being accumulated prior to benefits being
provided to employees should be reviewed in relation to the draft Tax Ruling. The trust arrangement that GRG has
implemented for many clients seem to be fall within acceptable practice under
the new approach by the ATO.
The Tax
Ruling when finalised will be implemented on a retrospective basis except for
companies that have current private binding tax rulings where compliance with
the new ATO approach is expected from 5 March 2014. Thus it may be prudent to suspend further use
of trusts until the Tax Ruling is finalised and your company’s specific
circumstances can be reviewed.
Wednesday, 19 February 2014
GRG Submission on Draft Revised ESS Taxing Provisions
In January GRG prepared a submission to the Treasury in response to the draft revisions to the employee share scheme (ESS) taxing provisions. These revisions are intended to make it easier for start-ups to use options as a means of remunerating and incentivising employees, among other things. GRG supports the intent however argues for broader reform and that the changes should not be restricted to start-up, not least of all because this will be difficult to to define and regulate in a manner that is both practical and supportive of the intention of reforms.
As part of the submission GRG has proposed an alternative approach to ESS taxation that we believe will meet the expectations of stakeholders and simplify taxation for everyone.
Our submission can be found at the following link:
As part of the submission GRG has proposed an alternative approach to ESS taxation that we believe will meet the expectations of stakeholders and simplify taxation for everyone.
Our submission can be found at the following link:
Sunday, 27 October 2013
Developing a Remuneration Governance Framework - Support Material for the Remuneration Committee
Many Remuneration Committees struggle to stay on top of the increasingly complex task of governing remuneration for KMP roles. The Remuneration Governance Framework can put all the basics to bed, formalise the Company's position, serve as a useful reference to new members, serve as an audit tool and free up the Committee to deal with emergent salient issues. However most Boards do not have a complete framework in place and spend a great deal of time getting up to speed on company practices and often revisiting similar issues over and over again.
Having met with a large number of Remuneration Committee members and Board Chairs, I wrote a short article to help Boards understand what the framework is and how it can free up the Remuneration Committee to focus on the most critical aspects of remuneration governance. Internal remuneration professionals, or external consultants, have a role to play in assisting the Board to develop the framework. See the link below for more
http://www.godfreyremuneration.com/documents/130923_RI53_Remuneration_Governance_Framework.pdf
Having met with a large number of Remuneration Committee members and Board Chairs, I wrote a short article to help Boards understand what the framework is and how it can free up the Remuneration Committee to focus on the most critical aspects of remuneration governance. Internal remuneration professionals, or external consultants, have a role to play in assisting the Board to develop the framework. See the link below for more
http://www.godfreyremuneration.com/documents/130923_RI53_Remuneration_Governance_Framework.pdf
Thursday, 30 May 2013
2013 GRG Remuneration Guide Publications - Available Now!
Its May and GRG has recently released the 2013 Remuneration Guides after analysing over 800 Annual Reports. The guides provide you with a reference point for all KMP roles, both Executive and Non-executive directors in the one resource. There is no higher quality or better value resource to sense check your KMP remuneration practices between full, customised reviews with advice. Because the guides contain no advice, executives can also access the guides.
In addition to the Guides already available for All Industries, the Resources sector and the Industrial & Services sectors, GRG is pleased to introduce a new guide "Performance Related Remuneration". This guide provides an overview of the key features of incentive practices (both long and short term) based on extensive Annual Report research.
GRG is also making "midpoint to midpoint" market capitalisation reference ranges available for the first time. In a very few cases it was observed that the market capitalisations of some clients fell close to the edge of one range or another, and it is now possible to produce a range centred around the edged of our standard ranges, as part of the guide documents. Just request a midpoint range when you order your guide.
We are confident that you will get enormous value from the 2013 versions of the guides, and we look forward to an opportunity to customise one for your organisation.
In addition to the Guides already available for All Industries, the Resources sector and the Industrial & Services sectors, GRG is pleased to introduce a new guide "Performance Related Remuneration". This guide provides an overview of the key features of incentive practices (both long and short term) based on extensive Annual Report research.
GRG is also making "midpoint to midpoint" market capitalisation reference ranges available for the first time. In a very few cases it was observed that the market capitalisations of some clients fell close to the edge of one range or another, and it is now possible to produce a range centred around the edged of our standard ranges, as part of the guide documents. Just request a midpoint range when you order your guide.
We are confident that you will get enormous value from the 2013 versions of the guides, and we look forward to an opportunity to customise one for your organisation.
Wednesday, 13 February 2013
GRG Submission to Treasury on Draft Corps Act Amendments
PLEASE NOTE THE FORMATTING OF THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT TRANSLATED PARTICULARLY WELL TO HTML/WEB FOR WHICH WE APOLOGISE
10 March 2013
Mr Scott Rogers
Manager
Corporate
Governance and Reporting Unit
Corporations and
Capital Markets Division
The Treasury,
Australian Government
Langton Crescent
Parkes ACT 2600
Submission Regarding
Proposed Amendments to the Corporations Act
Relating to
Remuneration Disclosures and Other Measures
Dear Sir,
Following are our firm’s submissions in relation to some of
the proposed amendments to the Corporations Act. All of our submissions relate to those
proposed amendments that affect key management personnel (KMP).
1 Improving Disclosure Requirements in the
Remuneration Report
1.1 Disclosure of KMP Remuneration
1.1.1 Introduction
In relation to this amendment three (3) types of
remuneration will need to be disclosed:
a) The amount that was granted and paid during
the financial year.
|
In this submission these two
types of remuneration are referred to as “realised pay”.
|
b) The amount of remuneration granted before the
financial year and paid during the financial year.
| |
c)The amount that was granted but not yet paid
during the financial year.
|
In this submission this type of
remuneration is referred to as “deferred
pay”.
|
1.1.2 Remuneration Paid in Year
1.1.2.1 Realised Pay
Realised pay seems to be referring to remuneration that has
been paid during the relevant year. According to the Online Legal Dictionary,
“payment” means the “”fulfilment of a promise; the performance of an
agreement. A delivery of money, or its
equivalent in either specific property or services, by a debtor to a
creditor.” Thus, it appears that the
proposed legislation is requiring disclosure of the value delivered to KMP at
the date that payment occurs. For
salary and incentives that are paid in cash the date and value of payments are
easily determined. For payments in kind
the date and value of payments is more challenging to determine and
clarification of the legislative requirements is needed. Many payments in kind to KMP will arise from
grants of equity (shares, rights and options).
As discussed below the time of payment can vary and would appear to be
typically either on vesting or on cessation of dealing restrictions following
vesting. As also discussed below it
would seem reasonable to adopt the taxing point as the time of payment and the
taxable value as the value of the payment.
Whether this approach or an alternative is used it will be critical for
the legislative intent to be made clear.
Attachment A
illustrates the reporting of realised pay.
It also provides guidelines as to the completion of the statement based
on assumptions we have made about the timing and value of equity grants. Amounts that would fall into this category
typically would include:
- 1. Fixed annual remuneration (FAR) (salary, superannuation contributions, other benefits and fringe benefits tax (FBT)) that was due and paid during the financial year) and FAR amounts deferred from a previous year,
- 2. Short term incentive (STI) that was paid during the financial year – usually will relate to the prior year’s performance, and
- 3. Long term incentive (LTI) that was taxable under the employee share scheme (ESS) taxing provisions during the financial year, (some ESS benefits are taxed as fringe benefits and not under the income tax provisions, therefore it will be important to clarify whether such ESS benefits are to be reported as realised pay)
- 4. Sign-on payments paid during the financial year, and
- 5. Termination payments made during the financial year.
Dealing restrictions are applied to ensure that KMP retain
ownership of the equity for a minimum period, being the term of the
restrictions. They will also defer the
taxing point (if applied at the time of grant) for the period of the
restriction; but the taxing point cannot
be deferred beyond the earlier of the elapse of seven (7) years from the grant
and termination of the employment.
Unless the taxing point is also deferred by the dealing restrictions
companies would be unlikely to apply dealing restrictions as it would be
grossly unfair to preclude KMP from selling equity to fund their tax liability
when it arises. If equity is not sold at
the taxing point then KMP may be taxable on accrued benefits that may not be
realised if the share price should fall before the equity may be sold. Other reasons for imposing dealing
restrictions are that KMP are often precluded by the insider provisions of the
Corporations Act from selling equity and even when that may sell equity they
feel that they should not do so as it may give the market the wrong impression
as to their views of the current state and prospects of the company.
In item 3 above it has been assumed that paid means the
equity has vested and any dealing restrictions have ceased to apply, which is
the employee share scheme (ESS) taxing point.
This approach seems to be reinforced by comments in the Explanatory
Memorandum such as: “pay that has been received due to past pay being crystallised”
(para 2.31) and “will now report what is realised pay” (para 2.32). It means that the same value that is taxed as
income of KMP from equity grants will also generally be the value that is
disclosed. Of course, many KMP retain
some or all of the shares acquired from LTI equity which is one of the reasons
for providing LTIs in the form of equity.
Thus, the LTI benefit that is available at the ESS taxing point may not
be realised if shares are retained and the share price falls. At best it represents pay that could be
realised at the first opportunity to do so.
Clarification of whether our assumed approach is what the legislation
intends should be considered. Whether use
of the term “realised” is appropriate should be reviewed.
It would also be helpful if it could be clarified how
indeterminate rights which vest subsequent to a termination of employment are
to be treated. Under the income tax law
if an indeterminate right is settled in cash then it is taxable in the year the
indeterminate right vests and the cash payment is made. If the indeterminate right is settled in
shares, then the value of the shares at the date of termination of employment
is taxed in the year the termination of employment occurred even if the
indeterminate right vests several years after the termination of
employment. This requires an amendment
of the KMP’s tax return for the year in which the termination of employment
occurred. For purposes of disclosure of
realised pay it would seem more appropriate for the value at the date when vesting
has occurred and dealing restrictions have ceased to apply to be the value that
is disclosed and for it to be disclosed in the year when that occurs rather
than in the year of termination of employment.
If it is to be disclosed in the year of the termination of employment
then companies will need to prepare and lodge amended Remuneration Reports
possibly each year for typically up to three years after the year in which the
termination of employment occurred. Such
a requirement would seem to be overly onerous and would confuse rather than add
to clarity of what remuneration has been realised by KMP.
1.1.2.2 Earned Pay
An alternative to the foregoing approach would be to require
disclosure of the value of equity grants at the time that they vest
irrespective of whether or not they are subject to disposal restrictions. Given that it may not be realisable it may
need a different term such as earned pay.
This approach has the advantage of not overly delaying the
recognition and report of equity remuneration.
Again if this approach is preferred then it should be made clear in the
legislation or the Explanatory Memorandum.
1.1.3 Deferred Pay
Attachment B
illustrates the reporting of deferred remuneration opportunities that were
granted during the financial year but will not be paid, if paid at all, until a
subsequent financial year. It also
provides guidelines as to the completion of the statement.
1.1.3.1 Short Term Incentives (STIs)
In relation to STIs it is our understanding that many
companies do not have threshold, target and stretch levels of STI. Some have a target or stretch only whereas
others have a relationship between performance such as profit and the amount
that may be earned from the STI e.g. STI is x% of profit above a minimum profit
level. If threshold, target and stretch
were to be defined then most companies should be able to quantify the values
associated with these levels of performance.
Example definitions follow for your consideration:
Threshold
|
The minimum level of
performance that would be seen as warranting a minimal level of STI award.
|
Target
|
The STI award that may be
earned when a challenging but achievable level of performance is achieved.
|
Stretch
|
The amount of STI award that
may be earned when performance achieves a level that is considered to be
outstanding and unlikely to be achieved other than rarely. It may be the maximum STI award.
|
If concepts such as these are not required to be disclosed then
it will be more difficult for shareholders to understand the STI award opportunity. These aspects could be covered in the
Explanatory Memorandum that accompanies the legislation when it is submitted to
Parliament.
1.1.3.2 Long Term Incentives (LTIs)
Most LTI plans in Australia are based on grants of equity
that may vest after a period of service if specified vesting conditions are
satisfied. Where equity is granted the
value at grant should be the value that is disclosed. It would be the undiscounted market value of
the shares, rights or options less the amount, if any, payable for the equity
unit.
While the accounting approaches to the valuation of equity
grants and amortisation of that value over the vesting period have merit the
amortisation approach does not recognise that remuneration in the form of an equity grant is remuneration for the
year of the grant and not remuneration for subsequent years even if it may
vest only after subsequent years have elapsed.
The amortised value of equity grants that are currently reported as LTI
income of KMP is not appropriate and should not be used in the proposed new
disclosure statements.
In this regard the nature of the vesting conditions affects
the valuation for accounting purposes of the LTI equity grants. Market related vesting conditions are taken
into account in valuing the equity units giving rise to a discounted value
whereas non-market vesting conditions are not taken into account giving rise to
a non-discounted value. Irrespective of
the type of vesting conditions the equity grants should be valued consistently
and the stretch value should be the full value of the equity granted at the
grant date.
1.1.3.3 STI Deferred into Equity
It should be noted that when an STI award is partly
satisfied with a deferred grant of equity i.e. equity that does not vest until
a latter year, there is no disclosure of that grant of equity under the
proposed amendments. This is because:
- a) the STI grant occurred at the beginning of the measurement period when award opportunities disclosed in Attachment B were agreed, and
- b) the payment of the deferred part of the STI will not occur until the equity vests (and any dealing restrictions cease to apply) and it is then disclosed as indicated in Attachment A.
1.2 Changing Lapsed Options Disclosure from Value to Number
This is an area of disclosure that needs to be extended to
cover all forms of equity and not just options.
The term ‘option’ refers to a specific form of right. It does not
include shares or equity units generally referred to as ‘rights’ which are used
by the majority of ASX listed companies. For this aspect of disclosure to be truly
helpful for shareholders and other stakeholders it needs to cover all forms of
equity and expand the information provided. This need will become more critical
when disclosure of ‘realised pay’ is implemented. While ‘realised pay’ is of
interest the company’s remuneration policy is more important. This may be
deduced from the ‘deferred pay’ and equity disclosure tables if equity is more
fully disclosed as suggested in Attachment
C.
Attachment C
provides a suggested disclosure format for all forms of equity whether granted
on a salary sacrifice basis or as a deferred STI or as an LTI. A more complete disclosure as illustrated in Attachment C is a necessary adjunct to
the disclosures of Realised and Deferred Pay as discussed earlier in this
submission. When the three (3) tables
are analysed by various stakeholders they will be able to assess the extent to
which variable pay has been then aligned with company performance and
shareholder expectations.
1.3 Disclosure of all payments made to KMP on
Retirement from a Company
We do not have any comments on this aspect other than to
point out that three aspects of KMP remuneration that relate to service prior
to the termination of employment should not be treated as termination
benefits. These are:
- a) Pro-rata STI payment in respect of the part of the year worked prior to the termination of employment,
- b) LTI grants made in years prior to the year in which the termination of employment occurred, and
- c) Pro-rata LTI grants made in the year of the termination of employment in respect of the part of the year worked prior to the termination of employment.
1.4 Description of Remuneration Governance Framework
We do not have any comments on this aspect.
1.5 Clawback of Over Paid Remuneration
While this has not been an area on which we have any
statistics as to the frequency or extent of material misstatement and omissions
in the accounts of ASX listed companies our impression is that this would occur
very rarely. Further, if it did occur
and KMP were responsible for the material misstatement or omission then it is
likely that it would be matter that the company would pursue through the
courts. In these circumstances there
seems to be little need, if any, for a clawback provision.
Usually the Explanatory Memorandum reflects the proposed
legislation and explains its intent however Chapter 3 of the Explanatory Memorandum
seems to be somewhat disconnected from the proposed legislation. The Explanatory Memorandum repeatedly refers
to “a disclosure requirement for a company’s clawback policy,” whereas the
proposed amendments require:
if a
material misstatement or omission has occurred in the company’s accounts for
any of the prior three years, and
if
there has been an overpayment of remuneration to key management personnel (KMP)
as a result of the material misstatement or omission,
then the company must disclose in its Remuneration Report for the year
in which it became aware of the material misstatement or omission,
whether
any overpayment to Key Management Personnel [KMP] has been or will be
clawedback, or
if no
remuneration is to be clawed back then an explanation.
Clearly the proposed requirements fall well short of a
requirement to disclose the company’s clawback policy or even details of the
amounts clawbacked either individually or collectively from KMP. This aspect needs to be clarified before the
legislation and Explanatory Memorandum are finalised.
While the legislation focuses on overpaid remuneration it
ignores the possibility that KMP may have been underpaid remuneration as a
result of material misstatements or omissions.
In the experience of the writer most companies would not seek to make
good underpaid remuneration in these circumstances. By not also covering underpaid KMP
remuneration the proposed amendments are unbalanced and clearly biased. Such a
stance may be reasonable for legislation designed to protect shareholder
interests.
Overpaid remuneration will generally only arise in relation
to incentive remuneration. This will
mean that the clawback provisions will generally not apply to non-executive
directors as the remuneration of non-executive director must be a “fixed sum”
as required under ASX Listing Rule 10.17.2.
Thus, the clawback provisions are mainly aimed at executive KMP.
Incentive remuneration for executive KMP generally consists
of two elements being STI and LTI. STIs
usually consider individual performance, business unit performance and company
performance. Individual performance
generally does not focus on financial results and therefore this aspect would
not be subject to clawback. Of course,
if a financial gate were to apply to an STI plan then it could bring within the
ambit of clawback all aspects of the STI.
Business and company performance generally includes financial measures
as well as other measures such as production and health, safety and
environment. Again the non-financial
measures would not be subject to clawback.
Thus it would only be incentives that arose from financial measures that
would be subject to clawback. Could this
lead to the undesirable consequence of STI and LTI plans using less financial
measures?
Once an STI is earned it is common practice for part of it
to be deferred into shares or rights that vest based on completion of a period
of service. Even if the deferred STI was
not related to financial measures the value of the deferred amount will vary in
line with movements in the company’s share price which may be influenced by
material misstatements or omissions. As
the company would not incur any cost to increase the value of the shares as
that is a market influence it may be argued that the company would have no
right to recover any overpaid remuneration that arose in such
circumstances. Is the role of a clawback
policy to recover costs incurred by the company that should not have been
incurred or is it to penalise KMP by removing any benefits derived as a result
of material misstatements or omissions?
Similar situations may arise in relation to LTI plans. This aspect needs
to be clarified.
An impact of the clawback amendment will most likely be that
companies will seek to quarantine part of STI and/or LTI benefits for up to
three (3) years after they have been earned so that they are available to be
clawedback. This will required dealing
restrictions to be placed on earned incentives.
By delaying KMP access to incentives that have been earned
the effectiveness of the incentives will be severely diminished. Studies have shown that incentives with long
earning or deferral periods tend to be heavily discounted in the minds of
executives and therefore have less motivational impact. A likely company response may be to increase
the value of the incentives on offer to counter this perceived discounting
effect.
Given that clawbacks would only be required in a small
minority of cases it seems excessive to introduce legislation that may
seriously undermine the effectiveness of incentive plans. Our view is that this proposal should not be
implemented.
It is trusted that the foregoing comments are of
assistance. If you have any questions in
Relation to this matter please feel free to give me a call.
Yours sincerely,
Denis Godfrey
Managing Director
1 Attachment A – Realised Pay
https://picasaweb.google.com/113533535473187931005/TreasurySubmissionAttachments?authkey=Gv1sRgCL-BvZfYhuu8owE#5844665374967187410
2 Attachment B – Deferred Remuneration Opportunity
https://picasaweb.google.com/113533535473187931005/TreasurySubmissionAttachments?authkey=Gv1sRgCL-BvZfYhuu8owE#5844665463953248418
3 Attachment C – Disclosure of Equity Holdings and
Movements
https://picasaweb.google.com/113533535473187931005/TreasurySubmissionAttachments?authkey=Gv1sRgCL-BvZfYhuu8owE#5844665441732809858
2 Attachment B – Deferred Remuneration Opportunity
https://picasaweb.google.com/113533535473187931005/TreasurySubmissionAttachments?authkey=Gv1sRgCL-BvZfYhuu8owE#5844665463953248418
3 Attachment C – Disclosure of Equity Holdings and
Movements
https://picasaweb.google.com/113533535473187931005/TreasurySubmissionAttachments?authkey=Gv1sRgCL-BvZfYhuu8owE#5844665441732809858
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)