Impact of Regulatory Reform Bill and UK Enterprise on Executive and Non-executive diretors
It was on 25th April, 2013 that the Regulatory Reform Bill and UK Enterprise acquired Royal Assent. This results to the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act, 2013 – (the “Act”). The publication of the Act was on 2nd May, 2013, through which, few key changes were made that to the existing regime in relation to the reporting and approval of the remuneration UK’s executive and non-executive directors incorporated “quoted” enterprises were introduced. It was estimated by the Government that there are the existence of approximately 900 companies of such types (Ofek, 2000). The reforms are not applicable to companies overseas that are enlisted in the UK.
The reforms are made with the intension of providing more power to the shareholders for acquiring companies into their accounts that over the director’s level and structure of remuneration via a binding vote’s introduction based on the future remuneration policy of a company, along with an increase in the transparency level of remuneration reporting for making it completely transparent about the earnings of directors and their relation to the performance and strategy of the company (Petersen, 2009). Furthermore, future remuneration policy’s new binding vote that for shareholders and directors continue to have a non-binding or annual advisory vote based on the implementation of the remuneration policy of directors from the previous financial year, inclusive of the original sum, which was paid to the concerning directors.
The directors’ remunerations and their new reporting requisites
The remuneration report of directors, which is prepared by the UK quoted companies, from 1st, October 2013, contains the three distinctive elements:
(i) A statement acquired from the remuneration committee’s chair, churning out remuneration’s key messages, and the context on the basis of which decisions have been made, along with important changes made during the reporting year.
(ii) A section setting out of the company’s remuneration policy, which was proposed for its directors, inclusive of its approach concerning the respective payments for incurred office loss or the ’remuneration policy’.
(iii) An explanation of a detailed and constructive manner about the existent remuneration policy that underwent implementation in the reporting year, inclusive of the actual sums, which was paid to the directors in the same year or the ‘implementation report’.
The content and form includes detail oriented provisions that of the remuneration report of directors and will be offered by Large-sized, as well as, Medium-sized Groups and Companies – Reports and Accounts – or Amendment Regulations of 2013, also known as the ‘Regulations’.
Companies need to produce a remuneration report of directors in the new format, as per the Regulations for the AGM or annual general meeting’s prescription that from the first financial year of the company. Thus, the first companies need to be in compliance with the new and current reporting regime.
The remuneration policy – Shareholder’s binding vote
The remuneration policy needs to be in compliance with the vote of shareholder. After that only, the remuneration policy has to be laid out for the approval of shareholder preferably every three years, or so, as per the company’s implementation of policy amendment, even if it requires making any minor changes, or if the advisory vote at an AGM regarding implementation report has failed to get approval. If so, the company will have to put lay down its remuneration policy and put it forward for approval at the AGM in the following financial year.
The remuneration policy needs approval by an ordinary resolution that of the shareholders of the company .This comprises of a simple majority – 50% + 1 vote out of the casted votes. After the remuneration policy acquires approval, the company in no condition can, make remuneration payments or payments for office loss, especially which are inconsistent or, unless these payments have acquired shareholders of the company’s separate form of approval.
Background on Pay Regulation
The large package of severance meant to be given to the departing boss of HP or Hewlett-Packard – Mark Hurd – will provide fresh impetus that to the demands of public, concerning executive pay and what needs to be done for it. Amidst all the outrage last year, concerning the humungous bonuses offered to the bosses of few financial firms that were bailed out. (Berger, 1997). The report spoke about ill-advised payouts in banks. However, it did not seek for any kind of change in a radical order.
However, the new signed financial bill reform are inclusive of few new regulations regarding pay that was applicable to all public companies – the companies had to claw back rewards of any kind of profit-linked executive, if they needed to restate subsequently their profits downwards. They must also allow their shareholders to have a non-binding vote on the pay policies of the concerning firm every year, just like their American counterparts. European Union countries, including Britain are now creating restrictions on the bonuses of banks—on the payouts’ schedule, the proportion which are payable through cash, and the guaranteed extent (Bebchuk, 2010).
As per studies the ratio of pay – bosses’ to workers’ – experienced a decline from the 2nd World War till the 1970. However, from there, the pay soared. Sever other studies have also highlighted various ill effects of this type of disparity in incomes. Inequality in societies causes situations that are dysfunctional, violent, depressed and unhealthy in comparison to societies that do not have extremities in the wealth gap. While unemployment level amongst ordinary workers continue to be high unfortunately in the western world, rewards of executives experience quick rebound that from the financial crisis, thereby, threatening to make inequalities in pay starker than before (Guay, 1999).
The problem is – attempts that were made in the past for the regulation of pay of bosses, caused either disastrous of absurd unforseen repercussions. There were even cases, where executive pay packets were increased in the highest order. As per the report of The Economist in the month of March, there were a new set of rules that were rushed and forced in post-financial crisis, which forced or forcing UK and US firms to disclose higher in respect to the top bosses’ and consultants’ pay. However, there is a sheer wonderment amongst pessimists just like in the past, about the fact that new regulations are capable of doing very little towards the curbing of overall compensation (DeYoung, 2004).
Mark Calabria from the Cato Institute’s free-market and former staff member of the Senate Banking Committee in the US, proposed our motion that governments should not interfere in this area. Wayne Guay – Wharton School’s University of Pennsylvania’s accounting professor – spoke against it. His studies and research concerning the executive compensation made him believe that scope is still there for the process of intelligent regulation. Mr Guay also is shouting out to the government for setting the levels of actual pay in most firms, for simply regulating the pay-setting mechanisms more tightly and disclosing the compensation. Irrespective of this, I will not stop any participant who wants to challenge it. In fact, I look forward to both enlightening and vigorous form of a discussion.
Arguments in favour of Pay Regulation
The US government as well as the UK government, since the 30s has taken a keen interest in the regulation of executive pay. Such a regulation, in the recent years, has commenced in numerous forms – including the limits on executive non-performance-based pay tax deductibility in 1992 over $1m and the very recent executive pay regulation in the financial service sector. There are valid concerns present in a clear manner, about that fact, whether the government should make regulations in the compensation stake of corporate executives and when.
It’s rather instructive for starting by pointing out the position of the government and its involvement, especially where it’s not needed and its ineffectiveness. Even when the government made futile attempts to dictate what amount will be paid to the top executives in the UK. Given percentage of executive workforce and its mobility level in the US and Europe and the presence of various private organizations, which are more than ready to recruit top talents, public corporations and their regulation might dictate the work position of executives (Morck, 1988). However, it will not alter the amount of payment for these individuals. Furthermore, on the basis of importance of various public corporations in the UK economy, it doesn’t seem right to drive out top executive talents from the market. If we step out of this type of market chaos, we might be able to lay our focus on involving the government in a constructive manner.
The incentives that are offered to the executives via their compensation plans for making various strategic, risk management and financing decisions, hold more importance than the payment level of executives. Typically, the top executives receive stock and different other options accumulated over time, along with incentives that tie the wealth of executives that to the shareholders’ interests (Coles, 2006). How much equity should be accumulated by executives are most frequently specified by compensation plans, especially, when they are allowed to exercise the options or sell off their stocks. The compensation plans are specify what restrictions they have based on the ability bordering these equity positions. The long-term and annual bonus plans are tied-up to stock-price or accounting performance measurements in a frequent manner.
The Financial Service Authority (FSA) is amongst the regulatory bodies that play a vital role in making sure that the capital markets, along with, different outside parties, like, suppliers, customers and employees get the necessary information for making various sound business decisions. A key role is played by the corporate government towards effective functioning of the economy and capital markets in general. Pay disclosures, and incentive structures of executives most importantly, are key elements for understanding the governance of a firm Absence of transparency in this aspect will undermine the confidence of the people in the integrity of American corporations (Choi, 2006).
There are several cases, beyond disclosures, where a direct investment is made by the government in corporations in the form of a capital provider, for example, recent capital infusions in few financial institutions. Government, in these circumstances, has an obligation for ensuring that executive pay based in an appropriate level and the executive incentives, especially, ones that are risk oriented, are structured as protection for the investment of taxpayers. The interest of the government goes beyond the direct capital investment, inclusive of protection of depositors and the insurance that is offered to specific banks as a security in this industry (Mirrlees, 1975).
The significant amount of leverage that is employed by many banks, based on the risk-taking incentives of executives in the financial services industry is vital in situations, where financial health of a bank deteriorates. Because of the fact that taxpayer insurance and investment in these firms are same as the preferred shareholder or creditor, the government might opt for endorsing compensation plans, which might cause a shift in the stock-based incentives of executives to a basket of securities, which are inclusive of preferable stock and debt and the fact that the financial institutions’ financial health weakens in the process. Alternatively, a valid component of compensation can be forfeited and deferred if a circumstance of bankruptcy arises or if there is a requirement of government help (Chen, 2006).
To conclude, disclosures point made above, it is the sheer obligation of the government for ensuring that the executives make appropriate payment of taxes on the basis of their compensation. It is again proven by history that oversight of this particular area is present with merit. Tax evasion, for example, has been a key issue recently in option-backdating cases. The deferral tax, furthermore, is a vital consideration in the complex pay and executive pay schemes, which are designed for achieving these objectives and they need a significant level of oversight from HMRC for the prevention of abuse.
References – Journals and Books
Adams, R., and H. Mehran, 2003, Is Corporate Governance Different for Bank Holding Companies?, Federal Reserve Bank of New York Economic Policy Review 9, 123-142.
Balachandran, S., B. Kogut, and H. Harnal (2010). .The Probability of Default, Excessive Risk, and Executive Compensation: A Study of Financial Services Firms from 1995 to 2008., Columbia Business School Discussion Paper
Bebchuk, Lucian A., and Holger Spamann (2010). .Regulating Bankers Pay., Georgetown Law Journal, 98(2), 247-287.
Berger, Phillip G., Eli Ofek, and David L. Yermack, 1997, Managerial entrenchment and capital structure decisions, Journal of Finance 52, 1411-1438.
Black, Fischer, and Myron Scholes, 1973, The pricing of options and corporate liabilities, Journal of Political Economy 81, 637-654.
Bradley W. B, Jung C, Wallace D, Equity-Based Incentives, Risk Aversion, and Merger-Related Risk-Taking Behavior, Financial Review, 2014, 49, 1
Brander, J., and Michel P, 1992, .Managerial compensation and the agency costs of debt finance., Managerial and Decision Economics 13, 55-64.
Chen, C., Steiner T, and Ann M. Whyte, 2006, Does stock option-based executive compensation induce risk-taking? An analysis of the banking industry, Journal of Banking and Finance 30, 915-945.
Choi, Sungho, Robert DeYoung, and Iftekhar Hasan, 2006, Risk, Return, and Noninterest
Income at Commercial Banks: Cross-Country Evidence, Unpublished working paper,
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.
Chhaochharia, Vidhi, and Yaniv Grinstein, 2009, CEO Compensation and Board Structure, Journal of Finance 64, 231-261.
Clark, Timothy, Astrid A. Dick, Beverly Hirtle, Kevin J. Stiroh, and Robard Williams, 2007, The
role of retail banking in the U.S. banking industry: risk, return, and industry structure,
Economic Policy Review – Federal Reserve Bank of New York 13, 39-56.
Coles, Jeffrey L., Naveen D. Daniel, and Lalitha Naveen, 2006, Managerial incentives and risktaking, Journal of Financial Economics 79, 431-468.
Core, John, and Wayne Guay, 1999, The use of equity grants to manage optimal equity incentive levels, Journal of Accounting and Economics 28, 151–184.
Core, John, and Wayne Guay, 2002, Estimating the value of employee stock option portfolios and their sensitivities to price and volatility, Journal of Accounting Research 40, 613-630.
DeYoung, Robert, William C. Hunter, and Gregory F. Udell, 2004, The Past, Present, and
Probable Future for Community Banks, Journal of Financial Services Research 25, 85-133.
Hamid Beladi, Margot Quijano, CEO incentives for risk shifting and its effect on corporate bank loan cost, International Review of Financial Analysis, 2013, 30, 182
Holmström, B., and J. Tirole (1993). .Market Liquidity and Performance Monitoring.. Journal of Political Economy, 101, 678.709.
Jensen, M., and Meckling W, 1976, Theory of the firm: managerial behavior, agency costs, and ownership structure, Journal of Financial Economics 3, 305-360.
John, Teresa A., and Kose John, 1993, Top-management compensation and capital structure, Journal of Finance 48, 949-974.
Jensen, M. C., and K. J. Murphy (1990). .Performance Pay and Top-Management Incentives., Journal of Political Economy, 98, 225.264.
Knopf, John D., Jouahn Nam, and John H. Thornton Jr., 2002, The volatility and pricesensitivities of managerial stock option portfolios and corporate hedging, Journal of Finance 57, 801-814.
Macey, Jonathan R., and Maureen O’Hara, 2003, The Corporate Governance of Banks, Federal Reserve Bank of New York Economic Policy Review 9, 91-107.
McConnell, John J., and Henri Servaes, 1990, Additional evidence on equity ownership and corporate value, Journal of Financial Economics 27, 595-612.
Merton, Robert C., 1973, Theory of rational option pricing, Bell Journal of Economics and
Management Science 4, 141-183.
Meulbroek, Lisa K., 2001, The efficiency of equity-linked compensation: understanding the full cost of awarding executive stock options, Financial Management 30, 5-44.
Minnick, Kristina, Haluk Unal, and Liu Yang, 2009, Pay for Performance? CEO Compensation and Acquirer Returns in BHCs, Working paper, UCLA.
Mirrlees, J. A. (1975) .The Theory of Moral Hazard and Unobservable Behaviour: Part I..reprinted in Review of Economic Studies (1999) 66, 3-21.
Morck, Randall, Andrei Shleifer, and Robert Vishny, 1988, Management ownership and market
valuation: an empirical analysis, Journal of Financial Economics 20, 293-315. Nam, Jouahn, Richard E. Ottoo, and John H. Thornton Jr., 2003, The effect of managerial
incentives to bear risk on corporate investment and R&D investment, The Financial Review 38, 77-101.
Neil Fargher, Alicia Jiang, Yangxin Yu, How do auditors perceive CEO’s risk-taking incentives?, Accounting & Finance, 2014, 54, 1
Ofek, Eli, and David Yermack, 2000, Taking Stock: Equity-Based Compensation and the Evolution of Managerial Ownership, Journal of Finance 55, 1367-1384.
Petersen, Mitchell A., 2009, Estimating Standard Errors in Finance Panel Data Sets: Comparing Approaches, Review of Financial Studies 22, 435-480.
Rogers, Daniel A., 2002, Does executive portfolio structure affect risk management? CEO risktaking incentives and corporate derivative usage, Journal of Banking and Finance 26,271-295.
Smith, Clifford, and Ross Watts (1992). .The investment opportunity set and corporate financing, dividend, and compensation policies..Journal of Financial Economics, 33, 263-292.
Wei, Chenyang, and David Yermack (2010). .Deferred Compensation, Risk, and Company Value: Investor Reaction to CEO Incentives..Federal Reserve Bank of New York State Report No. 445.
Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act (ERRA) Act 2013