TSX Equity Trends Report

TSX Equity Trends
Report
2014
Featuring Commentary From:
About Equilar
Equilar is the leading provider of executive compensation and corporate governance data for corporations,
nonprofits, consulting firms, institutional investors, and the media. As the trusted data provider to 70% of the
Fortune 500, Equilar helps companies accurately benchmark and track executive and board compensation, Say on
Pay results, and compensation practices.
Equilar's award-winning Equilar Insight product suite is the gold standard for benchmarking and tracking
executive compensation, board compensation, equity grants, and award policies. With an extensive database and
more than a decade’s worth of data, the Equilar Insight platform allows clients to accurately measure executive
and board pay practices. With Equilar’s Governance Center, companies can better prepare by analyzing historical
voting results and modeling pay for performance analyses to ensure successful Say on Pay outcomes.
Equilar Insight’s Governance Center provides a comprehensive set of tools including:
•
Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS) Simulator
•
Glass Lewis Modeler
•
Pay for Performance Analytics Solution
Equilar’s C-Suite mapping technology within the Equilar Atlas platform identifies pathways to executives and
board members at target companies. With over 350,000 executive and board member profiles, Equilar Atlas is the
premier executive resource for identifying new business opportunities. Equilar regularly publishes proprietary
research reports and articles on the most pertinent issues and trends in executive compensation and corporate
governance.
Featured In
Equilar, Inc.
1100 Marshall Street
Redwood City, CA 94063
Phone: (650) 241-6600
Fax: (650) 701-0993
E-mail: [email protected]
www.equilar.com
Contents
Introduction4
Executive Summary4
Methodology5
Equity Grant Practices5
Restricted Stock6
Options7
Restricted Stock and Options in Comparison8
Performance Equity12
Time-Based Equity Vesting15
Dilution17
Statistical Appendix19
©2014 Equilar, Inc. The material in this publication may not be reproduced or distributed in whole or in part without the
written consent of Equilar, Inc. This report provides information of general interest in an abridged manner and is not intended
as a substitute for accounting, tax, investment, legal or other professional advice or services. Readers should consult with the
appropriate professional(s) before acting on information contained in this publication. All data and analysis provided in this
publication is owned by Equilar. Solium Capital Inc. contributed commentary to this publication. Solium Capital Inc. is not
affiliated with Equilar and all commentary is owned solely by Solium Capital Inc. Any disclosure examples in this report are
reformatted to fit this document, and certain sections of sample texts may be bolded to add emphasis. If you have questions or
comments regarding this publication, please email [email protected].
Introduction
Introduction
Though all companies seek to attract and retain valuable
employees through the use of various compensation vehicles,
the vehicle combinations they use to accomplish this goal vary
profoundly. The resulting structure of compensation plans is of
paramount interest to shareholders, who, in the final analysis, foot
the bill for such plans either through dilution or lower profits.
Canadian companies have shared in the broader international shift
toward the use of performance-based, full-value awards or units,
yet they continue to grant time-vested option awards at a higher
rate than companies in the United States.
Executive Summary
Though options remained a feature of 85.7% of sample TSX
Composite companies’ compensation plans in 2013, those
companies are increasingly looking to restricted stock, and
particularly restricted stock units, to supplement or form the basis
of their plans. The median grant of restricted stock and restricted
stock units grew to 203,797 shares in 2013 from 133,102 shares in
2012, and the percentage of companies granting restricted stock or
restricted stock units rose to 64.9% from 60.1%.
Canadian option grant practices stand in contrast to those of
the United States, where an increasingly large set of companies
has abandoned options entirely. In 2009, 77.2% of S&P 1500
companies granted options, a share that has since decreased
to 63.9%. Meanwhile, the percentage of S&P 1500 companies
granting only full-value shares has risen from 20.0% to 34.7%.
Documenting the stability of options among TSX Composite
companies in the face of the rapidly growing use of full-value
shares is a major theme of this report.
Key Findings
In 2013, 85.7% of companies
granted options, and options remain
a much more popular equity vehicle
than in the U.S.
The share of companies granting
performance equity awards rose
to 36.4% in 2013 from 34.6% in
2012 and 24.7% in 2009. The most
common type of performance equity
award was the multi-year stock unit,
constituting 74.9% of performance
equity awards.
In 2013, 29.8% of companies
granted only options and no
restricted units, down from 33.9% in
2012.
Of time-vesting equity awards
granted by companies in
2013, 80.1% vested in multiple
installments rather than in one final
installment.
Median overhang among
companies stood at 2.87% in 2013,
roughly the same as in 2012, despite
a consistent rise in overhang from
stock.
The relatively prominent status of options in Canada likely results from differences in tax treatment. Option
holders in both countries are subject to taxation at the time of exercise, but in Canada, the rate applied is the
lower capital gains rate, whereas in the United States, the higher income tax rate is applied.
The desirability of options due to this taxation structure has made companies more reticent to embrace
alternative means of compensation, namely performance-based equity, as substitutes. Only 36.4% of sample TSX
Composite companies granted performance-based equity in 2013, compared to 68.9% of sample companies in the
S&P 1500. The prevalence of performance equity grants among sample TSX Composite companies, in addition
to starting from a lower base than S&P 1500 companies, also grew at a slower pace. In 2012, performance
equity was granted by 34.6% of sample TSX Composite companies and 64.0% of sample S&P 1500 companies,
respectively. The main argument for granting performance-based equity in both countries is that such awards
are more finely tuned instruments for incentivizing performance than options and are less likely to encourage
excessive risk-taking. Proponents of options point out that options can also have performance conditions attached
to their vesting and, since they appreciate in value as stock price rises, are an inherently performance-based
vehicle.
2014 Equity Trends Report | 4
Introduction / Equity Grant Practices
As equity mix in the TSX Composite has evolved over time, dilution has remained stable. Over the five-year
period studied, median overhang remained between a high of 3.15% in 2011 and a low of 2.86% in 2012, settling
at 2.87% in 2013. Overhang from options fell slightly during the interval but was partially offset by a rise in
overhang from units.
Methodology
The companies in this analysis included a subset of TSX Composite companies with five years of publicly
disclosed equity grant practices for which data were available at the time of writing (n=168), as well as a slightly
smaller subset of companies with information on performance awards available (n=162). S&P 1500 companies
used for comparison are based on samples constructed with the same methodology (large sample: n=1,345; small
sample: n=859).
The smaller samples are used for award-specific figures and the larger ones to determine equity grant mix and
the quantities of options and stock granted or outstanding. Throughout the report, options and SARs, as well as
restricted stock and restricted stock units, are summed in graphs and calculations unless otherwise stated (pages
13 and 14).
The text and graphics contain selected data points. More can be found in the appendix at the conclusion of the
report.
Equity Grant Practices
The chart below shows the percentage breakdown of sample companies granting each combination of stock and
options over the five-year study period. Companies are increasingly likely to grant restricted units, though they do
not appear to have appreciably displaced options. In 2013:
ŸŸ 8.9% of companies granted exclusively restricted units.
ŸŸ 29.8% of companies granted exclusively options.
ŸŸ 56.0% of companies granted both options and restricted units.
ŸŸ 5.4% of companies granted neither.
2014 Equity Trends Report | 5
Equity Grant Practices / Restricted Stock
Equity Mix
100%
6.5%
Percent of Companies Granting
90%
7.7%
10.1%
9.5%
8.9%
RS/RSUs
Only
80%
70%
48.8%
45.8%
38.1%
33.9%
29.8%
60%
Options/
SARs Only
50%
40%
30%
33.3%
Both
39.9%
44.0%
50.6%
56.0%
20%
Neither
10%
11.3%
0%
2009
7.1%
2010
7.1%
2011
6.0%
2012
5.4%
2013
Solium Commentary
Although stock options remain the most popular stock-based compensation instrument, the general
trend in Canada confirms a transition to ‘full-value shares’ in the form of restricted and performance
share units as a means to align employees more closely with shareholders. Additionally, Canadian
issuers continue to be more selective in the award of grant-based instruments, limiting those to midmanagement and higher executive levels. There are several reasons for the popularity of ‘full-value
shares’ plans and the deviation from broad-based corporate grants, but the key factors are:
• Mitigating the dilutive effect of broad-based plans
• Appeasing shareholder pressure to introduce performance- and stock-based compensation
Replacing legacy stock option plans with ‘full-value shares’ is more advantageous from an employee
retention perspective, especially in turbulent markets in which stock options have a tendency to expire
underwater.
Restricted Stock
Grants of restricted units among sample TSX companies grew rapidly throughout the sample period. In 2013:
ŸŸ The median number of RSA/RSUs granted stood at 203,797.
ŸŸ The median number of RSA/RSUs outstanding stood at 433,931.
2014 Equity Trends Report | 6
Restricted Stock / Options
Outstanding (in thousands)
Granted (in thousands)
1200
3000
800
2000
400
1000
0
2009
2010
75th Percentile
2011
Median
2012
0
2009
2013
25th Percentile
2010
75th Percentile
2011
Median
2012
2013
25th Percentile
S&P 1500 Comparison
TSX restricted-unit grants grew considerably faster than their S&P 1500 counterparts, which are graphed below.
TSX grants nevertheless remain much smaller. In 2013, among S&P 1500 companies:
ŸŸ The median number of RSA/RSUs granted stood at 440,000.
ŸŸ The median number of RSA/RSUs outstanding stood at 1,026,671.
Outstanding (in thousands)
Granted (in thousands)
1200
3000
800
2000
400
1000
0
2009
2010
75th Percentile
2011
Median
2012
2013
25th Percentile
0
2009
2010
75th Percentile
2011
Median
2012
2013
25th Percentile
Options
Despite the rise of restricted shares, sample TSX companies continue to grant large numbers of options. In 2013:
ŸŸ The median number of options and SARs granted stood at 914,000.
ŸŸ The median number of options and SARs outstanding stood at 4,550,485.
2014 Equity Trends Report | 7
Options / Restricted Stock and Options in Comparison
Outstanding (in thousands)
Granted (in thousands)
3000
15000
2000
10000
1000
5000
0
2009
2010
75th Percentile
2011
Median
2012
2013
25th Percentile
0
2009
2010
75th Percentile
2011
Median
2012
2013
25th Percentile
S&P 1500 Comparison
S&P 1500 companies have experienced a markedly different trend, with the median number of options granted
falling over 50% during the sample period. In 2013:
ŸŸ The median number of options and SARs granted stood at 181,000.
ŸŸ The median number of options and SARs outstanding stood at 2,092,500.
Outstanding (in thousands)
Granted (in thousands)
2000
15000
1500
10000
1000
5000
500
0
2009
2010
75th Percentile
2011
Median
2012
2013
25th Percentile
0
2009
2010
75th Percentile
2011
Median
2012
2013
25th Percentile
Restricted Stock and Options in Comparison
The following charts illustrate the overall distribution of units and options granted and outstanding, showing the
10th through 90th percentiles on the horizontal axis. Companies are ranked according to the number of options or
shares of stock granted or outstanding.
ŸŸ While the number of options granted has stagnated since 2009, the number of restricted shares granted has
grown rapidly across percentiles.
2014 Equity Trends Report | 8
Restricted Stock and Options in Comparison
RS/RSUs and Options/SARs Granted by Percentile (in thousands)
2013
Restricted
Shares
Granted
5000
RS grants were considerably
larger in 2013 across the board
relative to 2009.
4000
2009
Restricted
Shares
Granted
3000
2013
Options
Granted
2000
2009
Options
Granted
1000
0
10th
20th
30th
40th
50th
60th
70th
80th
90th
RS/RSUs and Options/SARs Outstanding by Percentile (in thousands)
20000
2013
Restricted
Shares
Outstanding
The numbers of options and
restricted shares outstanding both
grew robustly across percentile
rankings over the five-year period.
15000
2009
Restricted
Shares
Outstanding
10000
2013
Options
Outstanding
5000
2009
Options
Outstanding
0
10th
20th
30th
40th
50th
60th
70th
80th
90th
The average number of options awarded by companies that granted nonzero amounts has remained relatively
stable over the last few years, as shown in the chart below. The average size of restricted unit grants, by contrast,
has grown 45.8%. This indicates that changes in the equity compensation landscape have not been driven entirely
by companies either adopting or abandoning different equity vehicles. In 2013:
ŸŸ The average number of RSA/RSUs granted was 1,382,076.
ŸŸ The average number of options and SARs granted was 1,972,672.
2014 Equity Trends Report | 9
Restricted Stock and Options in Comparison
Average RS/RSUs and Options/SARs Granted
Conditional on Nonzero Grants (in thousands)
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
2009
2010
2011
Restricted Shares
2012
2013
Options
Solium Commentary
Stock Appreciation Rights (SARs), as an equity-based component, are widely used as an anti-dilutive
instrument that can deliver the same potential benefits as traditional stock options.
However, companies contemplating the introduction of a SAR program should consider the following:
• SARs have distinct accounting rules from traditional stock options. SARs are accounted as liability
instruments when the appreciation is distributed to employees in cash, which is predominately the
case in Canada.
• The additional cash burden (both the outlay of funds and the liability accounting treatment) that is
assumed by the company when offering SARs. Normally, SARs are introduced by companies with a
stable cash flow.
The 2010 Federal Budget introduced new rules that may impact the taxation of SARs for employees.
S&P 1500 Comparison
Among S&P 1500 companies, average unit and option grant sizes were much more closely aligned, option grants
shrunk somewhat, and grants of restricted units did not grow substantially.
ŸŸ The average number of RSA/RSUs units granted was 1,696,932.
ŸŸ The average number of options and SARs granted was 1,737,897.
2014 Equity Trends Report | 10
Restricted Stock and Options in Comparison
Average RS/RSUs and Options/SARs Granted
Conditional on Nonzero Grants (in thousands)
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
2009
2010
2011
Restricted Shares
2012
2013
Options
The following charts show the share of TSX companies that made year-over-year changes to their nonzero unit or
option grants and that either grew or shrank their grants. Of those companies:
ŸŸ The share of companies growing the size of their unit grants was consistently above 50%.
ŸŸ A large share of companies grew their option grants in 2012, but shrank them in other years.
Solium Commentary
While rare, Choice Programs, where the issuer offers employees the ability to choose between stock
options or share units (normally at a 3:1 ratio), are receiving more consideration. Choice Programs
require different employee education, but they can be very effective when issuers want employees
to have more active involvement in their choice of equity compensation. Stock options, as well as
restricted and performance share units (RSUs and PSUs), have different tax treatments, therefore
employees need to understand the tax impact prior to making their choice.
2014 Equity Trends Report | 11
Restricted Stock and Options in Comparison / Performance Equity
Share of Companies Growing or Shrinking Grants Year over Year
RS/RSUs
Options/SARs
100%
Share of Companies
90%
80%
70%
61.9%
51.3%
66.7%
60%
56.1%
45.2%
44.7%
48.2%
68.4%
50%
40%
30%
20%
38.1%
48.7%
33.3%
10%
43.9%
0%
2010
2011
Shrinking
2012
2013
54.8%
55.3%
51.8%
31.6%
2010
Growing
2011
Shrinking
2012
2013
Growing
Solium Commentary
The key factor that led to the increase in stock option and RSU grants in 2012 was the impact of
general market conditions. Stock price is a principal input in grant calculations and, since most
companies endured depressed valuations, issuers increased the number of options or units granted
to account for the decline in value. Moreover, many companies granted additional stock options and/
or RSUs to offset outstanding ‘underwater’ stock options. This trend was more about keeping the
‘value’ of the initial award to participants consistent. With a depressed stock price, more grants may be
issued, but the initial overall ‘value’ to the participants remained consistent.
Performance Equity
Performance-based equity awards, which yield payout values dependent on the achievement of predefined
metrics, are an increasingly popular means of compensating executives in both Canada and the U.S.
Nevertheless, adoption of performance units has been relatively slow among TSX Composite companies, as timebased options remain a very popular vehicle for incentivizing performance. The chart below shows the prevalence
of companies granting performance equity overlaying the overall equity mix chart shown above. The growing
share of companies granting performance units is mirrored by a decrease in the share of companies relying solely
on options as an equity compensation vehicle. In the graph below, the black outlines represent performance
equity prevalence among S&P 1500 companies and orange columns the prevalence among TSX Composite
companies.
ŸŸ In 2013, 36.4% of companies granted performance equity.
ŸŸ Options have remained popular despite the rise of performance equity.
ŸŸ As the discrepancy between the orange columns and black outlines below indicates, performance equity is
much rarer in the TSX Composite than the S&P 1500, and the share of companies granting it is growing more
slowly.
2014 Equity Trends Report | 12
Performance Equity
Performance Equity Grants in the TSX Composite and S&P 1500
Percent of Companies Granting
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
2010
(22.7%)
2009
(20.8%)
2011
(28.6%)
2012
(29.4%)
2013
(32.5%)
40%
30%
20%
10%
29.0%
24.7%
30.2%
34.6%
36.4%
0%
Neither
Both
Options/SARs Only
RS/RSUs Only
Performance Equity
Solium Commentary
Performance-based equity awards continue to become a principal instrument in equity compensation
plans in Canada. The key reason is that shareholders believe that performance-based equity awards
directly align the interests of employees and investors. Although performance-based stock options are
very rare, the adoption of performance share units (PSUs) continues to accelerate.
Common practices for PSUs include:
ŸŸ Performance multipliers from 0% to 200%
ŸŸ Performance multiplier calculations vary by issuer, but some standard criteria include Total
Shareholder Return, share price performance, and corporate performance (EBIDTA, gross margin, etc.)
ŸŸ Dividend Equivalent Rights eligible
PSUs settled on their vesting date either in shares (treasury issued or purchased in the open market)
or cash payment through payroll.
Performance equity comes in several different types. The chart below illustrates the share of performance awards
granted to sample TSX NEOs in 2013, composed of stock, units, and options and divided into long-term incentive
plans (with performance periods of multiple years) and short-term incentive plans (with performance periods of
one year or less).
ŸŸ Long-term performance awards comprised 80% of total performance awards.
ŸŸ In both short-term and long-term plans, restricted stock units were a far more common compensation vehicle
than either restricted stock or options.
ŸŸ No short-term stock (excluding units) was granted by sample companies.
ŸŸ The graph above shows restricted stock units dominating as a performance-based compensation vehicle. The
distinction between restricted stock (stock granted with various vesting conditions attached) and restricted stock
2014 Equity Trends Report | 13
Performance Equity
Performance Equity by Vehicle and Plan Type
Long-Term
Options (4.9%)
Short-Term Short-Term
Units (5.9%) Options
(1.0%)
Long-Term
Stock (13.4%)
Long-Term Units
(75.0%)
The graph above shows restricted stock units dominating as a performance-based compensation vehicle. The
distinction between restricted stock (stock granted with various vesting conditions attached) and restricted stock
units (promises to grant stock at a future time) is an important one in the Canadian context. In Canada, restricted
stock is taxed immediately when it is awarded, as opposed to the vesting date, and cannot be used in new hire
awards. As a result, units are far more common than restricted stock among awards with both performancebased and time-based vesting schedules.
ŸŸ In 2013, 80.4% of time-vesting stock or unit awards consisted of units.
Time-Based RS and RSUs as Percentages of
Total Time-Based, Stock-Based Awards
RS 18.6%
RSUs 80.4%
2014 Equity Trends Report | 14
Performance Equity / Time-Based Equity Vesting
Time-Based Equity Vesting
Most sample TSX Composite companies do not grant performance equity and instead grant a majority of equity
with only time-based vesting conditions. Such awards provide valuable retention incentives and, in the case of
options, a large upside potential that may be viewed either as a virtue or a liability, depending on an investor’s
risk tolerance and assumptions regarding executive behavior.
The prevalence of time-vested equity implies that the manner in which that equity vests is of great importance
to the overall effectiveness of equity plans. The chart below divides 2013 time-based equity grants into options
and units, with both vehicles further separated according to whether they vest all at once (cliff vesting) or over
multiple installments (graded vesting).
Cliff-vesting options have come under scrutiny for providing a large incentive to increase stock price during the
short window of time immediately prior to vesting, which could, in theory, entail unwarranted disinvestment or
overly risky decisions that could have a detrimental effect on long-term shareholder value. Possibly as a result of
these concerns, cliff-vesting options are rare.
ŸŸ Graded vesting was more popular than cliff vesting for both options and stock, but particularly among option
awards.
Equity Vesting Schedules
Option
Awards
62.2%
Stock
Awards
37.8%
Cliff
6.0%
Graded
94.0%
Graded
57.2%
Cliff
42.8%
The following chart shows the percentage of total grants of each award type granted by sample TSX Composite
companies by length of vesting period.
ŸŸ Three-year vesting periods remained the most common, especially for cliff-vesting awards and particularly for
cliff-vesting options (85.0% of cliff-vesting options).
2014 Equity Trends Report | 15
Time-Based Equity Vesting
Equity Vesting Periods
81.1%
85.0%
72.2%
40.2%
32.8%
15.0%
9.8%
3.4%
2.6%
1
5.6%
3.4%
8.2%
8.0%
2
3
16.8%
7.7%
4.0%
4
2.1% 2.1%
5
6+
Vesting Period (years)
Cliff Stock/Units
Graded Stock/Units
Cliff Options/SARs
Graded Options/SARs
S&P 1500 Comparison
ŸŸ S&P 1500 vesting schedules are broadly similar to those of the TSX Composite, with a majority of awards tied
to three-year vesting schedules.
ŸŸ The S&P 1500 featured much higher share of awards with four-year vesting periods, especially awards
consisting of restricted stock and restricted stock units.
Equity Vesting Periods
71.9%
64.8%
46.6%
43.7%
43.2%
34.1%
12.1%
3.3%
0.8%
11.3%
11.4%
7.8%
3.4% 3.3% 1.9%
1
2
3
14.1%
10.8%
9.0%
4
3.9%
5
1.0% 1.1% 0.5%
6+
Vesting Period (years)
Cliff Stock/Units
Graded Stock/Units
Cliff Options/SARs
Graded Options/SARs
2014 Equity Trends Report | 16
Time-Based Equity Vesting / Dilution
Solium Commentary
Unlike equity compensation plans in the U.S., Canada remains largely conservative with three-year
and four-year vesting lengths as the most common grant term. Vesting schedules for RSUs and PSUs
are largely one-third per year for three years or three-year cliff vesting. Offering RSUs and PSUs with
different vesting rules for each is common practice.
Dilution
Because dilution represents a direct impact to shareholders’ wealth, it usually receives special scrutiny. The
chart below shows total overhang, a measure of potential dilution defined as the ratio of equity grant shares
outstanding to total common shares outstanding.
ŸŸ Median overhang among sample companies stood at 2.87% in 2013, down only incrementally from 3.13% in
2009.
Total Overhang
6%
5%
4%
3%
2%
1%
0%
2009
2010
25th Percentile
2011
2012
2013
Median
75th Percentile
The slight decline in overhang over the sample period is accounted for by the decline in overhang from options,
mirrored by a slight rise in overhang from stock. In 2013:
ŸŸ Median overhang from options was 2.33%.
ŸŸ Median overhang from stock was .27%.
Option Overhang
Stock Overhang
1.2%
6%
0.8%
4%
0.4%
2%
0.0%
2009
0%
2009
2010
25th Percentile
2011
Median
2012
2013
75th Percentile
2010
25th Percentile
2011
Median
2012
2013
75th Percentile
2014 Equity Trends Report | 17
Dilution
Run rate is defined as the sum of options assumed and new equity shares granted divided by the total number
of common shares outstanding. It is an important calculation in the measurement and evaluation of equity plan
dilution, and like total overhang, it has remained relatively stable over the five-year period examined, though
rising slightly.
ŸŸ Over the last five years, run rate has remained stable despite equity mix changes.
Run Rate
2.0%
1.5%
1.0%
0.5%
0.0%
2009
2010
2011
2012
25th Percentile
Median
75th Percentile
2013
Solium Commentary
Dependence on treasury issuance to fund stock-based compensation plans continues to be heavily
scrutinized by shareholders and has forced companies to amend their plans to reduce dilution or
change the plans to anti-dilutive.
In the case of stock options, certain sectors have gravitated to SARs (phantom options) or net-settled
options.
For full value awards of both RSUs and PSUs, many issuers are introducing plans that allow for cashsettlement through payroll, commonly referred to as phantom or notional plans.
Another segment has adopted settlement with shares funded on the open market by a third-party (in
most cases a trustee) pre- or post-vesting of the RSU or PSU.
Lastly, a number of Canadian issuers are ‘net-settling’ RSU and PSU at the time of vesting by
withholding shares that equate to the employee taxation amounts, thereby taking on the tax liability.
Regardless of the preferred settlement method, companies are generally advised to incorporate all
three types during the plan design, and thus be more aligned with their company needs at the vesting
date.
2014 Equity Trends Report | 18
Statistical Appendix
Selected
Statistics
2013
Granted
Options/SARs
Granted
RSA/RSUs
Outstanding
Options/SARs
Outstanding
Total Overhang
Overhang from
Options/SARs
Run Rate
2011
25th
Percentile
50th
Percentile
75th
Percentile
Avg.
25th
Percentile
50th
Percentile
75th
Percentile
Avg.
25th
Percentile
50th
Percentile
75th
Percentile
-
203,797
816,250
758,018
-
133,102
682,708
503,466
-
74,436
479,272
1,690,862
310,806
914,000
2,025,625
1,782,970
293,032
1,063,125
2,144,281
1,661,897
729,314
1,847,036
1,945,760
-
433,931
1,716,612
1,659,454
-
288,204
1,545,146
1,334,209
-
186,500
1,206,365
7,635,881
1,677,913
4,550,485
9,272,487
7,962,199
1,680,799
4,269,310
9,942,847
8,071,915
1,844,699
4,047,523
8,893,626
3.56%
1.49%
2.87%
5.02%
3.37%
1.55%
2.86%
4.81%
3.50%
1.57%
3.15%
4.76%
0.78%
0.00%
0.27%
0.82%
0.47%
0.00%
0.14%
0.79%
0.44%
0.00%
0.09%
0.61%
1.76%
0.50%
0.90%
1.60%
1.41%
0.43%
0.90%
1.70%
1.18%
0.40%
0.80%
1.40%
25th
Percentile
50th
Percentile
75th
Percentile
-
-
249,606
169,595
916,250
-
-
Avg.
RSA/RSUs
2012
896,704
Selected
Statistics
2010
RSA/RSUs
Granted
Options/SARs
Granted
RSA/RSUs
Outstanding
Options/SARs
Outstanding
Total Overhang
Overhang from
Options/SARs
Run Rate
2009
25th
Percentile
50th
Percentile
75th
Percentile
-
-
449,725
1,675,345
268,000
900,000
2,046,914
1,730,680
1,358,252
-
57,409
1,038,984
893,403
8,921,298
1,900,000
4,700,203
3.49%
1.62%
3.14%
0.38%
0.00%
1.15%
0.33%
Avg.
538,754
181,500
9,247,520
Avg.
377,917
4,317,718
1,947,150
625,462
8,443,462
1,835,381
9,182,313
5.08%
3.62%
1.62%
3.13%
5.22%
0.02%
0.53%
0.31%
0.00%
0.00%
0.42%
0.85%
1.48%
1.26%
0.30%
0.80%
1.50%
2014 Equity Trends Report | 19
Statistical Appendix
Performance Equity
Percent of
Companies
2013 Performance Equity
Vehicle Prevalence
Percentage of Awards
2013
2012
36.42%
34.57%
2011
30.25%
2010
29.01%
Long-Term Incentive Plan
2009
24.69%
Annual Incentive Plan
Stock
Units
Options
Stock
Units
Options
13.36%
74.92%
4.89%
0.00%
5.86%
0.98%
2014 Equity Trends Report | 20
Equilar Contacts
For more information, please contact Aaron Boyd at [email protected]. Aaron Boyd is the Director of
Governance Research at Equilar. The contributing authors of this report were Nicholas Baldo, Content
Specialist; Greg Leyrer, Senior Research Analyst; and Thuy Le and Tiffany Chen, Research Analysts.
Report Partner:
About Solium
Since 1999, Solium (TSX: SUM) has been helping companies decomplexify their equity compensation plans.
Our software, Shareworks, brings all the key elements of equity compensation administration together in one
powerful cloud-based platform. Now you can collaborate, share, comply, trade, model, support decisions, create
reports and control your plan more simply, securely and brilliantly. Solium has offices in North America, UK &
EMEA, and Asia Pacific.
2014 Equity Trends Report | 21
Related Content Links
Reports
Innovations in CD&A
Design: A Proxy
Disclosure Analysis
2014 Realizable Pay 101
2014 S&P 1500 Peer
Group Report
Shareholder Value
Transfer in the
Technology Sector
An Early Look at Proxy
Voting Analytics
2014 Compensation and
Governance Outlook
Report
Articles
Paying the Newly Hired
CFO: A Compensation
Analysis
Videos
Behind The Numbers Say on Pay
Clawbacks 101
Shareholder Value Transfer
Analysis
2014 Equity Trends Report | 22
www.equilar.com