Goldstein and Associates explain the “Knockout” Option: A New Form of Stock Option

The popularity of stock options as a compensatory tool has been waning at public companies for years. While there have been a number of factors that have contributed to their decline over the past decade or so, three chief concerns about compensatory options have been: (1) the accounting expense associated with stock options often exceeds their perceived value from the perspective of employees, (2) if a company’s stock price falls dramatically and the options have little chance of being in-the-money, the company must still recognize an expense and still incur the overhang of options with no way of getting rid of them and (3) stock options provide a “heads I win; tails I don’t lose” form of compensation.

Directors May Be Underpaid, Wachtell Lipton Tells Its Clients

Director pay has historically been limited by the view of the director as holding an independent trust and, once upon a time, the relatively limited time commitment that board service was thought to entail. More recently, boards have generally been wary of increasing their own pay in light of the downturn in the economy and public perception. The result is that levels of director compensation have not kept pace with the realities of the current marketplace. While directors are not employees and compensation is not the main motivating factor for public company directors, given the importance of board composition and the competition for the best candidates, it is important to evaluate whether these programs are appropriate to the company’s needs. Accordingly, as boards go through their self-evaluations, it is worthwhile to evaluate whether director compensation programs need adjustment consistent with the increased demands of board service, and whether they are adequate to secure top notch directors.

Goldstein and Associates discuss Short-Termism, Performance Goals and Executive Compensation

As the struggle for corporate control between advocates for long-term, sustainable economic growth and promoters of short-term financial performance rages on, we thought it made sense to highlight the point at which this battle manifests itself most frequently in discussions of executive pay: the selection of performance goals in incentive compensation programs. Specifically, we wanted to call attention to the brewing debate over the use of earnings per share and similar goals (EPS) in performance-based pay programs.