Building Unified Financial Visions

Tom Miller
December 9th, 2011 by Tom Miller

Final Thoughts: Perfecting the Phantom Stock Plan

If you’ve hung in with me the past couple of months you know I’ve sung the praises of phantom stock for private companies. If you’re new here you can start the series here.

Today, some final thoughts (or final for now, anyway).

Phantom stock plans can be, without a doubt, one of the most important steps you ever take in assembling the team of people who will take your company to new heights. However, there’s something more important that getting the right structure. You need to create the right mindset.

If you create a “perfect” plan but don’t establish the right mindset your plan will flop. You’ll wonder what went wrong with the plan. But it won’t be the plan’s fault. It will be yours. Ultimately, it’s your job to see that the employees not only understand the plan but that they are inspired by it.

Mindset relates to the perception of the plan in the minds of participants. When you make Sally a participant in this plan she should feel like she was just made a partner in the company. She should understand that her financial future is tied to yours (and vice versa). She should realize that you trust her to help produce the results that will create value for both of you.

Always position the plan in a positive light. Explore and discover ways to make your plan one of the highlights of your relationship with your key people. You’re investing in them. Make sure they know how much you value their efforts and how much you trust them to generate great results. Your phantom stock plan is a symbol of your commitment to a partnership relationship. They aren’t getting actual stock but they don’t really want those headaches anyway. They want to know that they have a chance to participate in the value they help create. A phantom stock plan, properly designed, can do just that because it sends the right message about the future:

We’re building a great company.

We’ve got the right people.

We’re united as partners in our financial success.

Let’s go make it happen.

If you’d like a copy of the complete series, click here.

Ken Gibson
November 21st, 2011 by Ken Gibson

Keep Incentive Plan Design Simple

Complexity can kill any value sharing arrangement.  Some reading that sentence are nodding their heads knowingly right now.  They’ve experienced that complexity and watched failure overcome what seemed in the beginning like just the right solution to plan design.

Companies run into the complexity problem most commonly when they try to manage behavior through the incentive plan.  They construct metrics and measures that are intended to focus the employee on specific business drivers.  By the time they construct those metrics for every category and tier in the company, they have a monster on their hands.  It’s usually about that time that our phone rings.

As you approach incentive plan design, keeping it simple has to be an overarching aim that guides the process.  To accomplish this, think in terms of deciding between two basic plan types and three basic measurement categories.  Then plan to “weight” the measurement categories by tier of employee to address the variance in impact at each level of the workforce.  Here’s what I mean.

Two Plan Types

When building a short-term incentive, a company will need to decide whether they want to use a profit-based allocation model or a targeted KPI approach.   In simple terms, a profit-based approach will focus everyone in the workforce on the profitability of the company and a pool will be used to generate payouts once a certain threshhold of profitability is achieved.  The KPI approach focuses the attention of an individual or team on defined performance indicators or intiatives which, if achieved, will drive greater profitability, revenue, EBITDA or whatever other key outcome you measure.

Each of these approaches are discussed more thoroughly in an article and/or webinar on our website.  I will refer you there for greater detail.

Three Measurement Categories

Most plan types can be managed well by “weighting” how much of an incentive will be tied to company performance, how much to team or department performance and how much should be based on individual performance.  The weighting each of these is given depends on the sphere of influence of the participating employee.  For example, tier one employees (executive level) might have a weighting something like the following: 75% company, 0% team, 25% individual.  A second tier (directors) might be allocated as follows: 25% company, 50% team, 25% individual. And so on through the tiers.

The three measurements approach allows you to have one plan while making room for adjustments to be made by category of employee based on its ability to impact company, department or individual outcomes.

Long-Term Incentives

Just a word about long-term value sharing.  The approach described above can apply to LTIPs as well, but is most commonly used for short-term incentive plan design (payouts for performance in a period of 12 months or less).  To effectively design a long-term value sharing arrangement, you will need an additional planning tool; a decision tree process that helps you ask the right questions and arrive at a suitable plan model. Ultimately, there are about nine different long-term value sharing approaches you could adopt.  Questions such as “are you willing to share equity?” lead to one conclusion or another about which plan type will be most suitable for your organization. To learn more about the decision tree process access the VisionLink article entitled: “Long-Term Incentive Plans–Which is Right for your Company?”

Once a long-term plan design is determined, a “simple” approach should still be applied.  The three measurement categories approach will help you do that.

In the world of compensation design, as in so many other things, “less” is often “more.”  Keep it simple.

 

Tom Miller
November 21st, 2011 by Tom Miller

Avoid These 9 Pitfalls with Your Phantom Stock Plan

This is actually my 11th blog on doing phantom stock right. If you haven’t followed the series you may want to start here.

For those who’ve hung out until the end…or the near end, congrats.

You now are armed with all you need to build a phantom stock plan. But if you’re trying this on your own, make sure you avoid some of the pitfalls.

As with any rewards strategy, there are plans that work well and others that fail.  To ensure your approach to Phantom Stock has a greater chance of success, here are some “do’s and don’ts” to consider.

  1. Don’t do one-time grants. Schedule and award grants annually. Make each grant a celebration. One-time grants always lead to regrets (e.g., “I shouldn’t have given him so many.”)
  2. If you’re not sure which type to use, go with phantom options. There’s less risk. No increase in value results in no payments to employees. Even if your share price goes down in some years employees can still come out ok (as long as you’re doing annual grants—see #1).
  3. That said, consider some full value grants for the key long-term employees who’ve been with you “through thick-and-thin.” This will give them some starting credit for prior contributions. Perhaps you’ll just do this in the first plan year, and then include them in your annual option awards. (This could be done for as few as one employee.)
  4. Start with a small group and expand participation as time goes by. It’s always easier to add participants than to subtract.
  5. Schedule payouts every five to six years. (Sooner is ok, but longer is not.)  Unlike regular stock options and restricted
    stock, employees cannot (with some exceptions) choose when they’ll “exercise” or “redeem” their shares. You, the plan sponsor, decide. The temptation will be to push the payment date out too long. This has two negative results: (a) the
    value may compound for a long time resulting in very large payouts, and (b) employees will have no way to access their money unless they quit—not the ideal scenario.
  6. Don’t make your formula (for share price calculation) too complicated. We’ve seen plans where the company officers don’t even understand the formula (or can’t remember why some things were included). Keep it simple. “Hey gang, if we grow profits we all make money!”
  7. Don’t ignore the rules. Most phantom stock plans will be subject to ERISA (the Fed’s 1974 rules on pensions) and Internal Revenue Code Section 409A. Sorry. There are rules. Fail to know and follow them at your own peril.
  8. Don’t try this at home. Get advice. It’s risky to decide upon the best choices for a phantom stock plan without the guidance of someone who’s done it before, a lot. You may intend to give away 10% of the growth of your company to your employees and you wind up giving away 30% via bad design and operation. This is important. Get help.
  9. That said, don’t use your attorney as your principal advisor. Your lawyer will be needed in the process—towards the end—to make sure the documents are in order. But, your attorney will not be experienced at the realities of plan operation. Find someone who’s lived with, slept with and eaten with phantom stock over the years. Let them put the structure on your important decisions. Then use your attorney to “cross the t’s and dot the i’s.”

Watch next time for my last tips on how to make a phantom stock plan inspire your employees.

10.  Manage the plan effectively. Don’t start the plan
and forget about it. Keep it fresh. Be flexible. Communicate it. Give the
employees statements that show their value. This is a big investment. Use it
wisely.

Ken Gibson
November 11th, 2011 by Ken Gibson

Incentives as an Act of Mistrust

The heart of a competitive advantage in an organization is a culture of confidence.  Such a culture emerges in companies that have developed success patterns to a point of such sustainability that the “flywheel effect” has kicked in, as Jim Collins describes in his book Good to Great.  There is momentum and your people know it; they know it because they are in the midst of it–in fact, they are the ones making it happen.  Such a business has a competitive advantage because a culture of confidence is not “copyable.”  It is an outgrowth of having all the human elements working in a unified, passionate fashion within a company.  Think Disney. Think Apple. Think any great company.

The best word to describe the mindset of the workforce within organizations that have developed such a culture is stewardship.  The dictionary describes a steward as “a person who acts as the surrogate of another or others.”  In business, it implies that employees act in the best interest of owners; more than that, they do the things ownership would do because they think like owners.  They think like owners, in part, because they are treated like owners–not because they necessarily own stock but because they have some kind of stake in the company’s success and a shared value system.

Organizations that adopt a stewardship approach to managing their people nurture trust and confidence in their employees by focusing more on  desired outcomes and results than methods and behaviors.  They communicate standards and values, vision and strategy, roles and expectations.  Then they communicate a sense of partnership in the way they share value with those that create value.

Such businesses inherently understand that they can’t use incentives as a tool to manipulate behavior or to reinforce methodology.  It’s not that they ignore those things, rather they recognize that pay is not the way to enforce the spirit of stewardship they want to engender.  To use incentives to “force” certain behaviors is the ultimate act of mistrust.  It undercuts the core sense of personal responsibility and accountability that a workforce must achieve if the “flywheel effect” is going to be realized.  Mistrust erodes a culture of confidence and pay, done improperly, creates mistrust.

To take it one step further, companies that have a culture of confidence don’t even think in terms of rewards as incentives.  Instead, they set up short and long-term value sharing agreements with their associates and consider their relationship to be a partnership, not employee or employer.  Value sharing is about reinforcing outcomes, not forcing behavior.  It’s about recognizing the contribution of all stakeholders in an organization’s success through effectively crafted pay programs.  It’s about stewardship not just employment.

So, as you consider where you are in your journey towards a future company that is not just good but great, avoid eroding your culture of confidence through any act of mistrust–especially as you build rewards strategies. Instead, use them to reinforce the line of sight you want to create between vision, strategy, roles, expectations and pay.

To learn more about a specific type of value sharing program that will encourage the stewardship mindset just discussed, tune into our next webinar broadcast entitled: What Think Ye of Phantom Stock–Does it Work?

Ken Gibson
November 2nd, 2011 by Ken Gibson

Ask the Right Questions

Great compensation solutions come to those who ask the right questions.  It’s as straight forward as that.  And there is a cascading sequence to an effective questioning process as it relates to compensation development and design.  Let’s explore what that might include.

Stage One

The first level of inquiry has to do with broad strategic issues.  Since compensation is a “strategic” tool, not a “tactical” one, the questions must start here.

  1. What is the vision of ownership for the “future company?”  In what ways will the company be different three years from now than it is today?  (Be as specific as possible.)
  2. What are the potential barriers that could keep that vision from being fulfilled (external and internal)?
  3. What key opportunities and initiatives have to be seized and effectively implemented if that vision is going to be realized?
  4. Who are the  people that will drive those opportunities and are key to overcoming the barriers described?
  5. Do you have all the people in place now you will need to realize the vision you have described or will new people be recruited?

Stage Two

With a clear and compelling vision in mind, you are ready to address level two questions.

  1. What is the business model of the company; the performance engine that keeps revenue flowing and will fuel growth?
  2. What roles are in place to support that business model and what expectations have been set for those roles?  (Presumably these are some of the same people mentioned above.)
  3. If you implement a compensation strategy that works, how should the outcomes produced by this group be improved or changed?

Stage Three

Now that we have addressed the vision and business model, we’re ready to talk more specifically about compensation related issues.

  1. What do you believe people should  be paid for primarily?  Time spent working? Outcomes (if so which?)?  Knowledge and experience?
  2. In what ways are you paying people now that is supportive both of that philosophy and the business model you described in stage two?
  3. How and to what extent should people be paid for maintaining the present performance engine of the company?
  4. How and to what extent should people be paid for innovation and contributing to the future growth of the company?

Stage Four

With a working pay philosophy established in stage three, we’re now in a better position to be more granular in our compensation questions.

  1. Where do we want to set salaries vis a vis market pay?
  2. Where do we want total compensation to be vis a vis market pay?
  3. Are those answers the same for each tier of employee in the company?
  4. Do we want to share equity?
  5. If we don’t want to share equity, do we want some level of pay to be reflective of company value?
  6. If we don’t want to tie pay to company value, what financial metrics do we want it tied to?
  7. What balance should there be between short-term value sharing (performance over 12 months or less) and long-term (performance over 12 months).

Certainly, there are still many more questions to be asked and answered before your compensation strategy will be ready and complete.  However, hopefully this list gives you a sense for the train of thought that should inform the compensation discussion in a company that wants to grow and realize ownerships’ vision for the future.

So what’s the best way to award phantom stock to employees? In my view it’s through Phantom Stock Options.

This one is my favorite, and it’s the most popular plan we design at VisionLink. Stock options (real ones) are attractive because they’re “win-win.” Employees only win if the other shareholders win (by seeing their stock price go up by a value that exceeds the amount by which they were diluted). In a public company environment there are markets that help to handle the exercise of the option. However, in a private company no such market exists. Instead, the employee and the company sponsor have to work out the cash flow mechanics of the exercise. And there’s no “cashless exercise” arrangement that permits the employee to get a reduced number of shares by surrendering a portion of his options to cover the strike price.

So let’s use phantom options. Easy. Recall that phantom stock is a cash compensation arrangement. Assume we give Sally (remember her–our top sales executive?) 5,000 phantom options with a starting value of $10. What will she really have at that point? Nothing—because the options must go up in value before she realizes any gain. But later, when the phantom share price reaches $18 and it’s time for redemption, Sally is simply handed a check for $40,000 (($18-$10) X 5000). No muss, no fuss. Sally doesn’t need to scrape together the $50,000 to exercise the options. She simply receives a nice payment that reflects a reward for her contribution to growth in company EBITDA.  Sally has tight alignment with the shareholders without the pain and complication of dealing with a stock transaction. (And you have a happy employee without the headaches of another shareholder.)

By the way, what’s described here as a phantom stock option is also known as a Stock Appreciation Right. However, some find the term phantom stock option more appealing and descriptive.

So have you picked the right plan for your company? Next we’ll look at how you begin to set it up.

Can Sally (our national sales leader) buy phantom stock from the company? Is such a thing possible?

In fact, we can sell Sally phantom shares. Let’s see how it would work.

This is referred to as a Deferred Stock Unit plan—a form of deferred compensation. Sally would be given the opportunity to defer some of her cash compensation (e.g., salary or bonus) into units of phantom stock. Said differently, Sally would “convert” some of her future pay to phantom stock.

An example: Assume Sally makes $200,000 in annual salary. She might defer up to 25% (or more, or less) of her salary into the plan. Assuming she does so she would acquire a deferred compensation interest that would have $50,000 worth of starting value. In other words, she would have 5,000 units of phantom stock (at $10/share) credited to her deferred comp account.

In reality, you’re not selling shares to her. That is, she’s not acquiring an ownership right in exchange for writing you a check. She’s deferring some of her income into an unsecured bookkeeping account that is measured by the growth of the phantom share price. But it has the same essential effect as selling Sally phantom shares. She is voluntarily foregoing wages in order to ‘invest’ in the company! That’s a pretty serious commitment. We’re definitely building an ownership mentality.

Plus, it’s much better for Sally tax-wise than buying actual stock. Why? Because she gets to do it with pre-tax dollars.

Tax-wise for you it’s not perfect, but it’s not so bad. You (or the company) will forego the current tax deduction on the income Sally chooses to defer. However, it’s a delayed deduction, not a lost deduction. Instead, of getting the deduction today of $50,000 (wages) you’ll get the future deduction on $90,000 (assuming our EBITDA growth example given in my previous blog).

This is a pretty flexible and promising arrangement when you have employees who believe in the future of the company and an owner who’s willing to share that growth—for a price.

So we’ve agreed (haven’t we?) that some form of phantom stock is likely to be better for private businesses. I mentioned that there are
three types of plans that may fit. Here’s the first.

Full value grant. We could give Sally (our senior sales executive) some shares that are valued, in full, at $10 per unit. We’re going to specify some conditions and restrictions (to be discussed later). Nonetheless, we’re committing the full $10 in value times the number of shares we decide to give her. If we give her 5,000 shares she’ll start with a true value of $50,000 (subject to vesting and other restrictions). At some future date she’ll redeem those awards for real cash. Assuming EBITDA grows to $18mm (from $10mm) on her
redemption date, Sally will receive a check for $90,000.

What about Sally’s taxes? Well, remember that with actual stock awards Sally would pay taxes when she received the grant or when the vesting lapsed. With phantom awards, Sally pays no taxes until she actually receives her award value (e.g., the $90k). In this way, she
never has to pay income taxes until she’s in receipt of the actual cash. It’s true that had she received actual stock (and paid the taxes up front) she might have saved some taxes in the long run. However, with phantom stock your tax deduction (i.e., the company’s) is higher than it would have been with actual stock. In the first case (actual stock), your deduction was for $50,000, thus a tax benefit of $20,000 (assuming 40% bracket). With the phantom stock example, you get to deduct the full $90,000, resulting in a tax benefit of $36,000. If
you’re feeling guilty about Sally’s taxes go ahead and give her more shares, enough to result in your “after-tax cost” being the same.

A full-value award of phantom stock may be just right for Sally. But generally, we suggest it only for those special employees who have been involved with the company for some time (i.e., they’ve earned some of the value that exists now). There are better ways for most employees.

Next time: Can we sell phantom shares to employees?

In my last blog I began the discussion of phantom stock—and why it’s often better for the employer and the employees. Here’s how to go about establishing a plan.

  1. First, you must establish a way to value the phantom shares. In essence, you’re trying to identify the value of the company. You can obtain a formal appraisal or you can establish the value by a formula. The latter will work best in most
    situations. Perhaps the formula will reflect a multiple of EBITDA or Net Income. Any reasonable formula can work. To be safe, use a formula that is going to be less than the actual fair market value you might sell the company for some day. You don’t want the employees’ phantom shares to be valued higher than your own.
  2. The next step is to create some phantom shares. Pick a number—1 million, 10 million—the number doesn’t matter as long as you have enough to make the plan work with the number of eligible participants you anticipate. This part can sometimes seem confusing or cause concern. “Wait,” you might be thinking, “shouldn’t I use the same number of shares we have outstanding in the company? Aren’t I trying to ‘shadow’ the movement of actual stock?” Actually, no. We don’t like the term ‘shadow stock’ because we’re not trying to replicate actual shares. We’re simply trying to provide an attractive award for employees at a future date. As you’ll see, it doesn’t matter whether there are more or fewer shares
    in the plan than in your company. Let’s do an example using EBITDA (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization) as our value indictor:

EBITDA    $10,000,000

Multiple selected    5

Formula Value  $50,000,000

Shares selected     5,000,000

Starting share price    $10

    3. Now let’s design our plan. Remember that with actual stock plans we had three choices: (a) give shares, (b) sell shares,  or (c) give options (to buy in the future at today’s price). Guess what? We have the same three options. We can simply award Sally (our national sales leader) some phantom shares. Or we can “sell” her some. Or we can create a phantom option.

Coming up—we’ll look at all three of these options using phantom shares.

Ken Gibson
September 15th, 2011 by Ken Gibson

Innovation and Compensation

I have recently become somewhat a student of innovation; particularly looking at how great companies and individuals manage to get ideas and products implemented while others stop and stall.  Among the things I’ve assimilated in that learning process are the following:

  1. Great innovators associate. Those that are prone to effective innovation are constantly associating one idea or experience with others.  They also systemitize the association process so that it occurs regular and naturally.
  2. Great innovators question everything.  Their curiosity is insatiable and they want to get to the bottom of things.  Why are things the way they are?  Do they need to be like that?
  3. Great innovators network. They want to associate with people that have a broad range of backgrounds and experiences so their life view is expansive and their feedback loop is broad.
  4. Great innovators seek feedback. They want to know what others think before they introduce a product to market.  They want it tested.  It doesn’t have to be perfect, but it has to meet the right need in the right way.
  5. Great innovators have a bias towards action. Innovating is not dreaming or wishing or even just being creative.  It is about getting ideas implemented and working in a way that transforms the end user’s experience.

There’s more I’ve learned, but let’s work with that list for now.  As we examine it in the context of compensation there are some important issues to consider.  A company’s approach to building effective rewards needs to follow a similar process:

  1. Those that develop compensation programs need to be able to view compensation as a dynamic tool and ”associate” each component both with other elements of pay and with the business model of the company.  As the company’s innovation cycle continues and expands, the approach to rewards needs to be able to reflect that new reality.
  2. If individuals are going to create an “innovative” rewards structure, they have to be willing to question everything.  What is the outcome we’re trying to drive?  Why is that important?  How should that outcome be rewarded?  When should it be rewarded?
  3. Innovative companies look beyond the “network” of their own industry in seeking creative ways to properly reward people for value creation.  They don’t think in terms of what the peer companies in their “space” are doing.  They look at what great, innovative companies are doing and then take lessons from their approaches to everything, including pay.
  4. Businesses that are effective at every level have a continuous feedback system in place.  They measure and assess.  They look at data and make decisions based on what that data reveals. Similarly, they seek feedback from their workforce about whether they are succeeeding at creating a sense of partnership, painting a compelling vision and building a sense of unity about the outcomes being pursued.  If they aren’t, they use pay as one of their strategic tools to target a better result.
  5. Companies that get compensation right usually get a lot of other things right because they are prone to act.  They don’t let the pursuit of the perfect paralyze them from taking action.  They get close enough, they stay focused, they get it done, roll it out and then make adjustments as they need to.

As you approach bettering the compensation strategies you wish to adopt, hopefully you will likewise become a student of innovation.  If you do, the horizon of possibilities will expand and your ability to drive results will be magnified.