Canadian Money Forum banner

21 - 27 of 27 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,801 Posts
I’ll leave it to others who enjoy research (or know more off-hand facts) but I recall that a large percentage of executive comp is tied to the share price and deferred share units. I recall a former colleague who earned units, but they were paid out after 3 years....right during a major home Reno in 2009. He was obviously expecting almost double to be paid. Does that make sense....that a large portion of comp is tied to the stock price 3 years away (when vested)? I also recall a requirement that senior executives need to hold a certain amount of shares for 3 years after they retire.....this was the “leave it better than you found it approach”. TD also ties approx 20% of comp to customer service scores. Not sure all this is 100% accurate but leads me to believe the execs are very focused on longer term results 3+ years, rather than focusing on each quarter. The CEO is sitting on 800,000 shares (deferred or otherwise)......I suppose he’s more focused on the long-term, then the quarterly losses that may result in a recession.

i suspect comp at most large firms is similar.
I don't know personally about banks, but that's probably the general compensation scheme, lots of companies do that.

But no, that's not the right conclusion. Whatever the 3 yr vesting period, it will be rolling every year. So each year they are getting paid out the bonus that vests, based on the compensation granted 3 years ago.

Unless all the execs are brand new employees every 2 years, then they are sitting on big short-term bonuses based on upcoming stock/performance metrics.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,801 Posts
Banks are backed by the taxpayer. Nothing to fear for them. I suggest people read the creature from. Jeckal island to get a better idea of how the monetary system actually works.
I dunno...If we think the real picture about the modern day usury system is demonstrated in Jeckel Island type sources, etc., then I think we must also conclude that is is obvious that they will allow commercial banks to fail to keep "the system" going.

What better way to throw everybody off for the next 50-100 years about the bankers' control of the money system and governments for nefarious private gains (an opinion with growing evidence and mainstream understanding) than to allow many commercial banks to fail and "prove" that the free market system is ticking along just fine with no monkey business?

If we're going to be in conspiracy territory, it's probably best to assume the conspirators aren't complete dummies.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,868 Posts
Your response tends to show you didn’t actually read the book. It’s quite clear that they designed the system so that the taxpayer would bail out the banks in the book. In fact, it talks about exactly that, and gives several examples including 2007/8.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,517 Posts
I’ll leave it to others who enjoy research (or know more off-hand facts) ...
There's not that much research in reading annual reports. Most of the ones I receive have somewhere buried in the appendixes or supplementary documentation sections like "Executive X - $x stock options granted, $y vested, $z sold".


,,, but I recall that a large percentage of executive comp is tied to the share price and deferred share units ...
It adds up ... but I don't recall it being a huge percentage. If the salary was $10 million, I seem to recall yearly grant being something like $1 million.

As time rolls on, it adds up ... but like pension credits, it's structured to be more worthwhile to those that stay for longer periods.


... I recall a former colleague who earned units, but they were paid out after 3 years....right during a major home Reno in 2009. He was obviously expecting almost double to be paid. Does that make sense....
No ... most I've seen the details for or had friends participating in (I've never had the privilege or curse of equity compensation :) ), one year's worth would need an astronomical gain in value to double one's salary. Even the stock doubling in three years would be a great result. What makes more sense to me is that he was selling multiple years of stock granted/vested/able to sell.

Keep in mind that one of my friend's plan was grant this year, vest three years from now and able to sell three years after that.



... I also recall a requirement that senior executives need to hold a certain amount of shares for 3 years after they retire ....
I can recall reading in the annual report about how a particular director had a schedule that he was required to be buying stock so that between the options granted and stock bought, he would have x% ownership by year ####. The theory being that as an owner, directors/executives would put shareholders into the decisions being made.


... i suspect comp at most large firms is similar.
Depends on whether the company feels this is necessary for their industry and the staff they want to recruit.

Friends were happy with the plan at the company they switched to. They could sign up for a set percentage of salary as stock options at a 10% discount. Six months later, if the price of the stock had dropped - their bill for the stock would also drop. They were also allowed to sell the stock immediately after buying it. So if the stock was at $20 when they signed up then six months later it was $15, they were billed $13.50 and could sell it immediately for market value.

They weren't as happy when the company was bought out. They still could sign up but was the more traditional three years to the decision of buying or not then three years of holding before selling. IIRC, the discount was also pared down to 5% as well.


Cheers
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,517 Posts
... But no, that's not the right conclusion. Whatever the 3 yr vesting period, it will be rolling every year. So each year they are getting paid out the bonus that vests, based on the compensation granted 3 years ago.

Unless all the execs are brand new employees every 2 years, then they are sitting on big short-term bonuses based on upcoming stock/performance metrics.
I suspect so as well ... particularly for banks and others that are using the scheme to keep employees long term.

Other companies use a more short term plan and others skip this type of plan.


Cheers
 
21 - 27 of 27 Posts
Top