Financial Regulator Issues Proposed Rule on Incentive Compensation for Financial Institutions | Practical Law

Financial Regulator Issues Proposed Rule on Incentive Compensation for Financial Institutions | Practical Law

The National Credit Union Administration (NCUA), one of several agencies that is required to prescribe rules implementing Section 956 of the Dodd-Frank Act, issued a proposed rule establishing requirements for incentive compensation practices at large financial institutions. The other agencies are expected to propose the same rule which would prohibit incentive compensation arrangements that could encourage inappropriate risks by providing excessive compensation or that could lead to a material financial loss.

Financial Regulator Issues Proposed Rule on Incentive Compensation for Financial Institutions

by Practical Law Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation
Published on 26 Apr 2016USA (National/Federal)
The National Credit Union Administration (NCUA), one of several agencies that is required to prescribe rules implementing Section 956 of the Dodd-Frank Act, issued a proposed rule establishing requirements for incentive compensation practices at large financial institutions. The other agencies are expected to propose the same rule which would prohibit incentive compensation arrangements that could encourage inappropriate risks by providing excessive compensation or that could lead to a material financial loss.
Section 956 of the Dodd-Frank Act requires the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA), the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Securities and Exchange Commission (Agencies) to jointly prescribe rules with respect to incentive compensation practices at certain financial institutions (covered financial institutions). On April 21, 2016, the NCUA issued a proposed rule.
Update: All of the Agencies have approved the proposed rule which will soon be published in the Federal Register with a public comment period to close on July 22, 2016. A copy of the interagency notice of proposed rulemaking can be found here.
The proposed rule is a re-proposal of a rule that was issued in April 2011 (the 2011 Proposal) but was widely viewed as inadequate. The new proposal reflects the Agencies' collective supervisory experiences since the 2011 Proposal and incorporates many of the practices that financial institutions and foreign regulators have adopted following the financial crisis that began in 2007.
The proposed rule would establish a uniform set of enforceable standards that apply to a larger group of financial institutions than the 2011 Proposal. Institutions covered under this rule include:
  • Depository institutions.
  • Depository institution holding companies.
  • Registered broker-dealers.
  • Credit unions.
  • Investment advisers.
  • Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
  • Any other financial institution that the appropriate federal regulators, jointly, by rule, determine should be treated as a covered financial institution under this rule.
The proposed rule identifies three categories of covered institutions based on average total consolidated assets:
  • Level 1 (greater than or equal to $250 billion).
  • Level 2 (greater than or equal to $50 billion and less than $250 billion).
  • Level 3 (greater than or equal to $1 billion and less than $50 billion).
The determination of category of covered institution would be made based on average total consolidated assets as of the beginning of the first quarter that starts after final rules are published in the Federal Register (see Effective Date).
The Agencies have tailored the requirements of the proposed rule to the size and complexity of the covered institutions. While the basic set of prohibitions and disclosure requirements apply to all covered institutions, the most stringent requirements apply only to Level 1 and Level 2 covered institutions.

Covered Persons

The proposed rule would apply to "covered persons" which is defined as any executive officer, employee, director, or principal shareholder who receives incentive compensation at a covered institution. However, some of the requirements apply only to certain covered persons.

Executive Officer

The term "executive officer" includes senior executive officers and other individuals designated as executive officers by the covered institution. Senior executive officers include:
  • President.
  • Chief Executive Officer.
  • Executive Chairman.
  • Chief Operating Officer.
  • Chief Financial Officer.
  • Chief Investment Officer.
  • Chief Legal Officer.
  • Chief Lending Officer.
  • Chief Risk Officer.
  • Chief Compliance Officer.
  • Chief Audit Executive.
  • Chief Credit Officer.
  • Chief Accounting Officer.
  • Head of a major business line or control function.
Senior executive officers include people who do not have any of the above titles but who perform the functions of any of these positions.

Significant Risk-Takers

The proposed rule would create a new category of covered person called "significant risk-takers" which is intended to capture individuals who are not senior executive officers but are in a position to put a Level 1 or Level 2 institution at risk of material financial loss. A significant risk-taker is someone who receives at least one-third of total compensation (annual base salary and incentive compensation) in incentive compensation and satisfies either of the following tests:
  • The relative compensation test. The individual is among the top 5% (for Level 1 covered institutions) or top 2% (for Level 2 covered institutions) of highest compensated covered persons working for the covered institution and its affiliates (based on annual base salary and incentive compensation).
  • The exposure test. The individual has the authority to commit or expose 0.5% or more of the capital of the covered institution or an affiliate that is also a covered institution.

Requirements and Prohibitions Applicable to All Covered Institutions

The proposed rule would require all covered institutions to ensure that their incentive compensation arrangements meet the following minimum requirements:
  • Appropriate balance of risk and reward.
  • Compatibility with effective risk management and controls.
  • Support from effective governance.
The proposed rule would therefore prohibit all covered institutions from establishing or maintaining incentive compensation arrangements that encourage inappropriate risk:
  • By providing covered persons with excessive compensation, fees, or benefits. Compensation, fees and benefits would be considered excessive when amounts paid are unreasonable or disproportionate to the value of the services performed by a covered person, taking into account all relevant factors, including compensation history, financial condition of the institution and compensation practices at comparable institutions.
  • That could lead to material financial loss to the covered institution.

Performance Measures

Under the proposed rule, to appropriately balance risk and reward, an incentive compensation arrangement must:
  • Include financial and non-financial measures of performance.
  • Allow non-financial measures to override financial measures when appropriate.
  • Be subject to adjustment to reflect actual losses, inappropriate risks taken, compliance deficiencies, or other measures or aspects of financial and non-financial performance.

Board of Directors Oversight

The board of directors (or a board committee) would be required to:
  • Oversee the covered institution's incentive compensation program.
  • Approve incentive compensation programs for senior executive officers.
  • Approve any material exceptions or adjustments to incentive compensation arrangements for senior executive officers.

Disclosure and Recordkeeping Requirements

The proposed rule would establish disclosure and recordkeeping requirements, including requirements to:
  • Create annually and maintain for seven years records documenting the structure of all incentive compensation arrangements and demonstrating compliance with the proposed rule.
  • Disclose the records to the appropriate Agency on request.

Requirements Applicable to Level 1 and Level 2 Covered Institutions

Before the financial crisis, many large financial institutions' incentive compensation arrangements rewarded individuals for short-term gains without regard for long-term performance, thereby encouraging inappropriate risk-taking. Because these flawed arrangements are believed to have been a significant factor in the financial crisis, a major emphasis of the proposed rule would be to subject incentive compensation of covered persons at Level 1 and Level 2 covered institutions to adjustment or forfeiture or clawback until long-term performance can be measured.
Under the proposed rule, an incentive compensation arrangement at a Level 1 or Level 2 covered institution would not be considered to balance risk and reward unless it satisfies deferral, forfeiture, downward adjustment and clawback requirements.

Deferral

The proposed rule would require Level 1 and Level 2 covered institutions to defer the vesting of a certain portion of all incentive compensation awarded to senior executive officers or significant risk-takers for a minimum specified period of time. The deferral requirement allows compensation amounts to be adjusted for actual losses and other aspects of performance that crystallize during the deferral period.

Level 1 Minimum Deferral Amounts and Deferral Periods

The proposed rule would create different minimum deferral amounts for qualifying incentive compensation (incentive compensation awarded to a covered person for a performance period of less than three years) and incentive compensation awarded under a long-term incentive plan (a plan to provide incentive compensation that is based on a performance period of at least three years). Those amounts are also required to be deferred for different periods of time.
The proposed rule would require a Level 1 covered institution to defer:
  • At least 60% of each senior executive officer's qualifying incentive compensation for at least four years.
  • At least 60% of each senior executive officer's incentive compensation awarded under a long-term incentive plan for at least two years.
  • At least 50% of each significant risk-taker's qualifying incentive compensation for at least four years.
  • At least 50% of each significant risk-taker's incentive compensation awarded under a long-term incentive plan for at least two years.

Level 2 Minimum Deferral Amounts and Deferral Periods.

The proposed rule would require Level 2 covered institutions to defer:
  • At least 50% of each senior executive officer's qualifying incentive compensation for at least three years.
  • At least 50% of each senior executive officer's incentive compensation under a long-term incentive plan for at least one year.
  • At least 40% of each significant risk-taker's qualifying incentive compensation for at least three years.
  • At least 40% of each significant risk-taker's incentive compensation under a long-term incentive plan for at least one year.

Maximum Vesting

Under the proposed rule, the required deferral amounts would not be permitted to "vest" faster than pro rata beginning no earlier than the first anniversary of the end of the applicable performance period. For purposes of the proposed rule, vesting means the transfer of ownership of the incentive compensation so that the covered person's right to the incentive compensation is no longer contingent on an event.
The proposed rule prohibits the acceleration of vesting and payment of incentive compensation that is required to be deferred under the proposed rule (except in the case of a covered person's death or disability).

Composition of Deferred Compensation

The proposed rule attempts to strike a balance between the amount of deferred cash and equity-like instruments received. The proposed rule would therefore require that a senior executive officer's or a significant risk-taker's deferred incentive compensation include both:
  • A substantial portion of equity-like instruments.
  • A substantial portion of cash.
Options may count towards the deferral requirement. However, the proposed rule limits the use of options to satisfy the deferral requirements to 15% of the amount of total incentive compensation awarded for a given performance period.

Forfeiture and Downward Adjustment

The proposed rule would require Level 1 and Level 2 institutions to place incentive compensation at risk of forfeiture (a reduction of the amount of unvested deferred incentive compensation) and downward adjustment (a reduction of the amount of incentive compensation not yet awarded for a performance period that has begun) under certain circumstances. The following events would be required to trigger a forfeiture and downward adjustment review:
  • Poor financial performance attributable to a significant deviation from the risk parameters set out in the covered institution's policies and procedures.
  • Inappropriate risk-taking (regardless of the impact on financial performance).
  • Material risk management or control failures.
  • Non-compliance with statutory, regulatory, or supervisory standards that results in enforcement or legal action against the covered institution brought by a Federal or state regulator or agency; or a requirement that the covered institution report a restatement of a financial statement to correct a material error.
A covered institution would be required to consider forfeiture and downward adjustment of a senior executive officer's or a significant risk-taker's incentive compensation if the individual was directly responsible for an event triggering a forfeiture and downward adjustment review.
The proposed rule sets out factors that Level 1 and Level 2 institutions would be required to consider, at a minimum, when determining the amount of incentive compensation to reduce. The Level 1 or Level 2 institution would ultimately be responsible for determining how much of a reduction is warranted, consistent with the policies and procedures that it establishes.

Clawback

The proposed rule would require Level 1 and Level 2 covered institutions to include clawback provisions in their incentive compensation arrangements that allow for a recovery of up to 100% of vested incentive compensation from current or former senior executive officers and significant risk-takers for seven years after the date the compensation vests.
At a minimum, the clawback would be triggered in the event of a senior executive officer's or a significant risk-taker's:
  • Misconduct that resulted in significant financial or reputational harm to the covered institution.
  • Fraud.
  • Intentional misrepresentation of information used to determine the senior executive officer's or the significant risk taker's incentive compensation.
While the proposed rule would require Level 1 and Level 2 covered institutions to include a clawback provision in their incentive compensation arrangements, the proposed rule would not require that the covered institutions exercise the clawback provision. Rather, the covered institutions would make this determination after taking into account the facts and circumstances and all relevant information.

Hedging

The proposed rule would prohibit Level 1 or Level 2 covered institutions from purchasing hedging or similar instruments on behalf of covered persons to hedge or offset any decrease in value of the covered person's incentive compensation.

Maximum Incentive Compensation Opportunity

The proposed rule would prohibit a Level 1 or Level 2 covered institution from awarding incentive compensation that exceeds:
  • 125% of the target amount for senior executive officers.
  • 150% of the target amount for significant risk-takers.
The proposed rule would not set a ceiling on the overall amount of a covered person's incentive compensation. It would only limit the percentage by which incentive compensation could exceed the target amount.

Relative Performance Measures

The proposed rule would prohibit a Level 1 or Level 2 covered institution from using performance metrics based solely on industry peer performance comparisons. Covered institutions would be permitted to use both relative performance measures and absolute performance measures.

Volume-Driven Incentive Compensation

The proposed rule would prohibit Level 1 and Level 2 covered institutions from providing incentive compensation based solely on transaction or revenue volume without regard to transaction quality or the covered person's compliance with sound risk management (although transaction or revenue volume can be used as factors).

Risk Management and Controls Requirements

The proposed rule would require Level 1 and Level 2 covered institutions to have a systematic approach to designing and implementing their incentive compensation arrangements supported by independent risk management frameworks with written policies and procedures and developed systems.

Governance Requirements

To assist the board in carrying out its responsibilities related to incentive compensation, the proposed rule would require that a Level 1 or Level 2 covered institution establish a compensation committee composed solely of directors who are not senior executive officers. The compensation committee would be required to obtain input on the effectiveness of the covered institution's risk measures and adjustments used to balance risk and reward from the covered institution's risk and audit committees and from the covered institution's risk management function.

Policies and Procedures

To help to ensure and monitor compliance with the proposed rule's requirements, the proposed rule would require Level 1 and Level 2 covered institutions to develop and implement certain minimum policies and procedures relating to their incentive compensation programs. For example, the covered institutions would have to develop policies and procedures that:
  • Specify the substantive and procedural criteria for the application of forfeiture and clawback.
  • Clarify the triggers that result in the consideration of forfeiture, downward adjustment, and clawback.
  • Require the covered institution to document the establishment, implementation, modification, and monitoring of incentive compensation arrangements.

Additional Disclosure and Recordkeeping Requirements

The proposed rule would establish additional recordkeeping requirements for Level 1 and Level 2 covered institutions. For example, these covered institutions would be required to maintain records documenting:
  • Their senior executive officers and significant risk-takers.
  • The incentive compensation arrangements for senior executive officers and significant risk-takers.
  • Any forfeiture or downward adjustment or clawback reviews and decisions.
  • Any material changes to the covered institution's incentive compensation arrangements and policies.

Indirect Actions

The proposed rule would contain an anti-abuse provision, prohibiting all covered institutions from doing indirectly what they cannot do directly.

Enforcement

Section 956 of the Dodd-Frank Act provides that rules adopted under that section shall be enforced under section 505 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act.

Effective Date

The effective date of the proposed rule would be no later than the beginning of the first calendar quarter that begins at least 540 days after a final rule is published in the Federal Register. Any plan with a performance period that began before the effective date would be grandfathered.