In a potentially positive trend for investors, the number of companies incorporating ESG metrics in their executive compensation plans has been growing.
In a new research paper, Management incentive compensation: Trends, observations, and value to fundamental research, we explore the importance of assessing management incentives, the characteristics that can inform incentive plan analysis, trends in how compensation plans have evolved over time, and considerations of emerging issues.
Understanding corporate incentive pay structures helps investors to assess the alignment of management compensation with shareholder and stakeholder interests and to better understand motivations that drive management decision-making. In our research, we highlight a number of individual company examples to bring these issues to life within a specific context. By examining the structures of long-term and short-term incentive plans, we believe that investors can gain insights into strategic priorities that drive long-term financial performance.
Our research conclusions note the following points:
- Management incentive compensation has evolved over time.
It has become more performance based. In 2020, 94% of S&P 500 companies utilized performance-based share plans. It involves more metrics today, going beyond total shareholder return and incorporating more ESG metrics. The level of CEO compensation has also grown, with average realized pay of CEOs reaching $25 million in 2020. This represents an 8% compound annual growth rate over 11 years.
- Putnam's analysis focuses on understanding the structure and composition of incentive plans.
Effective plan structures have relatively longer time horizons, a performance basis, reasonable compensation levels, and clear, consistent terms, in Putnam's view. Performance metrics that are well composed are business relevant, appropriately ambitious, and financially material.
- Business-relevant ESG metrics in incentive plans can potentially be additive, when done in a way that emphasizes key attributes of relevance, additionality, specificity, and ambition. The number of companies in the S&P 500 Index that use ESG metrics in incentive compensation plans has more than doubled over the past decade. Companies held in Putnam's sustainable portfolios are also incorporating ESG-linked compensation plans more often than in the past. We highlight some examples in the paper.
- Improving governance and incentive data can help us better understand motivations for executives and top-level management.
There is growing data available on average CEO pay relative to median worker pay, on broader employee ownership models, and on the effectiveness of stock-based compensation models. We are interested in new ways of assessing stakeholder alignment and new approaches that foster strong long-term performance, some of which are featured in the report.
Well-crafted incentive programs, in our view, can align management teams with the long-term performance interests of shareholders and relevant stakeholders.
The importance of holistic analysis
For investors to gain a comprehensive understanding of management incentives, it is essential to combine this research with a company-specific understanding of other governance elements, including management team composition and expertise, track record, and strategic business context. As fundamental investors, our goal at Putnam is not to label incentive plans as "good" or "bad," but rather to gain insights into the motivations influencing corporate leadership's actions and the potential impact on long-term financial returns. By combining this analysis with our ongoing fundamental, sustainability, and valuation-based research, we can make more fully informed investment decisions for our clients.
* Based on HOLT data and Putnam analysis.
For informational purposes only. Not an investment recommendation.
This material is provided for limited purposes. It is not intended as an offer or solicitation for the purchase or sale of any financial instrument, or any Putnam product or strategy. References to specific asset classes and financial markets are for illustrative purposes only and are not intended to be, and should not be interpreted as, recommendations or investment advice. The opinions expressed in this article represent the current, good-faith views of the author(s) at the time of publication. The views are provided for informational purposes only and are subject to change. This material does not take into account any investor’s particular investment objectives, strategies, tax status, or investment horizon. Investors should consult a financial advisor for advice suited to their individual financial needs. Putnam Investments cannot guarantee the accuracy or completeness of any statements or data contained in the article. Predictions, opinions, and other information contained in this article are subject to change. Any forward-looking statements speak only as of the date they are made, and Putnam assumes no duty to update them. Forward-looking statements are subject to numerous assumptions, risks, and uncertainties. Actual results could differ materially from those anticipated. Past performance is not a guarantee of future results. As with any investment, there is a potential for profit as well as the possibility of loss.
Diversification does not guarantee a profit or ensure against loss. It is possible to lose money in a diversified portfolio.
Consider these risks before investing: International investing involves certain risks, such as currency fluctuations, economic instability, and political developments. Investments in small and/or midsize companies increase the risk of greater price fluctuations. Bond investments are subject to interest-rate risk, which means the prices of the fund’s bond investments are likely to fall if interest rates rise. Bond investments also are subject to credit risk, which is the risk that the issuer of the bond may default on payment of interest or principal. Interest-rate risk is generally greater for longer-term bonds, and credit risk is generally greater for below-investment-grade bonds, which may be considered speculative. Unlike bonds, funds that invest in bonds have ongoing fees and expenses. Lower-rated bonds may offer higher yields in return for more risk. Funds that invest in government securities are not guaranteed. Mortgage-backed securities are subject to prepayment risk. Commodities involve the risks of changes in market, political, regulatory, and natural conditions. You can lose money by investing in a mutual fund.
Putnam Retail Management.