GWIM Compensation Finance Manager – Accounting job – Bank of America Corp. – Pennington, NJ

month end general ledger close, forecast, monthly estimate, annual plan and Sarbanes Oxley.

Interface with line of business partners, HR finance, Compensation…

From FINS.com – 12 Apr 2010 19:35:11 GMT
– job details
– View all Pennington jobs

View full post on sarbanes Jobs | Indeed.com

Executive Compensation In The Media Limelight: Notes From The Sabew Conference

Upper Saddle River, NJ – December 2, 2009 – On Monday, November 30, Paul Dorf, Managing Director of Compensation Resources, Inc. was invited to participate as a panelist in an audio-training session on Executive Compensation sponsored by the Society of American Business Editors and Writers, Inc. (SABEW).  Paul was joined by a distinguished panel of experts, led by Nell Minow, editor and co-founder of The Corporate Library, and Michelle Leder, editor and founder of footnoted.org.  The training was moderated by Floyd Norris, New York Times chief financial correspondent.  The program was organized by SABEW for its members, consisting of editors, reporters, and writers of major newspapers and business publications. 

 

The discussions centered on trying to answer three (3) major questions:  (1) Who is to blame for the approval of the current Executive Compensation problems? (2) What can be done to correct many of these ills? and (3) Where can accurate data be found with which to fully understand the value of the Executive Compensation package?

 

1.  “Pointing the Finger”

 

The finger for approval of bad Executive Compensation decisions and egregious packages was fully directed at the Compensation Committee members, who have, in many instances, not yet begun to reel in the exorbitant levels of compensation, nor have they instituted sufficient controls.  The inclusion of “Clawbacks”, “Circuit Breakers”, and similar checks and balances is noteworthy; however; the primary responsibility lies with the Compensation Committee for providing transparency, setting realistic and appropriate performance measures, and not capitulating to executive demands by rewarding poor or unacceptable performance, especially when they are in a financial crisis mode. 

 

It was noted that there recently has been a significant increase in Board Compensation which is intended to encourage greater involvement and sense of conscientiousness on the part of the Board members.  The question that this raised is if the Board members (new and old) actually appreciate their increased role and greater responsibilities to shareholders.  Unfortunately, there were a number of cynics who believe that Board members may now be even more reluctant and unwilling to buck the executives, and have yet to institute policies and procedures to curtail “run-away executive pay.”

 

2.  Correcting the Ills

 

Since many of the speakers and all of the audience represented the media, much emphasis was placed on shining the spotlight on the “Say on Pay” legislation.  Paul Dorf indicated that the rationale behind the actual design of Executive Compensation components is dictated by various government regulations (e.g., Sarbanes-Oxley), accounting rules (e.g., expensing stock options), and tax issues (e.g., limits on the deductibility of non-performance based pay).  With this in mind, he suggested part of the answer would be on developing standardized rules that cut across all types of businesses, including publicly-traded, privately owned, and not-for-profits.  The penalties already in place for not-for-profits could be extended to others, since these rules have already shown to be quite effective at curtaining runaway Executive Compensation in tax-exempt organizations.

 

3.  Sourcing Executive Pay Data

 

The difficult in gathering data on Executive Compensation was discussed at length, and it became apparent that the most reliable data is contained in annual proxies, although even that information must be carefully read “between the lines.”  Other sources include checking 10Q’s, 10K’s, Form 4’s and similar documents, as well as researching company websites and reviewing data provided in specialized studies such as those produced by The Corporate Library and other independent research organizations.  Unfortunately, much of the information appears after the fact and only shows what took place, rather than providing timely information that can be used to develop future performance measures and pay arrangements.

 

It was obvious from the discussions that Executive Compensation will remain an extremely hot and troublesome topic, and one that the media will continue to keep in their sights, since they are responding to the concerns and voices of the public at large.  This fixation on pay excesses and the misalignment between Executive Compensation and company performance will certainly remain until the economy makes a major course correction, as evidenced by a significant reduction in unemployment levels and a return in consumer confidence.

 

We welcome your thoughts and ideas on this subject.

GWIM Compensation Finance Manager – Bank Of America – Pennington, NJ

month end general ledger close, forecast, monthly estimate, annual plan and Sarbanes Oxley.

Interface with line of business partners, HR finance, Compensation…

From Bank of America – 09 Mar 2010 09:24:54 GMT – job details – View all Pennington jobs

View full post on sarbanes Jobs | Indeed.com

Financial Analyst (Stock Compensation; SOX/Sarbanes-Oxley) – Express Employment Professionals – New York, NY

in conducting monthly Sarbanes-Oxley testing of stock… the financial sector.
Experience in conducting Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) testing of stock-based transactions…

From CareerBuilder – 05 Mar 2010 20:11:59 GMT – job details – View all New York jobs

View full post on sarbanes Jobs | Indeed.com

Irs to Increase Scrutiny of Nfp Compensation

Upper Saddle River, N.J. – August 23, 2006 – Not-for-Profits (NFPs) continue to receive the brunt of the governmentâ??s attention as the Internal Revenue Service attempts to identify executive compensation excesses and put limitations on the amount that is paid to senior management. Post-Enron, there has been an unprecedented amount of media and public attention placed on excesses in executive compensation, focusing not only on public companies, but not-for-profit organizations as well. Much of the criticism is justifiable, particularly when there is little or no linkage between the amount of compensation paid to an executive and the organizationâ??s performance. Many of these excesses can be attributed to pay determination arrangements that are self-serving.

For publicly traded companies, the governmentâ??s reaction to excessive compensation has resulted in legislation such as Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX), the FASB requirement affecting the expensing of stock options, and the SECâ??s tightening of executive compensation disclosure rules. Although aimed at public companies, in reality they also impact all companies, including NFPs.

In a recent article in The CPA Journal , the authors indicated, â??The IRS intends to aggressively enforce section 4958, and the related regulations.â? Further it indicated, â??â?¦the IRS was ’seeing issues’ in the reporting of loans, deferred compensation, and other perks.â? The recent changes to section 457(f), which requires that at retirement, all deferred compensation arrangements, including annuitized supplemental executive retirement plans (SERPs), become fully taxable, further exacerbates the issue. Under the new rules, the amount of the deferred compensation shows up as part of the annual Total Compensation Package (TCP), but is again shown as part of total compensation in the year of retirement.

It is the organization’s responsibility to prove that the TCP is appropriate through a â??rebuttable presumptionâ? that the compensation arrangements were reasonable, in which case, the burden of proof rests with the IRS. This requires that three (3) conditions be met by the NFP: 1) the compensation decisions were made at arm’s length by an independent body (committee or Board); 2) the Board relied upon competitive information provided by a qualified and independent third party; and 3) the transactions and basis for their determination were appropriately documented.

In addition to the three items noted above, we strongly recommend that the Boards of NFPs take a hard look at how executive compensation is determined within their respective organization, and that it is consistent with a written and well thought-out compensation philosophy. Furthermore, the executive compensation program must reflect compensation levels within the appropriate competitive marketplace, and correlate with the financial viability and performance of the organization.

Next Page »