Market Research Data on the Design of Relative TSR Performance Award Programs

  Back to Relative TSR main page

Since 2005, Radford has seen an increase in programs using Relative Total Shareholder Return ("Relative TSR") as a performance metric for equity awards, as illustrated in the chart below. In order to provide our clients with accurate market practices data on this topic, Radford maintains a comprehensive database of plans and programs since 2005 involving Relative TSR. Our researchers use multiple sources of information to populate the database including special event filings, proxy statements and annual reports filed with the US Securities and Exchange Commission as well as news stories and press releases. High-level findings from this research are provided complimentary on Radford's Relative TSR website. For more information or to discuss exchange programs in greater detail, please contact us. The market practices outlined here, and their implications for program design, are addressed in our Relative TSR Plan Design Whitepaper.

Contents of Radford Research:

• 1. Important Plan Design Considerations
• 2. Prevalence of Peer Group Types (Custom vs. Index)
• 3. Outperform/Target Payout Bendpoints
• 4. Prevalence of Payout Vehicles
• 5. Treatment upon Termination/Retirement
• 6. Treatment upon Change in Control
• 7. Treatment of Dividend Equivalents
• 8. List of Companies with Programs involving Relative TSR

This information was last updated on January 28, 2010. Note some figures may not sum to 100% due to rounding.

1. Important Plan Design Considerations

General plan design considerations include: (1) Length of Performance Period, (2) Stock Price Averaging Period, (3) Size of Custom Peer Group, (4) Percentile Ranking for Outperform / Threshold, and (5) Outperform / Target Payout Bendpoints.

  Back to top

2. Prevalence of Peer Group Types (Custom vs. Index)

Radford has seen that the bulk of companies tend to use a custom peer group, but when using an index, the S&P 500 is most popular.

  Back to top

3. Outperform/Target Payout Bendpoints

According to our research, companies using an actual index as a comparator group tend to have higher payout bendpoints than those using custom comparator groups.

  Back to top

4. Prevalence of Payout Vehicles

Radford has seen that the vast majority of companies favor shares as the final payout vehicle.

  Back to top

5. Treatment upon Termination/Retirement

Radford has seen that the majority of companies prefer to payout the awards at a future multiplier, or final measure, for a participant's death, disability, or retirement during the performance period.

  Back to top

6. Treatment upon Change in Control

Radford has also seen that the majority of plans tend to not pro-rate the award with the actual service period when experiencing a change in control.

  Back to top

7. Treatment of Dividend Equivalents

Radford has seen a trend in that most companies prefer to pay dividends based on the final measure.

  Back to top

8. List of Companies with Programs involving Relative TSR

  Back to top

For further information on plan design considerations, please consult our Relative TSR Plan Design Whitepaper. To learn more about how Radford can assist in the design of your equity incentive program, contact one of your Radford consultants.

West Coast	East Coast
Jon Burg jburg@radford.com Brett Harsen bharsen@radford.com Matt Ward mward@radford.com	Terry Adamson tadamson@radford.com Ted Buyniski tbuyniski@radford.com Ed Speidel espeidel@radford.com