Agencies Issue Proposed Regulations on Incentive-Based Compensation

May 19, 2016

Reading Time : 3 min

Covered Institutions

Under Section 956 of Dodd-Frank, covered institutions include (i) depository institutions or depository institution holding companies, (ii) broker-dealers registered with the SEC, (iii) credit unions, (iv) investment advisors, (v) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and (vi) any other financial institution that the regulators jointly determined should be treated as a covered financial institution.

Covered Persons

Under the proposed regulations, covered persons include senior executive officers and significant risk-takers of covered institutions.  Senior executive officers includes individuals who hold the title or perform the function of, among others, president, chief executive officer, executive chairman, chief operating officer, chief financial officer, chief legal officer, or head of a major business line or control function. Significant risk-takers include individuals who, regardless of title or function, may be among the top 5% percent compensated individuals at Level 1 covered institutions or top 2 percent at Level 2 covered institutions or individuals who have the authority to commit or expose 0.5 percent of a Level 1 or Level 2 covered institution’s capital to risk of loss.

Tiered Applicability

In general, the proposed regulations apply with varying degrees of stringency based on three tiers of covered institutions:

  • Level 1: Consolidated assets equals or exceeds $250 billion.
  • Level 2: Consolidated assets equals or exceeds $50 billion.
  • Level 3: Consolidated assets equals or exceeds $1 billion.

Excessive Compensation

Compensation is excessive if amounts paid to a covered person are unreasonable or disproportionate to the value of the services performed, taking into consideration all relevant factors, including:

  • The combined value of all compensation, fees or benefits provided to the covered person
  • The compensation history of the covered person and other individuals with comparable expertise at the covered institution
  • The financial condition of the covered institution
  • Compensation practices at comparable covered institutions, based upon such factors as asset size, geographic location, and the complexity of the covered institution’s operations and assets
  • For post employment benefits, the projected total cost and benefit to the covered institution
  • Any connection between the covered person and any fraudulent act or omission, breach of trust or fiduciary duty, or insider abuse with regard to the covered institution.

Excessive Risk

An incentive-based compensation arrangement encourages inappropriate risks that could lead to material financial loss to a covered institution, unless the arrangement:

  • Appropriately balances risk and reward
  • Is compatible with effective risk management and controls
  • Is supported by effective governance.

Mitigating Risk

An incentive-based compensation arrangement will not be considered to appropriately balance risk and reward unless:

(1) The arrangement includes financial and nonfinancial measures of performance.

(2) The arrangement is designed to allow nonfinancial measures of performance to override financial measures of performance when appropriate.

(3) Any amounts to be awarded under the arrangement are subject to adjustment to reflect actual losses, inappropriate risks taken, compliance deficiencies, or other measures or aspects of financial and nonfinancial performance.

Governance

The proposed regulations require that a covered institution’s board of directors, or a committee thereof, engage in governance measures to oversee incentive-based compensation programs and approve payment terms and adjustments to amounts.

Mandatory Deferral

The proposed regulations require that incentive compensation arrangements be subject to deferral and time-based vesting periods, which vary based on the tier of the covered institution and the covered person.

Minimum Required Deferral Amount: 

  • Level 1: at least 60 percent of a senior executive officer’s and at least 50 percent of a significant risk-taker’s qualifying incentive-based compensation awarded for each performance period.
  • Level 2: at least 50 percent of a senior executive officer’s and at least 40 percent of a significant risk-taker’s qualifying incentive-based compensation awarded for each performance period.

Minimum Required Deferral Period:

  • Level 1 senior executive officer or significant risk-taker: at least four years (or 2 years in the case of long-term incentive awards).
  • Level 2 senior executive officer or significant risk-taker: at least three years (or one year in the case of long-term incentive awards).

In general, deferred amounts may not vest faster than on a pro rata annual basis beginning no earlier than the first anniversary of the end of the performance period for which the amounts were awarded subject to limited acceleration in the case of death or disability of the covered person.

Other Requirements

Under the proposal regulations, payments must be subject to clawback, downward adjustment and forfeiture in certain circumstances. The proposed regulations also impose certain disclosure and recordkeeping requirements and measures relating to risk management and compliance.

Effectiveness

Covered institutions must comply with the regulations 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.  Incentive-based compensation plans with performance periods that are in effect prior to the compliance date will not be subject to the regulations.

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

Deal Diary

June 27, 2024

On June 24, 2024, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) published five new Form 8-K Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations (C&DIs) expanding the agency’s interpretations of cybersecurity incident disclosures pursuant to Item 1.05 of Form 8-K. In July 2023, the SEC adopted final rules with respect to cybersecurity incidents that generally require public companies to disclose (i) material cybersecurity incidents within four business days after determining the incident was material and (ii) material information regarding their cybersecurity risk management, strategy and governance on an annual basis. We wrote about the final cybersecurity disclosure rules here.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

February 12, 2024

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) recently adopted final rules (available here; also see the fact sheet and press release) representing significant changes to  special purpose acquisition companies (SPACs), shell companies and the disclosure of projections. These rules aim to enhance disclosures, protect investors and align the regulatory framework for SPACs with traditional IPOs. The following summarizes the key aspects of these rules.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

October 4, 2023

On September 20, 2023, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued a final rule amending the so-called “Names Rule” (found here) that is “designed to modernize and enhance” protections under Rule 35d-1 of the Investment Company Act of 1940. The final rule is part of the SEC’s holistic efforts to regulate environmental, social and governance (ESG) matters, and is the SEC’s latest attempt to curb greenwashing in U.S. capital markets. The amendments require registered investment funds that include ESG factors in their names to place 80% of their assets in investments corresponding to those factors, thereby extending to ESG funds the SEC’s long-standing approach of regulating the names of registered funds to ensure they are marketed to investors truthfully. Fund complexes with more than $1 billion in assets will have two years from the final rule’s effective date (60 days after publication in the Federal Register) to comply, while fund complexes with less than $1 billion in assets will be given a compliance period of 30 months.

Chair Gary Gensler said “[t]he Names Rule reflects a basic idea: A fund’s investment portfolio should match a fund’s advertised investment focus. In essence, if a fund’s name suggests an investment focus, the fund in turn needs to invest shareholders’ dollars in a manner consistent with that investment focus. Otherwise, a fund’s portfolio might be inconsistent with what fund investors desired when selecting a fund based upon its name.” The sole dissenting vote against the rule modification, Commissioner Mark Uyeda, said “[w]ith these amendments, the Commission overemphasizes the importance of a fund’s name, as if to suggest that investors and their financial professionals need not look at the prospectus disclosures.” Commissioner Uyeda also expressed concern that fund investors will bear the increased compliance costs associated with the rule change.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

May 31, 2023

As discussed in our prior publication (found here), the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) adopted amendments on December 14, 2022, regarding Rule 10b5-1 insider trading plans and related disclosures. On May 25, 2023, the SEC issued three new compliance and disclosure interpretations (C&DIs) relating to the Rule 10b5-1 amendments.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

May 24, 2023

On May 15, 2023, the Eastern District of California ruled that California Assembly Bill No. 979 (“AB 979”) violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. As enacted, California’s Board Diversity Statute, required public companies with headquarters in the state to include a minimum number of directors from “underrepresented communities” or be subject to fines for violating the statute. AB 979 defines a “director from an underrepresented community” as “an individual who self-identifies as Black, African American, Hispanic, Latino, Asian, Pacific Islander, Native American, Native Hawaiian, or Alaska Native, or who self-identifies as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender.”

...

Read More

Deal Diary

May 9, 2023

Update: On October 31, 2023, the Fifth Circuit granted the US Chamber of Commerce's petition for review of the SEC's share repurchase disclosure rules, holding that the SEC acted arbitrarily and capriciously in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. The court directed the SEC to correct the defects within 30 days of the opinion. On December 1, 2023, the SEC informed the Fifth Circuit that it was unable to correct the rule's defects within 30 days of the opinion. On December 19, 2023, the Fifth Circuit vacated the SEC’s share repurchase disclosure rules.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

April 12, 2023

We have released our 2023 ESG Survey which includes a collection of reports reflecting on significant ESG themes and trends from 2022, as well as what we believe to be key developments for 2023.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

February 6, 2023

As companies begin preparing for the 2023 proxy season, we note that Institutional Shareholder Services Inc. (ISS) and Glass Lewis, the leading providers of corporate governance solutions and proxy advisory services, issued updated benchmark policies (proxy voting guidelines), which can be found here and here, respectively. The updated proxy voting guidelines generally focus on board accountability and oversight considerations and address topics such as climate accountability, board diversity, shareholder rights, corporate governance standards, executive compensation and social issues. What follows is a summary of the proxy voting guidelines published by ISS and Glass Lewis for the 2023 proxy season.

...

Read More

© 2025 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.