Proxy Statements That Mention ERI Data
Management periodically obtains survey data of comparably situated companies from <span class="proxyERI">Economic Research Institute (“ERI”)</span> to guide it in its recommendations of compensation decisions. The specific parameters defined for <span class="proxyERI">ERI</span> typically are job titles, company revenue size, company SIC code and geographic location. Based upon these inputs, <span class="proxyERI">ERI</span> supplies base salaries, incentive and total compensation information for comparable positions. Where comparable positions do not exist, further analysis is necessary to determine appropriate comparable compensation parameters.<br />
View the complete proxy here
The Compensation Consultant compiled compensation data for the 2013 Peer Group from a variety of sources, including proxy statements and other publicly filed documents. It also compiled published survey compensation data from multiple sources, including the <span class="proxyERI">Economic Research Institute</span>, Mercer and Towers Watson. The compensation of our executive officers and the Company's total shareholder returns for purposes of determining awards of performance share units was then compared with this 2013 Peer Group and survey data.<br />
View the complete proxy here
The Compensation Committee utilized the following materials, along with other resources and tools, to render compensation decisions for 2013: (i) surveys and reports of executive compensation paid by other public companies with characteristics similar to ours and (ii) professionally published surveys from Towers Watson, WTPF Compensation Survey, Direct Selling Association Management Compensation & Benefits Survey, <span class="proxyERI">Economic Research Institute Salary Assessor</span>, and HRA-NCA. These materials and other resources help to provide us with solid benchmarks for each component of our executive compensation package as well as a general understanding of best practices of companies in our industry who are competing for with us for top talent.<br />
View the complete proxy here
In developing compensation plans for the Named Executive Officers, the Compensation Committee utilized the services of Arthur Warren Associates, an independent compensation advisory firm. During 2013, Arthur Warren Associates assisted the Compensation Committee in the review of base salary and incentive compensation particularly among BSB Bancorp Inc.’s peer group, as determined through industry surveys and published proxy statements. The Compensation Committee also relied on other survey sources including Pearl Meyer & Partners 2013 Massachusetts Bankers Association Banking Compensation Survey, Pearl Meyer & Partners 2013 Northeast Bankers Survey, and <span class="proxyERI">ERI Economic Research Institute Survey</span>.<br />
View the complete proxy here
L&A compiled compensation data for the peer group from the summary compensation tables within proxy statements, as well as narrative disclosures in the CD&A sections. The consultant also provided published survey compensation data from multiple sources, including the following surveys: <span class="proxyERI">Economic Research Institute</span>, Mercer, Inc. Energy Survey, Kenexa and Towers Watson. For each survey, L&A adjusted the data to appropriately reflect companies of a similar size to the Company.<br />
View the complete proxy here
In establishing and evaluating fiscal 2013 compensation for our executive officers as of January 1, 2013, as well as for executive officers hired in 2013, the Compensation Committee utilized survey market data and peer group analysis provided by QTI... The market data compiled by QTI in 2012 updated the peer group universe and market data compiled by the Company in 2010 and was based on published survey sources, including the <span class="proxyERI">Economic Research Institute Executive Compensation Assessor</span>, Radford Global Technology and Global Sales Surveys and Towers Watson Data Services Global Remuneration Planning and Data Services Top Management Compensation Survey Reports, as well as recent proxy statements of the Company’s peer group companies.<br />
View the complete proxy here
In 2013, the Compensation and Human Resources Committee instructed Arthur Warren Associates to benchmark the Bank’s executive compensation programs against its peers to ensure that such programs are consistent with prevailing practices in its industry. The peer group consisted of three market surveys (Northeast Bankers Survey, Massachusetts Bankers Association Survey and <span class="proxyERI">Economic Research Institute</span>) as well as 12 publicly traded banks within the region having assets ranging between $249 million and $649 million.<br />
View the complete proxy here
The 2009 market study, which provided base salary, total cash compensation and total direct compensation analysis, utilized proxy data of our peer group from 2006 to 2008 and survey data from the following sources:Executive Compensation Assessor, Economic Research Institute</span>, 2012; U.S. Executive Survey Report, Mercer HR Consulting, 2012; Top Management Compensation, Watson Wyatt Data Services, 2012-2013
View the complete proxy here
In determining and assessing the appropriateness of the compensation for all executive officers, the Compensation Committee solicits and considers the self-assessment of each executive as to his or her performance against pre-established goals and objectives, as well as the executive’s involvement in the day to day operations of the relevant business unit. In addition, the Compensation Committee also engaged an independent compensation consultant that supplied benchmark data from two third party surveys: the Towers Watson Top Management Compensation Report and the <span class="proxyERI">Economic Research Institute Executive Compensation Assessor</span>. These third party compensation surveys are utilized by the Compensation Committee to evaluate the compensation levels of chief executive officers at companies of similar size and geographic location within the high technology sector.<br />
View the complete proxy here
Survey data as reviewed by our third party consultants from various sources also were utilized, including the following: Economic Research Institute</span>, 2014 Executive Compensation Assessor; Towers Watson 2013/2014 Top Management Compensation; Mercer, Inc 2013 US General Benchmark Survey; Kenexa 2014 CompAnalyst; World at Work 2013/2014 Total Salary Increase Budget Survey; IPAS, Global Technology Survey
View the complete proxy here
Arthur Warren Associates also assisted the Compensation Committee in the review of equity incentive plan design trends, particularly among Salisbury’s peer group (as identified below), as determined through industry surveys and published proxy statements. The Compensation Committee also relied on other survey sources including Pearl Meyer & Partners 2013 New York Bankers Association Banking Compensation Survey, Pearl Meyer & Partners 2013 Northeast Bankers Survey, and <span class="proxyERI">ERI Economic Research Institute Survey</span>.<br />
View the complete proxy here
In addition to peer group data, the CRI market study also utilized data from the following five(5) published salary surveys: Benchmark Database Executive; William M. Mercer; Comp Analyst; Salary.com/Kenexa for ProfessionalsExecutive Assessor; Economic Research Institute (ERI); Kenexa 2014 CompAnalyst; Salary Budget Survey; WorldatWork; Survey Report on Insurance Industry Management Personnel Compensation; Towers Watson
View the complete proxy here
L&A compiled compensation data for the 2013 peer group from a variety of sources, including proxy statements and other publicly filed documents. Peer benchmarking is only one of many considerations used to determine market compensation. L&A also provided the compensation committee with compensation data from the following published surveys: <span class="proxyERI">Economic Research Institute</span>, Mercer, Inc. and Towers Watson. For each survey, L&A adjusted the data to appropriately reflect companies similar in size to us.<br />
View the complete proxy here
The Compensation Committee relies on the Corporate Human Resources Manager and external research to identify the individual companies which make up this group. In identifying the peer group of surveyed companies, the Corporate Human Resource Manager utilizes the <span class="proxyERI">Economic Research Institute</span>, an industry and region specific compensation database, to assemble market data on publicly traded companies having similar industrial characteristics and revenues to that of the Company.
View the complete proxy here
EW Partners developed its analysis utilizing published compensation surveys and proxy statement data, where applicable, for each position being evaluated, including the 2012 California Bankers Association Compensation and Benefits Survey, the 2011 State of California Department of Financial Institutions Annual Executive Officer and Director Compensation Survey, the 2011 Financial Institutions Benchmark Compensation Report produced by Watson Wyatt, and the 2012 Executive Compensation Assessor developed by the <span class="proxyERI">Economic Research Institute</span> in Washington.<br />
View the complete proxy here
In addition to the 2013 custom peer group, Longnecker derived the 2013 competitive pay information, in part, from published survey data from the following sources: Economic Research Institute, 2013 ERI Executive Compensation Assessor Towers Watson, 2012/2013 Top Management Compensation; Mercer, Inc. 2012 US General Benchmark Survey; Kenexa, 2012 CompAnalyst; and WorldatWork, 2012/2013 Total Salary Increase Budget Survey.
View the complete proxy here
The Compensation Committee took into consideration data from salary surveys conducted by the American Bankers Association, the Economic Research Institute, Mercer, and Equilar.<br />
View the complete proxy here
Market compensation comparisons were based primarily on information from the Compensation Peer Group, which was supplemented with information from McLagan’s proprietary financial institution database. Market data was aged by an annualized factor of 3.0% to adjust for the historical nature of the data. In addition, data from McLagan’s database was adjusted utilizing data from the <span class="proxyERI">Economic Research Institute</span> to reflect the cost of wages in the Company’s local market.<br />
View the complete proxy here
As part of determining compensation levels for named executive officers, the Committee reviews information regarding the median compensation paid by other companies of comparable size both in our industry and generally… In our most recent review, the consultant referenced the Forest Products Industry Compensation Association Survey for industry-specific market data, and surveys from Mercer, <span class="proxyERI">Economic Research Institute</span> and Towers Watson for general industry market data representing similarly-sized companies. The surveys used include compensation data from companies within our peer group and other companies outside of our peer group.<br />
View the complete proxy here
In addition to publicly available proxy statement information for the comparator group companies, Longnecker procured market compensation data from published survey sources utilizing companies that operate in the plastic and rubber manufacturing industry based upon GSE’s size. Those published survey sources included (i) <span class="proxyERI">Economic Research Institute</span>, 2012 ERI Executive Compensation Assessor, (ii) Towers Watson, 2011/2012 Top Management Compensation, Compensation Calculator, (iii) Mercer, Inc., 2011 US General Benchmark, and (iv) WorldatWork, 2010/2011 Total Salary Increase Budget Survey.<br />
View the complete proxy here
L&A compiled compensation data for the peer group from a variety of sources, including proxy statements and other publicly filed documents. The consultant also provided published survey compensation data from multiple sources, including the following surveys: <span class="proxyERI">Economic Research Institute</span>, Mercer, Inc., Kenexa and Towers Watson. For each survey, L&A adjusted the data to appropriately reflect companies of a similar size to the Company.<br />
View the complete proxy here
In 2012, management utilized the <span class="proxyERI">Economic Research Institute (ERI)</span> to benchmark the NEOs salary and total cash compensation and to update the market analysis provided by compensation consultants in previous years. The compensation committee may engage a compensation consultant in the future, from time to time, as it determines necessary.<br />
View the complete proxy here
In addition to the peer group data, the Compensation Committee reviews market data from published surveys, which are conducted on a position-by-position basis and encompass a broad sample of companies. The published surveys utilized by the Compensation Committee were the <span class="proxyERI">Economic Research Institute Executive Compensation Survey</span> and the Radford Biotechnology Executive Compensation Survey.<br />
View the complete proxy here
For 2013, we also subscribed to an on-line compensation service available through the <span class="proxyERI">Economic Research Institute (“ERI”)</span>. <span class="proxyERI">ERI</span> compiles a robust database on job competencies, cost of living increases and executive compensation surveys. These three databases are used to help gauge the competitiveness of our 2013 salaries and executive compensation practices.<br />
View the complete proxy here
Compensation decisions were guided, in part, by review of the peer group data from LSLLC and in part by reference to industry survey data provided for the Upstream Oil and Natural Gas Support Activities industry, on a nationwide basis by the <span class="proxyERI">Economic Research Institute (ERI)</span> as well as additional published data for validation purposes (the peer group and industry survey data collectively referred to herein as the “market data”).<br />
View the complete proxy here
In setting 2013 salaries for the Named Executive Officers, the Compensation Committee reviewed a summary of information showing that none of the Named Executive Officers’ salaries plus anticipated bonuses under the 2012 Bonus Plan was above the median total cash compensation for the reasonably comparable positions as reported by the <span class="proxyERI">Economic Research Institute</span>.<br />
View the complete proxy here
The Compensation Committee reviews several sources as a reference for determining competitive total compensation packages. For 2011 and 2012, the Compensation Committee reviewed and considered Frost’s 2010 Oilfield Manufacturing and Services Executive Compensation Survey, <span class="proxyERI">Economic Research Institute’s</span> 2010 Executive Compensation Assessor, Towers Watson’s 2010 Top Management Compensation Report and William M. Mercer's 2010 Energy Compensation Report.<br />
View the complete proxy here
Longnecker also reviewed survey data as a reference point to compare the compensation of our executives to those of a broad range of companies. The following published surveys utilized by Longnecker were: Economic Research Institute</span>, 2013 ERI Executive Compensation Assessor; Mercer, Inc. 2013 US General Benchmark Survey; Mercer, Inc. 2013 Energy Benchmark Survey; Towers Watson 2013/2014 Top Management Compensation; Kenexa, CompAnalyst; Longnecker & Associates, 2013 Long-Term Incentive Survey; and WorldatWork, 2013/2014 Total Salary Increase Budget Survey.
View the complete proxy here
L&A compiled compensation data for the peer group from a variety of sources, including proxy statements and other publicly filed documents. The consultant also provided published survey compensation data from multiple sources, including the following surveys: <span class="proxyERI">Economic Research Institute</span>, Mercer, Inc., Kenexa and Towers Watson. For each survey, L&A adjusted the data to appropriately reflect companies of a similar size to the Company.<br />
View the complete proxy here
In addition to the peer group data, the Compensation Committee reviews market data from published surveys, which are conducted on a position-by-position basis and encompass a broad sample of companies. The published surveys utilized by the Compensation Committee were the <span class="proxyERI">Economic Research Institute Executive Compensation Survey</span> and the Radford Biotechnology Executive Compensation Survey.<br />
View the complete proxy here
Market competitive pay for each NEO was determined by evaluating base salaries and target incentive awards from our peer group when available along with reviewing external third party survey information from Mercer and TowersWatson for energy companies of similar size to us, the TowersWatson Liquid Pipeline Roundtable survey, <span class="proxyERI">Economic Research Institute</span> and the Longnecker & Associates LTI Survey.<br />
View the complete proxy here
Data for the salary surveys were selected based upon one or more of the following criteria: (i) industry group; (ii) geographic location; and (iii) company revenue. In addition, Adams conducted a competitive market analysis of comparable positions, for the named executive officers, by utilizing surveys from Towers Watson, <span class="proxyERI">Economic Research Institute</span>, CompData, National Employer Associations of America and Kenexa.<br />
View the complete proxy here