UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
SCHEDULE 14A
Proxy Statement Pursuant to Section 14(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(Amendment No. )
Filed by the Registrant x Filed by a Party other than the Registrant ¨
Check the appropriate box:
¨ | Preliminary Proxy Statement | |||
¨ | Confidential, for Use of the Commission Only (as permitted by Rule 14a-6(e)(2)) | |||
x | Definitive Proxy Statement | |||
¨ | Definitive Additional Materials | |||
¨ | Soliciting Material Pursuant to §240.14a-12 | |||
Fortune Brands Home & Security, Inc. | ||||
(Name of Registrant as Specified In Its Charter) | ||||
(Name of Person(s) Filing Proxy Statement, if other than the Registrant) | ||||
Payment of Filing Fee (Check the appropriate box): | ||||
x | No fee required. | |||
¨ | Fee computed on table below per Exchange Act Rules 14a-6(i)(4) and 0-11. | |||
(1) | Title of each class of securities to which transaction applies:
| |||
| ||||
(2) | Aggregate number of securities to which transaction applies:
| |||
| ||||
(3) | Per unit price or other underlying value of transaction computed pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 0-11 (set forth the amount on which the filing fee is calculated and state how it was determined):
| |||
| ||||
(4) | Proposed maximum aggregate value of transaction:
| |||
| ||||
(5) | Total fee paid: | |||
| ||||
¨ | Fee paid previously with preliminary materials. | |||
¨ | Check box if any part of the fee is offset as provided by Exchange Act Rule 0-11(a)(2) and identify the filing for which the offsetting fee was paid previously. Identify the previous filing by registration statement number, or the Form or Schedule and the date of its filing. | |||
(1) | Amount Previously Paid:
| |||
| ||||
(2) | Form, Schedule or Registration Statement No.:
| |||
| ||||
(3) | Filing Party:
| |||
| ||||
(4) | Date Filed:
| |||
|
520 Lake Cook Road, Deerfield, Illinois 60015
NOTICE OF ANNUAL MEETING
AND PROXY STATEMENT
March 4, 2014
Dear Fellow Stockholders:
We are pleased to invite you to the Annual Meeting of Stockholders of Fortune Brands Home & Security, Inc. on Monday, April 28, 2014 at 3:00 p.m. (CDT) at The Westin Chicago North Shore, 601 N. Milwaukee Avenue, Wheeling, Illinois. The following matters will be considered at the Annual Meeting:
Item 1: |
The election of the three director nominees identified in this Proxy Statement for a three-year term expiring at the 2017 Annual Meeting (see pages 4 to 7 of the Proxy Statement); | |
Item 2: |
The ratification of the appointment by the Companys Audit Committee of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP as our independent registered public accounting firm for 2014 (see page 43 of the Proxy Statement); | |
Item 3: |
An advisory vote on the compensation paid to the Companys named executive officers (see page 44); and |
such other business as may properly come before the meeting.
Stockholders of record at the close of business on February 27, 2014, the record date for the meeting, are entitled to vote at the Annual Meeting. Stockholders who wish to attend the Annual Meeting in person should review the instructions on page 1.
YOUR VOTE IS VERY IMPORTANT. WHETHER OR NOT YOU PLAN TO ATTEND THE MEETING, PLEASE SUBMIT YOUR PROXY OR VOTING INSTRUCTIONS AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. You may submit your proxy (1) by mail using a traditional proxy card, (2) by telephone at 1-800-690-6903, or (3) through the Internet at www.proxyvote.com.
PLEASE CONFIRM YOUR PREFERENCE FOR ELECTRONIC DELIVERY OF FUTURE ANNUAL MEETING MATERIALS. You can expedite delivery of future annual meeting materials and avoid costly mailings by electing electronic delivery of your materials. For further information on how to take advantage of this cost-saving service, please refer to the accompanying proxy card.
This Proxy Statement and accompanying proxy are first being distributed on or about March 10, 2014.
|
Robert K. Biggart |
Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary |
Important Notice Regarding the Availability of Proxy Materials
for the Annual Meeting of Stockholders to be Held On Monday, April 28, 2014.
The Notice of Annual Meeting and Proxy Statement and the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013 (Form 10-K) are available at www.proxyvote.com.
1 | ||||
4 | ||||
8 | ||||
8 | ||||
8 | ||||
8 | ||||
9 | ||||
9 | ||||
10 | ||||
10 | ||||
10 | ||||
10 | ||||
11 | ||||
11 | ||||
12 | ||||
12 | ||||
13 | ||||
13 | ||||
13 | ||||
14 | ||||
14 | ||||
14 | ||||
15 | ||||
15 | ||||
15 | ||||
16 | ||||
17 | ||||
17 | ||||
20 | ||||
21 | ||||
23 | ||||
30 | ||||
31 | ||||
31 | ||||
32 | ||||
33 | ||||
34 | ||||
35 | ||||
36 | ||||
38 | ||||
41 | ||||
42 | ||||
42 | ||||
43 | ||||
43 | ||||
ITEM 2 RATIFICATION OF APPOINTMENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM |
43 | |||
ITEM 3 ADVISORY VOTE ON NAMED EXECUTIVE OFFICER COMPENSATION | 44 | |||
45 | ||||
46 | ||||
46 | ||||
47 |
Why did I receive these materials?
These materials were provided to you in connection with the solicitation by the Board of Directors (the Board) of Fortune Brands Home & Security, Inc. (Fortune Brands Home & Security, Home & Security or the Company), of proxies to be voted at our 2014 Annual Meeting of Stockholders and at any adjournment or postponement of the Annual Meeting. The Annual Meeting will take place on April 28, 2014 at 3:00 p.m. (CDT), at The Westin Chicago North Shore, 601 N. Milwaukee Avenue, Wheeling, Illinois. This Proxy Statement describes the matters on which you, as a stockholder, are entitled to vote and gives you the information that you need to make an informed decision on these matters.
Why did I receive a Notice of Internet Availability of Proxy Materials instead of printed proxy materials?
The Securities and Exchange Commission (the SEC) permits companies to distribute proxy materials to stockholders by providing access to these documents over the Internet instead of mailing a printed copy. Accordingly, we mailed a Notice of Internet Availability of Proxy Materials (the Notice) to most stockholders. This approach reduces the environmental impact and our costs of printing and distributing the proxy materials, while providing a convenient method of accessing the materials and voting. The Notice contains instructions on how to access the proxy materials on the Internet, how to request a printed set of proxy materials and how to vote.
Can I get electronic access to the proxy materials if I received printed materials?
The Companys proxy materials are also available on our website at http://ir.fbhs.com. Stockholders may elect to receive future proxy materials by email instead of paper. If you opt to receive our future proxy materials by email, you will receive an email next year with instructions containing a link to view those proxy materials and a link to the proxy voting site. Your election to receive proxy materials by email will remain in effect until you terminate it or for so long as the email address provided by you is valid.
Stockholders of record who wish to participate can enroll at http://enroll.icsdelivery.com/fbhs. Beneficial owners should check the information provided by their bank or broker regarding the availability of this service.
Who can attend the meeting?
Only stockholders who owned Fortune Brands Home & Security common stock as of February 27, 2014, or their authorized representatives, may attend the Annual Meeting. At the entrance to the meeting, stockholders will be asked to present valid photo identification to determine if you owned common stock on February 27, 2014.
Stockholders who own their shares in street name will be required to submit proof of ownership at the entrance to the meeting. Either your voting instruction card or brokerage statement reflecting your stock ownership as of February 27, 2014 may be used as proof of ownership. If you are acting as a proxy, you will need to submit a valid written legal proxy signed by the owner of the common stock. You must bring such evidence with you to be admitted to the meeting.
Who is entitled to vote?
Only stockholders who owned the Companys common stock of record at the close of business on February 27, 2014 are entitled to vote. Each holder of common stock is entitled to one vote per share. There were 165,758,568 shares of common stock outstanding on February 27, 2014.
What is the difference between being a stockholder of record and a beneficial owner?
If your shares are registered directly in your name with Wells Fargo Shareowner Services, the Companys transfer agent, you are the stockholder of record of those shares. If your shares are held in a brokerage account or
1
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (CONTINUED)
by a bank, you hold your shares in street name and are the beneficial owner of those shares. The majority of stockholders are beneficial owners. For such shares, the bank or broker is considered the stockholder of record for purposes of voting at the Annual Meeting. As a beneficial owner, you have the right to direct that organization on how to vote the shares held in your account by using the voting instructions provided to you by your bank or broker.
How do I vote?
If you received a Notice in the mail, you can either vote by Internet (www.proxyvote.com) or in person at the Annual Meeting. Voting instructions are provided on the Notice. If you request a paper copy of the materials, you may vote by mail.
Stockholders that received a copy of this Proxy Statement and accompanying proxy card in the mail can vote by (i) filling out the proxy card and returning it in the postage paid return envelope, (ii) telephone (800-690-6903), (iii) Internet (www.proxyvote.com), or (iv) in person at the Annual Meeting of Stockholders. Voting instructions are provided on the proxy card.
Stockholders that elected to receive proxy materials electronically can either vote by (i) Internet (www.proxyvote.com), (ii) telephone (800-690-6903), or (iii) in person at the Annual Meeting of Stockholders.
If you are a beneficial owner of our shares, you must vote by giving instructions to your bank or broker. You should follow the voting instructions on the form that you receive from your bank or broker. The availability of telephone or Internet voting will depend on your banks or brokers voting process. To be able to vote in person at the Annual Meeting, you must obtain a legal proxy from your bank or broker in advance and present it to the Inspector of Election with your completed ballot at the Annual Meeting.
How will my proxy be voted?
Your proxy card, when properly signed and returned to us, or processed by telephone or via the Internet, and not revoked, will be voted in accordance with your instructions. We are not aware of any other matter that may be properly presented other than those described above. If any other matter is properly presented, the Proxy Committee (the persons named in the enclosed proxy card or, if applicable, their substitutes), will have discretion to vote in their best judgment.
What if I dont mark the boxes on my proxy or voting instruction card?
Unless you give other instructions on your proxy card, or unless you give other instructions when you cast your vote by telephone or the Internet, the Proxy Committee will vote your shares in accordance with the recommendations of the Board of Directors, which are:
| FOR the election of three Class III directors (Item 1); |
| FOR the ratification of the appointment of our independent registered public accounting firm (Item 2); and |
| FOR the advisory approval of the compensation paid to the Companys named executive officers (Item 3). |
If you hold shares beneficially and you have not provided voting instructions, your bank or broker is only permitted to use its discretion and vote your shares on certain routine matters (such as Item 2). Your bank or broker is not permitted to use discretion and vote your shares on non-routine matters (such as Items 1 and 3) if it has not received voting instructions from you. Therefore, we urge you to give voting instructions to your broker on all three voting items. Shares that are not permitted to be voted by your broker with respect to any matter are called broker non-votes. Broker non-votes are not considered votes for or against, or entitled to vote with respect to, a proposal and will have no direct impact on any proposal.
2
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (CONTINUED)
How many votes are needed to approve an item?
The nominees for director, in non-contested elections, must receive a majority of the votes cast at the meeting, in person or by proxy, to be elected. A proxy card marked to abstain authority for the election of one or more directors will not be voted with respect to the director or directors indicated.
Under the Companys majority vote Bylaw provision relating to the election of directors, if the number of votes cast for a director nominee does not exceed the number of votes cast against the director nominee, then the director must tender his or her resignation from the Board promptly after the certification of the stockholder vote. The Board will decide within 90 days of that certification, through a process managed by the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee and excluding the nominee in question, whether to accept the resignation. The Boards explanation of its decision will be promptly disclosed in a filing with the SEC.
The affirmative vote of shares representing a majority in voting power of the common stock, present in person or represented by proxy at the meeting, and entitled to vote is necessary for the approval of Items 2 and 3. Proxy cards marked as abstentions on Items 2 and 3 will not be voted and will have the effect of a negative vote.
How can I revoke my proxy or change my vote?
You may revoke your proxy by giving written notice to the Secretary of the Company or by delivering a later dated proxy at any time before it is actually voted. If you voted on the Internet or by phone, you may change your vote by voting again. Your last vote is the vote that will be counted. Attendance at the Annual Meeting does not revoke your proxy.
Will my vote be public?
As a matter of policy, stockholder proxies, ballots and tabulations that identify individual stockholders are not publicly disclosed, but are available to the independent Inspector of Election, the proxy solicitation firm and certain employees of the Company.
What constitutes a quorum?
The presence at the meeting, in person or by proxy, of the holders of a majority in voting power of the outstanding shares of common stock entitled to vote will constitute a quorum. Proxies received but marked as abstentions or broker non-votes will be included in the calculation of the number of shares considered to be present at the meeting.
What if I am a participant in the Fortune Brands Home & Security Retirement Savings Plan or the Fortune Brands Home & Security Hourly Employee Retirement Savings Plan?
We are mailing this Proxy Statement and a proxy card to participants in the Fortune Brands Home & Security Retirement Savings Plan and the Fortune Brands Home & Security Hourly Employee Retirement Savings Plan (collectively, the Savings Plans) who invest in the Home & Security Stock Fund under the Savings Plans. The Trustee, as record holder of Home & Security common stock held in the Savings Plans, will vote whole shares attributable to your interest in the Home & Security Stock Fund in accordance with your directions given on the proxy card, by telephone or the Internet. If you invest in the Home & Security Stock Fund under the Savings Plans and you sign and return the enclosed proxy card, we will forward it to the Trustee of the Savings Plans. The proxy card will serve as instruction to the Trustee to vote the whole shares attributable to your interest in the manner you indicate on the card. If the Trustee does not receive timely direction with respect to the voting of your shares held in the Home & Security Stock Fund, the Trustee will vote such shares in the same manner and in the same proportion as the shares for which the Trustee received voting instruction.
3
The Board consists of eight members and is divided into three classes, each having three-year terms that expire in successive years. The term of the Class III directors expires at the 2014 Annual Meeting of Stockholders. The Board proposes that the three nominees described below, each of whom is currently serving as a Class III director, be re-elected to Class III for a new term of three years expiring at the 2017 Annual Meeting of Stockholders and until their successors are duly elected and qualified. Each of the nominees has consented to be named as a nominee and to serve as a director, if elected. If any of them should become unavailable to serve as a director (which is not now expected), the Board may designate a substitute nominee. In that case, the Proxy Committee will vote for the substitute nominee designated by the Board.
None of the nominees have been elected by the Companys public stockholders. Messrs. Mackay, Thomas and Wesley joined the Board prior to the date that Fortune Brands Home & Security became an independent, publicly-traded company following the distribution of all of the Companys issued and outstanding shares to stockholders of Fortune Brands, Inc. (Fortune Brands, Beam or former parent) (the transaction is referred to throughout this Proxy Statement as the Spin-off). Each of the nominees was elected to the Companys Board based on the recommendation of the Fortune Brands Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee and Board of Directors. Each of the Class I and Class II directors (Ms. Hackett and Messrs. Goldstein, Klein, Morikis and Waters) was elected by the Companys stockholders. Proxies cannot be voted for more than the number of nominees proposed for re-election.
The names of the nominees and the current Class I and Class II directors, along with their present positions, their principal occupations and directorships held with other public corporations during the past five years, their ages and the year first elected as a director of the Company, are set forth below.
Summary of Qualification of Directors
The Board believes that it is necessary for each of the Companys directors to possess many qualities and skills. The Board also believes that all directors must possess a considerable amount of business management experience (such as experience as a chief executive, chief operating, or chief financial officer) and educational experience. The process used by the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee in recommending qualified director candidates is described below under Corporate Governance Director Nomination Process (see page 9 of this Proxy Statement).
The Board believes that there are certain general requirements which are mandatory for service on the Companys Board of Directors, while there are other skills and experiences that should be represented on the Board as a whole but not necessarily by each individual director.
General requirements for all directors:
| Extensive executive leadership experience |
| Excellent business judgment |
| High level of integrity and ethics |
| Original thinking |
| Strong commitment to the Companys goal of maximizing stockholder value |
Experiences, qualifications, and backgrounds to be represented on the Board as a whole:
| Financial and/or accounting expertise |
| Consumer products expertise |
| Knowledge of international markets |
| Chief executive officer/chief operating officer/chief financial officer experience |
| Extensive board experience |
| Diversity of background |
Certain individual qualifications and experiences of our directors that contribute to the Boards effectiveness as a whole are described in the following paragraphs.
4
ITEM 1 ELECTION OF DIRECTORS (CONTINUED)
Name |
Present positions and offices with the Company, principal occupations during the past five years and other directorships |
Age | Year first elected director |
|||||||
NOMINEES FOR DIRECTOR CLASS III DIRECTORS TERM EXPIRING 2017 | ||||||||||
A.D. David Mackay |
Retired since January 2011; President and Chief Executive Officer of Kellogg Company, a packaged foods manufacturer, prior thereto. Currently also a director of Beam Inc., Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, Inc. and Woolworths Limited. Formerly a director of Kellogg Company. | 58 | 2011 | |||||||
Mr. Mackay served as Chief Executive Officer and Chief Operating Officer of one of the worlds premier packaged goods companies, bringing to our Board the perspective of a leader who faced a similar set of external economic, social and governance issues, to those that face our Company. | ||||||||||
David M. Thomas |
Retired since March 2006; Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of IMS Health Incorporated, a provider of information services to the pharmaceutical and healthcare industries, prior thereto. Currently also a director of The Interpublic Group of Companies, Inc. and a member of the Fidelity Investments Board of Trustees. Formerly a director of Fortune Brands, Inc. | 64 | 2011 | |||||||
Mr. Thomas experience as a Chief Executive Officer and management experience at premier global technology companies helps the Board address the challenges the Company faces due to rapid changes in IT capabilities and communications and global distribution strategies. | ||||||||||
Norman H. Wesley |
Retired since October 2008; Chairman of the Board of Fortune Brands, Inc. from January 2008 through September 2008; Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of Fortune Brands, Inc. prior thereto. Currently also a director of ACCO Brands Corporation, Acuity Brands, Inc. and Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, Inc. Formerly a director of Pactiv Corporation and Fortune Brands, Inc. | 64 | 2011 | |||||||
Mr. Wesleys experience as Chief Executive Officer of a consumer products conglomerate gives him unique insights into the Companys challenges, opportunities and operations. |
The Board of Directors recommends that you vote FOR the election of each nominee.
5
ITEM 1 ELECTION OF DIRECTORS (CONTINUED)
Name |
Present positions and offices with the Company, principal occupations during the past five years and other directorships |
Age | Year first elected director |
|||||||
CLASS I DIRECTORS TERM EXPIRING 2015 | ||||||||||
Ann F. Hackett |
Founder and President of Horizon Consulting Group, LLC, a strategic and human resource consulting firm, since 1996. Currently also a director of Beam Inc. and Capital One Financial Corporation. | 60 | 2011 | |||||||
Ms. Hackett founded a company that provides strategic, organizational and human resource consulting services to boards of directors and senior management teams. She brings to the Board entrepreneurial experience and expertise in strategy and human resources. | ||||||||||
John G. Morikis |
President and Chief Operating Officer of The Sherwin-Williams Co., a manufacturer of paint and coating products, since 2006. | 50 | 2011 | |||||||
Mr. Morikis experience as a Chief Operating Officer of a global leader in the paint and coatings industry and his 25 years of experience in that industry brings to our Board the perspective of a leader who, while facing a similar set of external economic issues that face our Company, increased operating performance and productivity at Sherwin-Williams. | ||||||||||
Ronald V. Waters, III |
Retired since May 2010; President and Chief Executive Officer of LoJack Corporation, a provider of tracking and recovery systems, from January 2009 through May 2010; President and Chief Operating Officer prior thereto. Currently also a director of HNI Corporation and Chiquita Brands International, Inc. Formerly a director of LoJack Corporation and Fortune Brands, Inc. | 61 | 2011 | |||||||
Mr. Waters combines experience in two key areas of interest to the Company. He has experience as a former Chief Executive Officer at a premier technology company and as a former Chief Operating Officer at a leading confectionary manufacturing company. |
6
ITEM 1 ELECTION OF DIRECTORS (CONTINUED)
Name |
Present positions and offices with the Company, principal occupations during the past five years and other directorships |
Age | Year first elected director |
|||||||
CLASS II DIRECTORS TERM EXPIRING 2016 | ||||||||||
Richard A. Goldstein |
Retired since May 2006; Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of International Flavors & Fragrances Inc., a manufacturer of flavor and fragrance products, prior thereto. Currently also a director of Beam Inc., The Interpublic Group of Companies, Inc. and Fiduciary Trust Company International. | 72 | 2011 | |||||||
Mr. Goldsteins background as a lawyer and his 30 year background in the consumer packaged goods industry, including as Chief Executive Officer, provides a unique perspective to the Board. | ||||||||||
Christopher J. Klein |
Chief Executive Officer of Fortune Brands Home & Security since January 2010; President and Chief Operating Officer from April 2009 to December 2009; Senior Vice President of Fortune Brands, Inc. from February 2009 until April 2009; Senior Vice President Strategy and Corporate Development of Fortune Brands, Inc. from April 2003 to February 2009. | 50 | 2010 | |||||||
Mr. Kleins leadership as Chief Executive Officer of the Company provides him with intimate knowledge of our operations and the challenges faced by the Company. |
7
Fortune Brands Home & Security is committed to maintaining strong corporate governance practices that are good for our stockholders and our business. We are dedicated to maintaining these practices and upholding high standards of conduct.
Corporate Governance Principles
The Board adopted a set of Corporate Governance Principles which describe our corporate governance practices and address corporate governance issues such as, Board composition and responsibilities, Board meeting procedures, the establishment of Board committees, management succession planning and review of risks. The Principles are available at http://ir.fbhs.com/governance.cfm.
The Companys Corporate Governance Principles provide that a majority of the members of the Board shall be independent directors. New York Stock Exchange requirements, as well as the Companys committee charters, require each member of the Audit, Compensation and Nominating and Corporate Governance Committees to be independent. The Board applies the definition of independence found in the New York Stock Exchange Listed Company Manual in determining which directors are independent. When determining each directors independence, the Board also considered charitable contributions made by the Company to organizations with which each director is affiliated.
Applying that definition, Messrs. Goldstein, Mackay, Morikis, Thomas, Wesley and Waters and Ms. Hackett were affirmatively determined by the Board to be independent and all such charitable relationships were deemed immaterial. Due to Mr. Kleins employment with the Company, he is not considered independent.
None of the non-employee directors has any material relationship with the Company other than being a director and stockholder. Also, none of the non-employee directors has had any transaction or arrangement that interferes with such directors independence.
Policies with Respect to Transactions with Related Persons
The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee (the Nominating Committee) and the Board adopted a Code of Business Conduct and Ethics which sets forth various policies and procedures intended to promote the ethical behavior of all of the Companys employees, officers and directors. The Code of Business Conduct and Ethics describes the Companys policy on conflicts of interest. The Board has also established a Compliance Committee (comprised of senior management) which is responsible for administering and monitoring compliance with the Code of Conduct. The Compliance Committee periodically reports on the Companys compliance efforts to the Audit Committee and to the Board.
The Board established a Conflicts of Interest Committee (comprised of senior management) which periodically distributes a Conflicts of Interest Policy and questionnaire to all of the Companys employees, officers and directors. The Conflicts of Interest Committee reviews potential conflicts of interest and reports findings involving any director or executive officer of the Company to the Nominating Committee and the Audit Committee. The Conflicts of Interest Policy describes the types of relationships that may constitute a conflict of interest with the Company. All employees and directors are required to complete the questionnaire and certify compliance with the Companys Conflicts of Interest Policy. The Nominating Committee will review any potential conflict of interest or related person transaction involving a member of the Board to determine whether such potential conflict or transaction would affect that directors independence. The Conflicts of Interest Committee will also present any potential related person transaction involving a member of the Board or an executive officer of the Company to the Audit Committee to evaluate each related person transaction, determine whether the interest of the related person in the transaction is material and approve or ratify, as the case may be, the transaction. The Audit Committee may ratify any related person transactions that were not submitted in advance of the transaction.
8
CORPORATE GOVERNANCE (CONTINUED)
All directors and executive officers are responsible for reporting any potential related person transaction to the Conflicts of Interest Committee in advance of commencing a potential transaction. Related person transactions are transactions in excess of $120,000 between the Company and a related person, which may include (i) persons or entities that beneficially own 5% or more of the Companys common stock; (ii) the Companys directors and executive officers; (iii) immediate family members of the Companys directors and executive officers; and (iv) businesses controlled by the Companys directors, officers or their immediate family members.
On an annual basis, the executive officers and the directors complete a questionnaire on which they are required to disclose any related person transactions and potential conflicts of interest. The General Counsel reviews the responses to the questionnaires and, if a related person transaction is reported by a director or executive officer, the questionnaire is submitted to the Nominating Committee and the Audit Committee for review. If necessary, the Audit Committee will determine whether the relationship is material and whether the transaction should be ratified. In addition, the Nominating Committee will determine whether the relationship affects the directors independence.
Certain Relationships and Related Transactions
During 2013, the Company did not participate in any transactions in which any of its directors, executive officers, any immediate family member of a director or executive officer or any beneficial owner of more than 5% of the Companys common stock had a direct or indirect material interest.
The Nominating Committee is responsible for, among other things, screening potential director candidates, recommending qualified candidates to the Board for nomination and assessing director independence.
When identifying director candidates, the Nominating Committee determines whether there are any evolving needs of the Board that require an expert in a particular field. When evaluating director candidates, the Nominating Committee first considers a candidates management experience and then considers issues of judgment, background, stature, conflicts of interest, integrity, ethics and commitment to the goal of maximizing stockholder value. The Nominating Committee also focuses on issues of diversity, such as diversity of gender, race and national origin, education, professional experience and differences in viewpoints and skills. The Nominating Committee does not have a formal policy with respect to diversity; however, the Board and the Nominating Committee believe that it is essential that the Board members represent diverse viewpoints. In considering candidates for the Board, the Nominating Committee considers the entirety of each candidates credentials in the context of these standards. With respect to the nomination of continuing directors for re-election, the individuals contributions to the Board are also considered. For the purpose of this annual meeting of stockholders, the Nominating Committee recommended the nomination of each of the Companys current Class III directors.
In connection with future director elections, or at any time there is a vacancy on the Board, the Nominating Committee may retain a third-party search firm to assist the Committee in locating qualified candidates that meet the needs of the Board at that time.
It is the Nominating Committees policy to consider director candidates recommended by stockholders, if such recommendations are properly submitted to the Company. Stockholders wishing to recommend persons for consideration by the Nominating Committee as nominees for election to the Board can do so by writing to the Secretary of Fortune Brands Home & Security, Inc. at 520 Lake Cook Road, Deerfield, Illinois 60015. Recommendations must include the proposed nominees name, biographical data and qualifications, as well as other information that would be required if the stockholder were actually nominating the recommended candidate pursuant to the procedures for such nominations provided in our Bylaws. The Nominating Committee will consider the candidate and the candidates qualifications in the same manner in which it evaluates nominees identified by the Nominating Committee. The Nominating Committee may contact the stockholder making the nomination to discuss the qualifications of the candidate and the stockholders reasons for making the nomination. Members of
9
CORPORATE GOVERNANCE (CONTINUED)
the Nominating Committee may then interview the candidate if it deems the candidate to be appropriate. The Nominating Committee may use the services of a third-party search firm to provide additional information about the candidate prior to making a recommendation to the Board.
The Nominating Committees nomination process is designed to ensure that the Nominating Committee fulfills its responsibility to recommend candidates that are properly qualified to serve the Company for the benefit of all of its stockholders, consistent with the standards established by the Nominating Committee under the Companys Corporate Governance Principles.
The Board and management encourage communication from the Companys stockholders. Stockholders who wish to communicate with the Companys management should direct their communication to the Chief Executive Officer or the Secretary of Fortune Brands Home & Security, Inc. at 520 Lake Cook Road, Deerfield, Illinois 60015. Stockholders, or other interested parties, who wish to communicate with the non-management directors or any individual director should direct their communication c/o the Secretary at the address above. The Secretary will forward communications intended for the Board to the Chairman of the Board, or, if intended for an individual director, to that director. If multiple communications are received on a similar topic, the Secretary may, in his or her discretion, forward only representative correspondence. Any communications that are abusive, in bad taste or present safety or security concerns may be handled differently.
Mr. Thomas serves as the Companys non-executive, independent Chairman. The Board determined that having an independent director serve as Chairman of the Board is in the best interests of our stockholders at this time. This leadership structure aids the Boards oversight of management and allows our Chief Executive Officer to focus primarily on his management responsibilities. The non-executive Chairman has the responsibility of presiding at all meetings of the Board, consulting with the Chief Executive Officer on Board and committee meeting agendas, acting as a liaison between management and the non-management directors, including maintaining frequent contact with the Chief Executive and advising him or her on the efficiency of the Board meetings, facilitating teamwork and communication between the non-management directors and management, as well as additional responsibilities that are more fully described in the Companys Corporate Governance Principles. In addition, the Companys non-executive Chairman facilitates the Boards annual performance assessment of the Chief Executive Officer.
The Board does not believe that a single leadership structure is right for all companies and at all times, so the Board periodically reviews its leadership structure to determine, based on the circumstances at the time, whether other leadership structures might be appropriate for the Company. The Board has been and remains committed to maintaining strong corporate governance and appropriate independent oversight of management. Given that each of the members of the Board, other than Mr. Klein, is independent we believe that the leadership structure currently utilized by the Board provides effective independent Board leadership and oversight.
Pursuant to the Companys Corporate Governance Principles, non-management directors of the Board are required to meet on a regularly scheduled basis without the presence of management. The non-executive Chairman of the Board leads these sessions.
The Board of Directors met five times in 2013. Each director attended at least 75% of the total meetings of the Board and committees of the Board of which the director was a member during 2013. In addition to participation at Board and committee meetings, our directors regularly engage in other communications throughout the year, including considerable telephone and electronic mail contact with the Chairman of the Board, the Chief Executive Officer and other members of management regarding matters of interest and concern to the Company.
10
CORPORATE GOVERNANCE (CONTINUED)
The Company does not have a formal policy requiring members of the Board to attend the Annual Meeting. In 2013, all of the directors attended the Companys annual meeting of stockholders.
The responsibility for the day-to-day management of risks lies with the Companys management team; however, the Board of Directors has an active role, as a whole and also at the committee level, in overseeing the strategy and process for managing the Companys risks. The Board regularly reviews information regarding the Companys business strategy, leadership development, resource allocation, succession planning, credit, liquidity and operations, as well as the risks associated with each. The Companys overall risk management program consists of periodic management discussions analyzing and mitigating risks, an annual review of risks associated with each of the Companys operating businesses and an annual review of risks related to the Companys compensation programs and practices.
Annually, management identifies external, strategic, operational, financial and compliance risks, assesses the impact of these risks and determines how to mitigate such risks. The Audit Committee manages the Companys risk management program and reviews the results of the annual assessment. Management also provides the Audit Committee with quarterly updates on the Companys risks and changes and/or emerging risks. In addition, the Audit Committee oversees management of the Companys financial risks.
The Companys Compensation Committee is responsible for overseeing the management of risks relating to the compensation paid to the Companys executives and the Companys executive compensation plans and programs. Annually, the Compensation Committees independent compensation consultant conducts an assessment of the risks associated with the Companys compensation practices and programs. For more information about that assessment see Compensation Risks below.
The Nominating Committee manages risks associated with the independence of the Board of Directors, potential conflicts of interest and the Companys corporate governance structure, as well as management of risks associated with environmental, health and safety, diversity, philanthropy, global citizenship and sustainability.
While each committee is responsible for evaluating certain risks and overseeing the management of such risks, the entire Board of Directors is regularly informed through committee reports about such risks. The Boards assignment of responsibility for the oversight of specific risks to its committees enables the entire Board, under the leadership of the non-executive Chairman and the Chief Executive Officer, to better monitor the risks of the Company and more effectively develop strategic direction, taking into account the various risks facing the Company, including the magnitude of such risks.
The Compensation Committee conducts an annual assessment of the risks associated with the compensation policies and practices used to compensate the Companys executives. The Compensation Committee also conducts a more extensive review of all of the Companys compensation policies and practices every other year. In 2013, the Compensation Committee, with assistance from its independent compensation consultant, reviewed the elements of executive compensation to determine whether any portion of executive compensation encouraged excessive risk taking and concluded that they do not. In general, the executive compensation arrangements are consistent with the structure and design of other companies of similar size and industry sector, and the following risk-mitigating design features have been incorporated into the Companys programs:
| The Company utilizes multiple long-term incentive vehicles with overlapping three-year performance cycles; |
| The Company uses multiple and diverse performance metrics in plans; |
| The Company often uses individual objectives and other discretionary metrics in determining certain payouts; |
11
CORPORATE GOVERNANCE (CONTINUED)
| Upside on payout potential is capped for both short-term and long-term incentives; |
| The majority of an individuals total compensation mix is not derived from a single component of compensation; and |
| The Company maintains stock ownership guidelines, a policy prohibiting hedging and pledging and a formal clawback policy. |
As a home and security consumer products business, the Company does not face the same level of risks associated with compensation for employees at financial services firms (traders and transactions involving instruments with a high degree of risk) or technology companies (rapidly changing markets). As described in our Compensation Discussion and Analysis, compensation decisions are made using a combination of objective and subjective considerations designed to mitigate excessive risk taking by executives.
The Board established an Audit Committee, a Compensation Committee, an Executive Committee and a Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee. The Audit, Compensation, and Nominating and Corporate Governance Committees are composed entirely of independent directors, as defined under the New York Stock Exchange Listed Company Manual and the Companys Corporate Governance Principles. The charters of these committees are available on the Companys website at http://ir.fbhs.com/governance.cfm.
A list of current Committee memberships may be found on the Companys website at http://ir.fbhs.com/committees.cfm. The Committee memberships as of the date of this Proxy Statement are set forth below:
Name | Audit | Compensation | Executive | Nominating
and Corporate Governance | ||||
Richard A. Goldstein |
X | X | ||||||
Ann F. Hackett |
C | X | X | |||||
Christopher J. Klein |
X | |||||||
A. D. David Mackay |
X | X | ||||||
John G. Morikis |
X | X | ||||||
David M. Thomas |
X | C | C | |||||
Ronald V. Waters, III |
C | X | X | |||||
Norman H. Wesley |
X | X |
An X indicates membership on the committee.
A C indicates that the director serves as the chair of the committee.
The Audit Committees primary function is to assist the Board of Directors in overseeing the (i) integrity of the financial statements and the financial reporting process of the Company; (ii) Companys compliance with legal and regulatory requirements; (iii) independence and qualifications of the Companys external auditors; and (iv) performance of the Companys external and internal auditors.
Each member of the Audit Committee (Messrs. Mackay, Morikis, Thomas, Wesley and Waters), is financially literate. Each of Messrs. Mackay, Thomas, Wesley and Waters has accounting or financial management expertise and is an audit committee financial expert as defined in Item 407(d)(5)(ii) and (iii) of Regulation S-K under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act). As required by its charter, each Audit Committee member has also been determined by our Board to be independent as such term is defined in Rule 10A-3 under the Exchange Act and the New York Stock Exchange Listed Company Manual. The Audit Committee met nine times in 2013.
12
CORPORATE GOVERNANCE (CONTINUED)
The Compensation Committees primary functions are to (i) develop and critically review the Companys executive pay philosophy and practices so that they are aligned with the Companys business strategy; and (ii) set the compensation of the Companys named executive officers and other officers of the Company who hold the office of vice president or a more senior office and the presidents of the Companys principal operating companies, in a manner that is consistent with competitive practices, individual and Company performance and the requirements of appropriate regulatory bodies.
As required by its charter, each member of the Compensation Committee (Messrs. Goldstein, Mackay, Morikis and Wesley and Ms. Hackett) has been determined by our Board to be independent as such term is defined in the New York Stock Exchange Listed Company Manual and pursuant to SEC and Internal Revenue Service regulations. The Committee has created a special Subcommittee comprised of Ms. Hackett and Messrs. Goldstein, Mackay and Morikis that is responsible for approving all performance standards and payments to officers for any pay program intended to qualify as performance-based compensation under Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code (the Code). The Compensation Committee met seven times in 2013.
Compensation Committee Procedures
The Compensation Committee directs management to prepare financial data used by the Compensation Committee in determining executive compensation. In addition, members of the Companys human resources department assist in the preparation of executive compensation tally sheets and historical information describing compensation paid to executives and the Compensation Committees independent consultant provides market data for use in determining executive compensation. The Compensation Committee is presented with recommendations from management and from the Committees independent compensation consultant as to the level and type of compensation to provide to the Companys named executive officers, officers who hold the office of Vice President or a more senior office and the presidents of our operating companies. Members of the Companys legal department provide the Compensation Committee with general advice on laws applicable to executive compensation and the directors fiduciary duties in setting compensation.
The Chief Executive Officer attends meetings of the Compensation Committee. The Chief Executive Officers feedback about each officers performance is essential in the Compensation Committees determination of the officers salary and target incentive compensation determinations. See pages 17 through 30 of this Proxy Statement for more information about how the Compensation Committee determined the executive officers compensation in 2013.
Compensation Committee Consultant
The Compensation Committee engages an outside compensation consultant. Meridian Compensation Partners, LLC (Meridian) was retained directly by and reported directly to the Compensation Committee during 2013. In 2013, Meridian provided the following services and information to the Compensation Committee:
| Made recommendations as to best practices for structuring executive pay arrangements and executive compensation (including the amount and form of compensation) consistent with the Companys business needs, pay philosophy, market trends and latest legal and regulatory considerations; |
| Provided market data (including compiling the Survey Group and related performance data) as background for decisions regarding Chief Executive Officer and senior management compensation; |
| Performed an assessment of risks associated with the Companys executive compensation structure and design; |
| Assisted in the design of the Companys 2013 Long-Term Incentive Plan; and |
13
CORPORATE GOVERNANCE (CONTINUED)
| Attended six of the seven Compensation Committee meetings (including executive sessions without the presence of management) held during 2013 and summarized alternatives for compensation arrangements that may have been considered in formulating final recommendations, as well as the consultants rationale for supporting or opposing managements proposals. |
The Compensation Committee has authorized Meridian to interact with management, as needed in connection with advising the Compensation Committee, and Meridian is included in discussions with management and, when applicable, the Compensation Committees outside legal counsel on matters being brought to the Compensation Committee for consideration. Meridian is prohibited from performing any services for management outside of services needed in connection with advising the Compensation Committee. The Compensation Committee has assessed Meridians independence and concluded that Meridians work for the Compensation Committee does not raise any conflict of interest.
The Executive Committee did not meet in 2013. The Executive Committee has all the authority of the full Board, except for specific powers that are required by law to be exercised by the full Board. The Executive Committee may not amend the Companys charter, adopt an agreement of merger, recommend actions for stockholder approval, amend or repeal the Bylaws, elect or appoint any director or remove an officer or director, amend or repeal any resolutions of the Board, fix the Boards compensation, and unless expressly authorized by the Board, declare a dividend, authorize the issuance of stock or adopt a certificate of ownership and merger.
Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee
The Nominating Committees primary functions are to (i) provide recommendations to the Board of Directors with respect to the organization and function of the Board and its committees; (ii) recruit, identify and recommend potential director candidates and nominees; (iii) develop a set of corporate governance principles; (iv) oversee the process of the evaluation of the Board and management; and (v) review and advise management on matters relating to the Companys responsibilities to its employees and the community. The Nominating Committee also makes recommendations to the Board regarding the level and composition of compensation for non-employee directors.
As required by its charter, each member of the Nominating Committee (Messrs. Goldstein, Thomas and Waters and Ms. Hackett) has been determined by our Board to be independent as such term is defined in the New York Stock Exchange Listed Company Manual. The Nominating Committee met four times in 2013.
Other Corporate Governance Resources
The charters of each committee, the Companys Corporate Governance Principles, the Companys Code of Business Conduct and Ethics and the Companys Code of Ethics for the CEO and Senior Financial Officers are available on the Companys website (http://ir.fbhs.com/governance.cfm).
14
Cash Fees
The annual cash fee for services as a non-employee director of the Company is $80,000. The members of the Audit Committee (Messrs. Waters, Mackay, Morikis, Thomas and Wesley) and the Compensation Committee (Ms. Hackett and Messrs. Goldstein, Mackay, Morikis and Wesley) receive an additional annual cash fee of $7,500 for their service on these committees. In addition, the chairperson of each of the Audit, Compensation and Nominating and Corporate Governance Committees receives an additional annual cash fee of $15,000 for such service (Messrs. Thomas and Waters and Ms. Hackett, respectively). Mr. Thomas receives an additional annual cash fee of $200,000 for his service as non-executive Chairman of the Board.
Directors have the ability to elect to receive payment of their cash fees in Company common stock rather than cash. Directors also have the ability to defer receipt of their cash fees, as well as any cash fees converted to Company common stock, until the January following the year in which the individual ceases acting as a director of the Company. In 2013, Mr. Morikis elected to convert all of his cash fees to Company stock and defer receipt of such fees.
Stock Awards
Each non-employee director receives an annual stock grant that is based on a set dollar value of $115,000. In 2013, the number of shares granted was determined by dividing the closing price of the Companys common stock on the grant date ($36.45) into the annual dollar value ($115,000), rounded to the nearest share. The number of shares of Company common stock granted to non-employee directors in 2013 was 3,155.
Directors have the ability to defer receipt of their annual stock awards until the January following the year in which the individual ceases acting as a director of the Company. In 2013, Ms. Hackett and Mr. Morikis elected to defer receipt of their annual stock award.
Stock Ownership of Board Members
To further align the Boards interests with those of stockholders, the Board of Directors established Stock Ownership Guidelines for non-employee directors. Directors are encouraged to own Company common stock with a fair market value currently equal to $240,000 (or three times their annual cash fee). The guidelines allow directors five years from the date of the directors election to the Board to meet the guidelines. All of our directors currently meet the stock ownership guidelines. For information on the beneficial ownership of securities of the Company by directors and executive officers see Certain Information Regarding Security Holdings on pages 45 and 46.
Anti-Hedging and Anti-Pledging
The Company has a policy prohibiting directors (as well as certain executives) from hedging the risk of owning Company common stock and from pledging or otherwise encumbering shares of Company common stock as collateral for indebtedness in any manner including, but not limited to, holding shares in a margin account.
15
DIRECTOR COMPENSATION (CONTINUED)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Name | Fees Earned or Paid in Cash ($)(1) |
Stock Awards ($)(2(3)) |
Option Awards ($)(3) |
Non-Equity Incentive Plan Compensation ($) |
Change in Pension Value and Nonqualified Deferred Compensation Earnings ($) |
All Other Compensation ($)(4) |
Total ($) |
|||||||||||||||||||||
Richard A. Goldstein |
87,500 | 115,000 | n/a | n/a | n/a | 7,879 | 210,379 | |||||||||||||||||||||
Ann F. Hackett |
102,500 | 115,000 | n/a | n/a | n/a | 671 | 218,171 | |||||||||||||||||||||
A.D. David Mackay |
95,000 | 115,000 | n/a | n/a | n/a | 671 | 210,671 | |||||||||||||||||||||
John G. Morikis |
95,000 | 115,000 | n/a | n/a | n/a | 5,254 | 215,254 | |||||||||||||||||||||
David M. Thomas |
302,500 | 115,000 | n/a | n/a | n/a | 1,160 | 418,660 | |||||||||||||||||||||
Ronald V. Waters, III |
102,500 | 115,000 | n/a | n/a | n/a | 6,160 | 223,660 | |||||||||||||||||||||
Norman H. Wesley |
95,000 | 115,000 | n/a | n/a | n/a | 1,160 | 211,160 |
* Although Mr. Klein currently serves as a member of the Board, he does not receive any additional compensation for such service.
(1) | Mr. Morikis elected to convert the cash fees he earned in 2013 to Company common stock and defer payment of the stock until the January following the year in which he ceases to be a director, pursuant to the Non-Employee Director Deferred Compensation Plan (as amended and restated January 1, 2013). As a result of the conversion of his cash fees to stock, Mr. Morikis deferred the receipt of 2,587 shares of Common Stock in 2013. |
(2) | The amounts in this column represent the aggregate grant date fair value computed in accordance with Financial Accounting Standards Board Accounting Standards Codification Topic 718, Compensation Stock Compensation (FASB ASC Topic 718). The grant date fair value was $36.45 per share. Ms. Hackett and Mr. Morikis elected to defer receipt of their stock award until the January following the year in which they cease being directors. |
(3) | Ms. Hackett and Mr. Morikis had 17,097 and 5,742, respectively, deferred shares outstanding pursuant to the Companys Non-Employee Director Deferred Compensation Plan (as amended and restated January 1, 2013). Mr. Thomas had 4,980 stock options outstanding under the Companys Long-Term Incentive Plan as of December 31, 2013. See Certain Information Regarding Security Holdings on pages 45 and 46 of this Proxy Statement for the number of shares of stock held, including stock deferred, and the number of stock options held by each current director as of February 28, 2014. |
(4) | Included in this column are premiums paid for group life insurance coverage, as well as the Companys match on gifts paid by the director to charitable organizations, both of which are generally available to all Company employees and directors. Under the Companys matching gift program, the Company makes a 100% match of gifts totaling up to $5,000 annually by the director to an eligible charitable institution. |
16
This Compensation Discussion and Analysis*, or CD&A, describes the Companys executive compensation program for 2013. In particular, this CD&A explains how the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors made 2013 compensation decisions for the following Named Executive Officers (the NEOs):
Named Executive Officer |
Position with the Company During 2013 | |
Christopher J. Klein | Chief Executive Officer, Fortune Brands Home & Security, Inc. | |
E. Lee Wyatt, Jr. | Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Fortune Brands Home & Security, Inc. | |
David M. Randich | President, MasterBrand Cabinets, Inc. | |
David B. Lingafelter | President, Moen Incorporated | |
Charles Elias, Jr. | Senior Vice President Strategy and Corporate Development, Fortune Brands Home & Security, Inc. |
Use of the term Operating Company Presidents throughout the CD&A specifically refers to the NEOs who served as operating company presidents of our businesses in 2013, namely, Messrs. Randich and Lingafelter, but does not refer to all of the Companys operating company presidents.
This CD&A is divided into the following main sections:
| an Executive Summary; |
| a discussion of the Compensation Committees Philosophy and Process for Awarding NEO Compensation; and |
| a description of the Types and Amounts of NEO Compensation Awarded in 2013. |
2013 Business and Financial Highlights
Fortune Brands Home & Security has a strong business model built on its leadership positions in attractive product categories, consumer driven innovation, and operational excellence. We believe the Companys 2013 performance demonstrates the strength of our businesses and the Companys ability to deliver results by leveraging its structural competitive advantages to drive profitable growth throughout the housing market recovery. Importantly, we believe that our compensation program impacts corporate performance. The vast majority of compensation awarded to NEOs is at risk, meaning payment is dependent upon strong Company performance. In 2013, 83% of Mr. Kleins total target compensation was pay-at-risk and 70% (on average) of the remaining NEOs total target compensation was pay-at-risk. The majority of total target compensation was awarded in the form of equity and the smallest portion of total target compensation was base salary. The Compensation Committee has focused the Companys compensation programs on the following:
| Equity-based compensation that aligns executives interests with stockholders. A significant portion of total target compensation is awarded in the form of equity, strongly aligning managements interests with those of stockholders. In 2013, total equity-based compensation made up 63% of Mr. Kleins and 51% (on average) of the other NEOs total target compensation. Each NEO was awarded three types of equity in 2013, in the form of performance share awards (PSAs), stock options and restricted stock units (RSUs). PSAs awarded to all NEOs vest based on consolidated corporate performance, weighted 75% EPS and 25% ROIC. The Compensation Committee believes compensation in the form of equity further aligns executive interests with stockholders and facilitates executive retention. |
* | All references to EPS, ROIC, OI and RONTA in this CD&A are on a before charges/gains basis. See Appendix A of this Proxy Statement for definitions of the non-GAAP financial measures discussed in this CD&A (i.e., EPS, ROIC, OI and RONTA) and a description of the methodology of these non-GAAP measures. |
17
COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS (CONTINUED)
| Incentive compensation that drives increasing profit and returns. In 2013, the performance metrics that govern the payment of annual cash incentive compensation for Messrs. Klein, Wyatt and Elias was weighted 75% Earnings Per Share (EPS) and 25% Return on Invested Capital (ROIC), while the weighting for Operating Company Presidents was 75% Operating Income (OI) and 25% Return on Net Tangible Assets (RONTA) for each of their respective operating companies. The Compensation Committee continues to believe that focusing on these key metrics will result in stronger growth in EPS and increased ROIC, which supports improving stockholder returns. |
| Base salary represents the smallest portion of total target compensation. In 2013, base salary represented 17% of Mr. Kleins and 30% of the remaining NEOs total target compensation. |
The Board believes that this approach to our compensation programs, along with our leading market positions and structural competitive advantages, has allowed our Company to continue to outperform the market in the early stages of the housing market recovery.
The Board believes that the Companys 2013 results, as shown in the charts below, exhibit how Home & Security grew sales, operating income and EPS in 2013, generated strong operating leverage and maintained a flexible capital structure with a strong balance sheet. The compensation paid to the NEOs during 2013 reflected the Companys strong 2013 financial performance.
2013 FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE (in millions, except EPS) |
||||||||||||||
2013 | 2012 | % CHANGE | ||||||||||||
NET SALES |
Kitchen & Bath Cabinetry
|
$1,642.2 | $1,326.6 | 24 | % | |||||||||
Plumbing & Accessories
|
$1,287.0 | $1,100.7 | 17 | % | ||||||||||
Advanced Material Windows & Door Systems
|
$657.8 | $587.2 | 12 | % | ||||||||||
Security & Storage
|
$570.4 | $576.6 | (1 | )% | ||||||||||
TOTAL |
$4,157.4 | $3,591.1 | 16 | % | ||||||||||
OPERATING INCOME(1) |
$388.5 | $227.7 | 71 | % | ||||||||||
EPS(1)
|
|
$1.50
|
|
|
$.89
|
|
|
69
|
%
| |||||
ROIC(1) |
10.1% | 6.3% | 60 | % |
(1) | Before charges/gains. Reconciliations of non-GAAP measures to the most closely comparable GAAP measures are presented in Appendix A to this Proxy Statement. |
CAPITAL PERFORMANCE (in millions) | ||||||
December 31, 2013 |
December 31, 2012 |
October 3, 2011 Spin-Off | ||||
CASH |
$241 | $336 | $77 | |||
DEBT |
$356 | $326 | $520 | |||
DEBT-TO-CAPITAL |
12% | 12% | 20%(1) | |||
MARKET CAPITALIZATION (in billions) |
$7.6 | $4.8 | $1.9 |
(1) | Equity as of September 30, 2011. |
18
COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS (CONTINUED)
The chart below reflects Home & Securitys consistently strong stock price performance since the Spin-off in October 2011.
2013 STOCK PRICE PERFORMANCE
2013 Compensation Program
We use our compensation program to attract, motivate and retain the executives who lead our businesses. The Compensation Committee has established programs and practices that are designed to pay-for-performance by aligning managements interests with those of the Companys stockholders. The Compensation Committee believes that it does this by providing a significant amount of executive compensation in the form of equity and by providing executives with short-term and long-term incentives that are tied to Company performance. Because a large portion of each NEOs compensation is tied to Company performance, the compensation that is actually paid to NEOs may vary from the target compensation awarded by the Compensation Committee and is at risk for each NEO. The compensation program is designed to appropriately allocate fixed (base salary) and variable (cash and equity incentive) compensation, as well as reward both short-term and long-term Company performance.
As described above, incentive compensation drives increasing profit and returns and equity-based compensation further aligns the executives interests with those of our stockholders. The Compensation Committee continues to believe that linking compensation to certain performance metrics motivates executives to increase profit and returns, which supports improving stockholder returns. Each NEO was awarded three types of equity in 2013, in the form of PSAs, stock options and RSUs.
| PSAs are paid in shares of the Companys common stock if certain performance goals are met during a cumulative three-year performance period. The performance goals for PSAs awarded to all NEOs in 2013 were based on EPS (weighted 75%) and average ROIC (weighted 25%) for the cumulative performance period from January 1, 2013 through December 31, 2015. The Compensation Committee believes that awarding PSAs with a cumulative three-year performance goal drives long-term sustained growth and, as a result, management is rewarded for their performance over a period of time. |
19
COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS (CONTINUED)
| Stock Options allow the NEO to purchase Company common stock at the market price set on the grant date. The options vest in three equal annual installments, assuming the NEO remains employed through each vesting date. The Compensation Committee believes that stock options further focus management on increasing stockholder returns and align the interests of management with stockholders, as the value of stock options grows when the Companys stock price increases. |
| RSUs are time-vested awards that are paid in shares of the Companys common stock in three equal annual installments, assuming the NEO remains employed through each vesting date. The Compensation Committee believes that RSUs further focus management on increasing stockholder returns and align the interests of management with stockholders, as the value of RSUs grows when the Companys stock price increases. RSUs also serve as a long-term retention device as an executive must remain employed with the Company through the three vesting dates to receive the shares. |
The following chart summarizes total target NEO compensation awarded in 2013:
Summary of 2013 NEO Compensation | ||||||||||||||||
Named Executive Officer |
2013 Annual Base Salary(1) |
2013 Annual Incentive Target Value |
2013 Long- Term Incentive Award Target Value(2) |
2013 Total Target Compensation |
||||||||||||
Christopher J. Klein
|
$1,000,000 | $1,150,000 | $3,650,000 | $5,800,000 | ||||||||||||
E. Lee Wyatt, Jr.
|
$686,000 | $583,100 | $1,601,000 | $2,870,100 | ||||||||||||
David M. Randich
|
$460,000 | $276,000 | $900,000 | $1,636,000 | ||||||||||||
David B. Lingafelter
|
$480,000 | $288,000 | $828,000 | $1,596,000 | ||||||||||||
Charles Elias, Jr.
|
$425,000 | $233,750 | $525,000 | $1,183,750 |
(1) | The amounts listed in this column reflect base salary, effective March 1, 2013. |
(2) | Expressed as the aggregate grant date value of PSAs (at target), stock options and RSUs, as determined using the assumptions found in footnote 11 to the consolidated financial statement contained in the Companys Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2013. |
Results of the 2013 Say-On-Pay Vote
In 2013, we sought an advisory vote from our stockholders on NEO compensation (commonly referred to as Say-on-Pay). Approximately 92% of the votes cast for the Say-on-Pay vote were in support of the Companys executive compensation program. Even with this strong endorsement of the Companys pay practices, the Compensation Committee believes that it is essential to regularly review the executive compensation program. In 2013, the Compensation Committee concluded that the compensation program provides awards that motivate our NEOs to maximize stockholder value and encourage long-term retention. Accordingly, the Compensation Committee did not make any changes to the design of the Companys executive compensation program in response to the 2013 Say-on-Pay vote. In connection with its ongoing review of the Companys executive compensation program and to further strengthen our internal policies and practices, the Compensation Committee adopted a policy prohibiting our directors, officers (including the NEOs) and other executives from pledging Company common stock.
20
COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS (CONTINUED)
PHILOSOPHY AND PROCESS FOR AWARDING NEO COMPENSATION
Philosophy of the Executive Compensation Program
We strongly believe that executive compensation should be closely tied to Company performance. Our executive compensation programs are designed to reward NEOs for the achievement of both short-term and long-term strategic and operational goals that lead to the creation of stockholder value, while at the same time avoid incentives that encourage unnecessary or excessive risk taking. To accomplish this, the Compensation Committee has designed an executive compensation program that it believes:
| Creates and reinforces a pay-for-performance culture; |
| Aligns managements interests with those of the Companys stockholders; |
| Attracts, retains and motivates superior talent through competitive compensation; and |
| Provides incentive compensation that promotes performance without encouraging excessive risk. |
Maintaining a Competitive Compensation Program
The Compensation Committee adopted a benchmarking comparison group (the 2013 Survey Group) for purposes of reviewing and approving 2013 compensation. Meridian Compensation Partners, which served as the outside compensation consultant to the Compensation Committee, provided information and suggestions as to the composition of the 2013 Survey Group. The 2013 Survey Group consisted of 18 consumer or housing product companies with median 2012 revenue of $3.5 billion which aligns with the Companys 2012 revenue of $3.5 billion. The Company believes that it competes with these companies for executive talent. The 2013 Survey Group consists of the following companies, which was the same survey group used for evaluating 2012 compensation decisions:
Armstrong World Industries |
Kohler Co. | Pella Corporation | ||
Andersen Corporation |
Leggett & Platt Incorporated | Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. | ||
A. O. Smith Corporation |
Lennox International Inc. | The Sherwin Williams Company | ||
Cooper Industries plc |
Masco Corporation | USG Corporation | ||
Fastenal Company |
Mohawk Industries, Inc. | Valspar Corporation | ||
Jarden Corporation |
Newell Rubbermaid Inc. | Watsco, Inc. |
The Compensation Committee compared the base salaries, target annual cash incentive, target total long-term incentives and target total direct compensation for the Companys NEOs to the regressed 50th percentile of the benchmark data to determine whether the Companys compensation practices fell in line with market data. Throughout the CD&A, the benchmarking data used by the Compensation Committee is referred to as market data.
The Compensation Committee believes that compensation decisions are complex and require a deliberate review of Company performance, peer compensation levels and individual performance. In determining executive compensation, the Committee considers all forms of compensation and benefits, and uses appropriate tools such as tally sheets and market data to review the value delivered to each executive through each component of compensation. Accordingly, the Compensation Committee may determine that with respect to any individual it is appropriate for total target compensation or any particular element of compensation to meet, exceed or fall below the 50th percentile of the market data. The factors that might influence the amount of compensation awarded include market competition for a particular position, retention considerations, an individuals performance, possession of a unique skill or knowledge set, proven leadership capabilities or other business experience, tenure with the Company and internal pay equity.
Evaluating NEO Performance
The Compensation Committee, in conjunction with the non-management members of the Board, conducts a formal evaluation of the Companys Chief Executive Officer (the CEO) each year to analyze his performance against strategic and operational goals established at the beginning of the year. The Compensation Committee then
21
COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS (CONTINUED)
sets the CEOs total annual target compensation. The CEO reviews and evaluates each of the other NEOs relative to their performance against strategic and operational goals established at the beginning of the year. The CEO then presents his evaluations to the Compensation Committee. The Compensation Committee evaluates the CEOs recommendations on each of the other NEOs against the strategic and operational goals established for each individual at the beginning of the year. The Compensation Committee then independently sets each NEOs total annual target compensation.
Maintaining Best Practices Regarding Executive Compensation
The Compensation Committee maintains policies and procedures for itself and for certain of the Companys executives, including the NEOs, many of which it believes represent best practices in corporate governance.
Compensation Committee Practices | ||||
Independence of Committee members | Compensation Committee members satisfy the New York Stock Exchange independence standards.
| |||
Compensation Consultant Independence | The Compensation Committee annually reviews and assesses the independence of the Committees compensation consultant (Meridian Compensation Partners). Meridian has not performed services for management in the past and is prohibited from doing so for so long as it serves as the Compensation Committees consultant. The Compensation Committee has sole authority to retain, supervise and terminate the compensation consultant.
| |||
Assessment and Mitigation of Risks | The Compensation Committee annually assesses the level of risk associated with the Companys executive compensation program to ensure that its plans and awards are designed and working in a way that discourages excessive risk taking.
| |||
Executive Compensation Practices | ||||
Pay for Performance | 83% of Mr. Kleins and 70% (on average) of the other NEOs total target compensation is pay-at-risk that is connected to the Companys (or its operating companies) short-term and long-term performance. Annual incentive cash awards are based on EPS and ROIC for Messrs. Klein, Wyatt and Elias and OI and RONTA for Messrs. Randich and Lingafelter. PSAs for all NEOs vest based on EPS and ROIC. In addition, the value of the NEOs equity awards increases when stockholder returns increase.
| |||
Maximum Payout Caps on Incentives | Maximum payouts for annual cash incentive awards and PSAs are capped at 200%.
| |||
Stock Ownership Guidelines | The Company maintains stock ownership guidelines for directors, NEOs and other officers, which requires them to hold a number of shares equal to a multiple of their base salary. Directors and officers have five years from the date of election (if a director), date of hire or date of promotion to acquire the requisite amount of stock. See page 29 of the CD&A for a detailed description of the ownership guidelines.
| |||
Anti-Hedging and Anti-Pledging Policy | The Company has a policy prohibiting directors, NEOs and other officers from hedging the risk of owning Company common stock or from trading in derivatives of Company common stock and from pledging or otherwise encumbering shares of the Companys common stock as collateral for indebtedness in any manner, including, but not limited to holding shares in a margin account.
| |||
Clawback Policy | The Company has a policy allowing it to clawback all or part of annual cash incentives or PSAs that relate to a performance period beginning after September 26, 2011 under certain circumstances. See page 28 of this CD&A for a full description of the policy.
The Company also includes the right to seek to recoup all or part of an executives other equity awards in the terms and conditions of the awards.
| |||
No Employment Contracts | The Company does not have employment contracts with any of its NEOs or other executive officers. NEOs and other executive officers are employees at will.
| |||
Double Triggers in the Event of a Change in Control | Severance agreements contain change in control severance benefits which are double trigger, meaning that there must be both a change in control of the Company and a qualifying termination of employment before any NEO (or other executive officer) can receive these benefits. See page 39 of the Proxy Statement for a detailed description of the Severance and Change in Control Agreements.
All equity incentive awards granted after the Spin-off also have a double trigger provision. See pages 40 and 41 of the Proxy Statement for a detailed description of treatment of equity following termination.
| |||
No tax gross ups on change in control benefits | The NEOs and other executive officers are not entitled to tax gross ups in the event that their change in control benefits are subject to the golden parachute excise tax under the Code.
| |||
No Repricing of Underwater Stock Options | The Companys Long-Term Incentive Plans do not permit repricing of underwater stock options or stock appreciation rights without stockholder approval, except in connection with a change in control.
| |||
Minimal executive perquisites | Limited personal use of Company aircraft for the CEO.
Relocation expenses for moving a primary residence made at the Companys request.
Annual executive physicals.
|
22
COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS (CONTINUED)
TYPES AND AMOUNTS OF NEO COMPENSATION AWARDED IN 2013
Summary of Executive Compensation Elements
The Company provided various types of compensation to the NEOs in 2013, some of which were fixed (base salary) and some of which were variable (cash and equity incentives). The vast majority of compensation awarded to the NEOs in 2013 is at risk to the executive because the compensation that is actually paid may vary from the target compensation that was awarded by the Compensation Committee and the payment is dependent upon the performance of the Company as a whole or the performance of an individual operating company. The majority of total target compensation was awarded in the form of equity and the smallest portion of total target compensation was base salary. The following charts show each element of NEO compensation, including the mix of short-term and long-term incentives, as well as the amount of pay-at-risk to the CEO and to the other NEOs:
23
COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS (CONTINUED)
The following chart summarizes the material elements of the Companys 2013 executive compensation program. Further details regarding each of the elements are provided in the discussion that follows the chart.
Executive Compensation
| ||||||||||
Element
|
Key Characteristics
|
Why We Pay
This
|
How We
Determine
|
2013 Decisions
| ||||||
Fixed | Base Salary | Fixed compensation payable in cash. Reviewed annually and adjusted as appropriate. | Provides a base level of competitive cash compensation to attract, retain and motivate superior talent. | Starts with market data and is adjusted based on proven leadership capabilities or other business experience, possession of a unique skill or knowledge set, internal pay equity, tenure or retention.
|
3 of 5 NEOs received a salary increase in 2013. Increases ranged from 3.5%-8.7%. | |||||
Pay-At-Risk | Annual Incentive Awards | Variable compensation payable in cash, based on achievement of pre-established annual performance goals. | Creates strong performance metrics that directly impact operating company and overall company performance. | Target payment for each NEO expressed as a percentage of base salary. The percentage of base salary is determined based on job scope, market data and internal pay equity.
Actual payouts of annual incentives can range from 0% to 200% of target, based upon the achievement of performance goals. |
Performance goals for Messrs. Klein, Wyatt and Elias were based on EPS (weighted 75%) and ROIC (weighted 25%), resulting in 200% payout for Messrs. Klein, Wyatt and Elias.
Performance goals for Operating Company Presidents were based on OI (weighted 75%) and RONTA (weighted 25%) of their respective operating company, resulting in a payout of 200% to Mr. Randich and 181.7% to Mr. Lingafelter.
| |||||
Performance Share Awards | Equity awards that pay out in shares of Company common stock on the third anniversary of the grant date, if specified performance goals are met. | Aligns managements interest with those of stockholders. Long-term performance metrics that directly impact operating company and overall corporate performance. PSAs along with stock options and RSUs optimize a mix of long-term incentives that support our business strategy.
|
Based on job scope, market data and individual performance. | One-third of equity award granted in the form of PSAs.
Performance goals were based on cumulative EPS (weighted 75%) and average ROIC (weighted 25%) for a three-year performance period. | ||||||
Stock Options | Nonqualified stock options that vest ratably over three years and expire in ten years. | Aligns managements interests with those of stockholders. Stock options along with PSAs and RSUs optimize a mix of long-term incentives that support our business strategy.
|
Based on job scope, market data and individual performance. | One-third of equity award granted in the form of stock options. | ||||||
Restricted Stock Units | Time-vested RSUs that vest in three equal annual installments and are paid in shares of Company common stock. | Aligns managements interest with those of stockholders and encourages retention of superior talent. RSUs along with PSAs and stock options optimize a mix of long-term incentives that support our business strategy.
|
Based on job scope, market data and individual performance. | One-third of equity award granted in the form of RSUs. |
24
COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS (CONTINUED)
Compensation Provided to NEOs in 2013
Base Salary
In setting base salary levels, the Compensation Committee (together with Mr. Klein for NEOs other than himself) considered competitive market data, market competition for a particular position, retention considerations, individual performance, possession of a unique skill or knowledge set, proven leadership capabilities or other business experience, internal pay equity and tenure with the Company. In 2013, each of the NEOs other than Messrs. Randich and Elias received an annual base salary increase ranging from 3.5%-8.7%. Mr. Klein received an 8.7% increase in his base salary due to his high level of performance during 2012 and to further align his base salary with the market data. Mr. Randich did not receive a salary increase in 2013 as he received a salary adjustment in October 2012 in connection with his promotion to President of MasterBrand Cabinets. Mr. Elias was hired by the Company in January 2013 and his initial base salary level was determined based on the market data.
NEO Base Salary | ||||||||||||
Named Executive Officer | 2013 | 2012 | % Increase | |||||||||
Christopher J. Klein |
1,000,000 | 920,000 | 8.7% | |||||||||
E. Lee Wyatt, Jr. |
686,000 | 663,000 | 3.5% | |||||||||
David M. Randich |
460,000 | 460,000 | 0% | * | ||||||||
David B. Lingafelter |
480,000 | 464,000 | 3.6% | |||||||||
Charles Elias, Jr. |
425,000 | N/A | N/A |
*Mr. Randich did not receive a salary increase in 2013 as he received a 10% salary increase in October 2012 in connection with his promotion. |
Annual Cash Incentive
In 2013, the Compensation Committee awarded a cash incentive based upon the achievement of established minimum, target and maximum annual performance goals for each NEO. The amount actually paid to each NEO depended upon the achievement of the performance goals, as described below, expressed as a percentage of base salary. Under the annual incentive program, the actual annual incentive payouts can range from 0% to 200%, based on the achievement of performance goals. The Compensation Committee believes that the percentage of base salary levels were competitive compared to the market data. The 2013 percentage of base salary for each NEO remained unchanged from 2012, except for Mr. Klein. Mr. Kleins percentage of base salary was increased to further align his annual cash incentive award with the market data. Mr. Elias percentage of base salary was determined based on market data and internal pay equity. The percentage of base salary for each NEO in 2013 was:
Named Executive Officer |
Percentage of | |
Christopher J. Klein |
115% | |
E. Lee Wyatt, Jr. |
85% | |
David M. Randich |
60% | |
David B. Lingafelter |
60% | |
Charles Elias, Jr. |
55% |
Performance goals for officers of the Company were set using different metrics than those for the Operating Company Presidents. For Messrs. Klein, Wyatt and Elias, annual cash incentives were based on the Companys 2013 EPS and ROIC, with EPS weighted 75% and ROIC weighted 25%. EPS and ROIC were selected as performance measures because the Compensation Committee believes that they focus executives on both maximizing stockholder value (EPS) and operational efficiency (ROIC).
These targets were intended to be challenging and required superior performance at both the target and maximum payout levels. The Companys actual results exceeded the maximum performance goals, but due to the maximum cap on the payout of incentives under the program, the Committee certified a payout level of 200% for Messrs. Klein, Wyatt and Elias.
25
COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS (CONTINUED)
Performance goals for the annual cash incentives for the Operating Company Presidents were based upon OI (weighted 75%) and RONTA (weighted 25%) results for their respective operating companies. OI serves as a measure of profitability for each operating company, and RONTA serves as a measure of operating efficiency. The performance goals established for the Operating Company Presidents were challenging and required superior performance at both the target and maximum payout levels. MasterBrand Cabinets actual results exceeded the maximum performance goals, but due to the maximum cap on the payout of incentives under the program, the Committee certified a payout level of 200%. Based on the actual results of Moen, the Committee certified a payout level of 181.7% for Mr. Lingafelter. The following table sets forth the target performance measures, the actual performance results, the amounts paid for the 2013 annual cash incentive awards and the percentage payout.
Performance Goals and Results for 2013 Annual Cash Incentive | ||||||||||||||||||
Company Performance Measures and Results |
2013 Cash Incentive | |||||||||||||||||
Named Executive Officer |
Performance |
Target ($ in millions) |
Actual |
Amount Paid |
% of Payout |
|||||||||||||
Christopher J. Klein |
EPS | $1.18 | $1.51 | $2,300,000 | 200 | % | ||||||||||||
ROIC | 8.2% | 10.1% | ||||||||||||||||
E. Lee Wyatt, Jr. |
EPS | $1.18 | $1.51 | $1,166,200 | 200 | % | ||||||||||||
ROIC | 8.2% | 10.1% | ||||||||||||||||
David M. Randich |
OI | $62.5 | $121.4 | $552,000 | 200 | % | ||||||||||||
RONTA | 19.0% | 35.7% | ||||||||||||||||
David B. Lingafelter |
OI | $209.3 | $228.8 | $523,296 | 181.7 | % | ||||||||||||
RONTA | 95.1% | 118.4% | ||||||||||||||||
Charles E. Elias |
EPS | $1.18 | $1.51 | $467,500 | 200 | % | ||||||||||||
ROIC | 8.2% | 10.1% |
New Hire Sign-on Bonus
Mr. Elias was hired as the Senior Vice President - Strategy and Corporate Development in January 2013. The Compensation Committee approved a cash sign-on bonus of $100,000 as an inducement for Mr. Elias to join the Company.
Long-Term Incentive Awards
The Compensation Committee believes that equity awards both align managements interests with those of stockholders and reinforce a pay-for-performance culture.
26
COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS (CONTINUED)
The 2013 target equity-based compensation represented 63% of Mr. Kleins and 51% (on average) of the other NEOs total target compensation. In 2013, the NEOs received three types of equity awards under the Fortune Brands Home & Security, Inc. 2011 Long Term Incentive Plan (the LTIP): PSAs, stock options and RSUs. Each type of equity award comprised one-third of each NEOs total target equity-based award in 2013. Mr. Kleins target equity value was increased to further align his annual incentive award with the market data. Mr. Randichs target equity value was increased in connection with his promotion to President of MasterBrand Cabinets. Mr. Elias target equity value was determined based on market data and internal pay equity. The aggregate grant date value of each NEOs 2013 equity-based awards was as follows (with the PSAs valued assuming achievement of the target performance level):
Named Executive Officer |
Value of
2013 Equity Award |
|||
Christopher J. Klein |
$3,650,000 | |||
E. Lee Wyatt, Jr. |
$1,601,000 | |||
David M. Randich |
$900,000 | |||
David B. Lingafelter |
$828,000 | |||
Charles Elias, Jr. |
$525,000 |
PSAs: The PSAs awarded in 2013 will be paid to the NEOs in shares of the Companys common stock only if the Company achieves specified goals for EPS and ROIC during the cumulative performance period from January 1, 2013 through December 31, 2015. No shares will be paid unless the minimum established performance goals are achieved. Payouts for PSAs awarded in 2013, if any, will not occur until early in 2016, following completion of the performance period and the Compensation Committees certification of performance results. The Compensation Committee believes that awarding PSAs with a cumulative three-year performance goal drives long-term sustained growth and, as a result, management is rewarded for their ability to achieve such growth.
The EPS and ROIC goals were intended to be challenging and require superior performance at both the target and maximum payout levels. The Compensation Committee based the performance goals on EPS and ROIC because it believes that the combined use of these metrics reflect sustainable growth and returns. The Compensation Committee recognizes that the annual cash incentives for Messrs. Klein, Wyatt and Elias also use EPS and ROIC goals, and believes this to be appropriate because the annual incentive employs a one-year goal, while the PSAs focus on cumulative performance over three years, which the Compensation Committee believes provides a strong incentive for sustained results over the long-term. The number of shares paid is determined by multiplying the target number of PSAs awarded by the percentage of achievement of the combined, weighted performance goals, as follows:
Percentage of PSAs Paid Based on the % of EPS and ROIC Goals Achieved | ||||||||
Average ROIC | ||||||||
Minimum | Target | Maximum | ||||||
Cumulative EPS |
Minimum | 0% | 25% | 50% | ||||
Target | 75% | 100% | 125% | |||||
Maximum | 150% | 175% | 200% |
Stock Options: One-third of the total equity awarded to the NEOs in 2013 was granted in the form of stock options. Stock options granted in 2013 vest in three equal annual installments, assuming the NEO remains employed through each vesting date. The Compensation Committee believes that stock options further focus management on increasing stockholder returns and align the interests of management with stockholders, as the value of stock options grows when the Companys stock price increases.
RSUs: One-third of the total equity awarded to the NEOs in 2013 was granted in the form of RSUs. The RSUs awarded in 2013 vest in three equal annual installments, assuming the NEO remains employed through the vesting dates. The Compensation Committee believes that RSUs further focus management on increasing stockholder returns and align the interests of management with stockholders, as the value of RSUs grows when the Companys stock price increases. RSUs also serve as a long-term retention device as an executive must remain employed with the Company through the three vesting dates to receive the shares.
27
COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS (CONTINUED)
Retirement Benefits
All of the NEOs are eligible for retirement benefits through the Fortune Brands Home & Security Retirement Savings Plan (the Savings Plan), a tax-qualified defined contribution 401(k) plan. Following the Spin-off, Messrs. Klein and Lingafelter continued to participate in the Moen Incorporated Pension Plan, a tax-qualified defined benefit plan (the Moen Plan). Due to their respective hire and/or transfer dates, Messrs. Wyatt, Randich and Elias are not eligible to participate in any of the tax-qualified defined benefit plans sponsored by the Company or its operating companies. In addition to its qualified plans, the Company and each operating company that employs an Operating Company President provides non-qualified supplemental retirement benefits for accruals or contributions, as applicable, that would have been made under the tax-qualified plans but for limitations imposed by the Code.
The Compensation Committee believes that these types of retirement plans are consistent with competitive pay practices, and are an important element in attracting and retaining talent in a competitive market. Please see the narratives that follow the 2013 Pension Benefits table and the 2013 Nonqualified Deferred Compensation Plan table that appear on pages 35 and 36 of this Proxy Statement for further information regarding these plans.
Severance and Change in Control Agreements
The Company entered into Agreements for the Payment of Benefits Following Termination of Employment with each of the NEOs, which provide for severance benefits following a qualifying termination of employment. The Compensation Committee believes that these Agreements help accomplish the Companys compensation objectives of attracting and retaining superior talent through competitive compensation. The Compensation Committee also believes that it is appropriate to provide executives with the protections afforded by these Agreements and that these Agreements promote management independence and help retain and focus the executive officers in the event of a change in control. During 2013, the Company entered into an Agreement for the Payment of Benefits Following Termination of Employment with Mr. Elias, the general terms of which were consistent with the terms of the Agreements entered into with each of the other NEOs.
All of these Agreements contain change in control provisions, including double triggers, which means that there must be both a change in control of the Company (or the applicable operating company) and a qualifying termination of employment (i.e., a termination by the Company without cause or by the NEO for good reason) before any change in control benefits can be paid. In addition, the NEOs are not entitled to tax gross ups in the event that their change in control benefits are subject to the golden parachute excise tax under the Code. Please see the Potential Payments Upon Termination or Change in Control table, as well as the narratives that follow, for further information regarding the Companys Agreements for the Payment of Benefits Following Termination of Employment and the treatment of outstanding equity awards upon a qualifying termination of employment or a change in control on pages 38 through 41.
Perquisites
The Company provides a limited number of perquisites. The Compensation Committee authorized limited annual use of Company aircraft by Mr. Klein. In 2013, Mr. Klein reimbursed the Company for any personal use of Company aircraft, equivalent in amount to the cost of a first class ticket for each passenger on such flights. Because the health of the Companys executives is important, the Company made executive medical examinations available to certain executives, including each of the NEOs. The Company also reimburses certain relocation expenses incurred when the Company requires any employee, including any NEO, to relocate.
Clawback Policy
The Company has a policy that allows it to recoup all or part of annual cash incentives or PSAs if there is a: (1) significant or material restatement of the Companys financial statements covering any of the three fiscal years preceding the grant or payment, or (2) restatement of the Companys financial statements for any such year which results from fraud or willful misconduct committed by an award holder. The Company also includes the right to seek to recoup all or part of an executives other equity awards in the terms and conditions of the awards.
28
COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS (CONTINUED)
Stock Ownership Guidelines
The Company maintains the following stock ownership guidelines for directors, NEOs and other officers, which requires them to hold a number of shares equal to a multiple of their annual retainer or base salary, as applicable. The ownership guidelines are as follows:
Position |
Stock Ownership Level as a Multiple of Annual Retainer or Base Salary |
|||
Directors |
3 | |||
CEO |
6 | |||
Operating Company Presidents | 3 | |||
SVPs |
3 | |||
VPs |
1 |
Directors and officers have five years from the date of election (if a director), date of hire or date of promotion to acquire the requisite amount of stock. All of the NEOs currently satisfy the stock ownership guidelines, except for Mr. Elias, who was recently hired and is expected to satisfy the guidelines within the five-year period specified in the policy.
Payout of Legacy Cash Long-Term Incentive Awards
No cash-based long-term incentive awards (Cash LTIPs) have been granted by this Companys Compensation Committee. In 2013, legacy Cash LTIP awards remained outstanding. These awards were granted to Messrs. Klein, Randich and Lingafelter prior to the Spin-off and covered the performance period of January 1, 2011 through December 31, 2013.
Under the 2011-2013 Cash LTIP awards, Mr. Klein and the Operating Company Presidents each received a specified number of units. Each unit was assigned a specified minimum ($0), target ($400) and maximum ($1,000) dollar value to be paid at the end of the three-year performance period, based upon the attainment of a corresponding minimum, target or maximum pre-established performance goal.
Mr. Kleins Cash LTIP payout was based on the combined performance of the operating companies, with each operating companys performance being weighted to account for the relative size of the business. The Cash LTIP awards paid to the Operating Company Presidents were based upon the performance of their respective companies (Mr. Randich was paid based on the performance of Therma-Tru Corp. for 2011 and 2012 and MasterBrand Cabinets, Inc. for 2013 and Mr. Lingafelter was paid based on the performance of Moen Incorporated). Performance of the operating companies was measured in terms of their attainment of annual OI and RONTA goals for each of their respective companies. OI results were weighted 75% and RONTA results were weighted 25% for the entire performance period.
The table below reflects the cumulative 2011-2013 target OI and RONTA performance goals and results for each of the operating companies and the company weighing, which were used to determine the 2011-2013 Cash LTIP award payouts:
2011-2013 Goals & Results | ||||||||||
OI (Weighted 75%) |
RONTA (Weighted 25%) |
Company Weighting(1) |
||||||||
Goals | Results | Goals | Results | |||||||
MasterBrand Cabinets |
$358.4 | $177.2 | 30.1% | 17.4% | 40% | |||||
Moen |
$485.5 | $527.9 | 85.8% | 95.5% | 27% | |||||
Master Lock |
$134.5 | $158.4 | 39.1% | 42.2% | 9% | |||||
Waterloo |
$39.7 | $42.7 | 13.6% | 15.6% | 5% | |||||
Therma-Tru |
$91.5 | $27.2 | 26.0% | 8.1% | 10% | |||||
Simonton |
$41.8 | $-18.4 | 27.7% | -13.9% | 9% |
(1) | This column reflects the weighting used to determine Mr. Kleins award. |
29
COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS (CONTINUED)
The OI and RONTA results reported above led to the following payouts:
Named Executive Officer | Target Number of Units Awarded |
Final Unit Value |
Total Payout |
|||||||||
Christopher J. Klein |
1,000 | $268 | $268,000 | |||||||||
David M. Randich |
300 | $0 | $0 | |||||||||
David B. Lingafelter |
400 | $624.3 | $249,720 |
The Compensation Committee has reviewed and discussed the Compensation Discussion and Analysis with management and, based on the review and discussions, the Compensation Committee recommended to the Board that the Compensation Discussion and Analysis be included in the Companys Proxy Statement and the Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2013.
Compensation Committee
Ann F. Hackett, Chair
Richard A. Goldstein
A. D. David Mackay
John G. Morikis
Norman H. Wesley
30
* | Effective October 8, 2012, Mr. Randich, who previously served as President of Therma-Tru Corp., was promoted to serve as President of MasterBrand Cabinets, Inc. |
** | Mr. Elias first became an employee of the Company in January 2013. |
(1) | For Mr. Elias, the amount reported in column C includes a $100,000 sign on bonus. |
(2) | Stock Awards: The amounts listed in column D for 2013 represent the aggregate grant date fair value calculated in accordance with FASB ASC Topic 718 for RSUs granted in 2013. |
Also listed in column D for 2013 are amounts that represent the aggregate grant date fair value calculated in accordance with FASB ASC Topic 718 for PSAs granted in 2013. The amounts included in this column for the PSAs granted during 2013 are calculated based upon the probable outcome of the satisfaction of the performance conditions for such awards on the grant date (assuming achievement of the target performance level). Assuming the highest level of performance is achieved, the maximum grant date fair value for the PSAs granted during 2013 is: $2,433,333 for Mr. Klein, $1,067,333 for Mr. Wyatt, $600,000 for Mr. Randich, $552,000 for Mr. Lingafelter and $350,000 for Mr. Elias. |
For assumptions used in determining both of these values, see footnote 11 to the consolidated financial statements contained in the Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2013 (Form 10-K). Amounts listed in this column for 2013 and 2012 include the normal annual equity awards as opposed to the amounts listed for 2011, which include the normal annual equity award in addition to a one-time equity grant made at the time of the Spin-off. |
(3) | Option Awards: The amounts listed in column E for 2013 reflect the aggregate grant date fair values calculated in accordance with FASB ASC Topic 718 for stock options granted in 2013. For assumptions used in determining these values, see footnote 11 to the consolidated financial statements contained in the Companys Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2013. Amounts listed in this column for 2013 and 2012 represent the normal annual equity awards as opposed to the amounts listed for 2011, which include the normal annual equity award in addition to a one-time equity grant made at the time of the Spin-off. |
(4) | Non-Equity Incentive Plans: Column F lists amounts earned as annual cash incentives for 2013 in the amount of $2,300,000 for Mr. Klein, $1,166,200 for Mr. Wyatt, $552,000 for Mr. Randich; $523,296 for Mr. Lingafelter; and $467,500 for Mr. Elias under the Annual Incentive Plan. In addition, column F includes the value of the legacy Cash LTIP awards paid to Mr. Klein in the amount of $268,000 and Mr. Lingafelter in the amount of $249,720 for the 2011-2013 performance period. |
(5) | Increase in Actuarial Value of Pension Benefits: Column G includes the increase in actuarial value of certain NEOs tax-qualified and non-qualified defined benefit pension plan benefits. The narrative and footnotes following the 2013 Pension Benefits table on page 35 provide additional detail about the pension plans in which the NEOs participate. |
(6) | Perquisites and All Other Compensation: |
Defined Contribution Benefits and Nonqualified Plan Earnings: The amounts in column H include: (a) matching contributions made to the Savings Plan, (b) profit sharing contributions made to the Savings Plan, and (c) profit sharing contributions made to the Fortune Brands Home & Security, Inc. Supplemental Plan (the FBHS Supplemental Plan), as described below:
(a) | Matching Contributions to the Savings Plan. Matching contributions for 2013 to the Savings Plan were made: by Home & Security, $11,475 for Messrs. Klein and Wyatt and $3,984 for Mr. Elias; by MasterBrand Cabinets, $11,475 for Mr. Randich; and by Moen, $7,649 for Mr. Lingafelter. |
31
2013 EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION (CONTINUED)
(b) | Profit Sharing Contributions to the Savings Plan. Profit sharing contributions for 2013 to the Savings Plan were made by Fortune Brands Home & Security in the amount of $17,420 for Messrs. Klein, Wyatt and Elias. |
(c) | Profit Sharing Contributions to the FBHS Supplemental Plan. The following contributions were made to the FBHS Supplemental Plan for 2013: $206,675 for Mr. Klein, $116,570 for Mr. Wyatt and $12,280 for Mr. Elias. These contributions would have been made under the Savings Plan but for the limitations on compensation imposed by the Code. These amounts were credited to executives accounts in early 2014. |
Premiums for Life Insurance and Executive Disability: The amounts set forth in column H include the dollar value of all life insurance premiums paid by the applicable employer in 2013. These amounts were: $2,746 for Mr. Klein; $14,451 for Mr. Wyatt; $749 for Mr. Randich; $697 for Mr. Lingafelter; and $1,739 for Mr. Elias. The column also includes the dollar value of executive long-term disability premiums paid by the applicable employer in 2013.
Other: In 2013, Messrs. Wyatt, Randich and Elias received $41,795, $264,604 and $106,161 in relocation expenses (principally, closing costs, real estate brokerage commissions, temporary living expenses, reimbursement for taxes and specifically for Mr. Randich, the value of a loss on the sale of his home). The reimbursement for taxes was made to make the NEO whole for personal expenses incurred because of the Companys request that he relocate his personal residence and was in the amount of $13,588 for Mr. Wyatt, $118,034 for Mr. Randich and $47,741 for Mr. Elias. If the NEO voluntarily terminates his employment within one year of his date of hire or promotion, he is required to reimburse the entire amount to the Company and if he voluntarily terminates his employment within two years of such date, he is required to reimburse one-half of the amount. The relocation benefits were valued based on the amount paid to the NEO or to the service provided, as applicable.
In 2013, limited use of the Companys aircraft was provided to Mr. Klein, who reimbursed the Company for his personal use in an amount equivalent to the cost of a first class ticket for each passenger on such flights. The calculation of incremental cost of personal aircraft usage is based on variable costs to the Company, including fuel costs, crew expenses, landing fees and other miscellaneous variable costs. The difference between the Companys aggregate incremental cost of personal aircraft usage and the amount paid by Mr. Klein is reflected in this column. In 2013, the Companys cost for personal use of Company aircraft not reimbursed by Mr. Klein was $71,950.
Certain executives received executive physicals. Mr. Randich received a reimbursement for taxes on his executive physical in the amount of $814. In 2013, Mr. Klein received a minimal amount of company product and Mr. Randich received a credit for the purchase of company product, provided through the employee purchase plan generally available to employees, in the amount of $15,000.
32
2013 EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION (CONTINUED)
(1) | The grant date fair value of stock option awards is based on the Black-Scholes value of $8.97. The grant date fair value of PSAs and RSUs is determined based upon the average of the high and low prices of the Companys stock on the grant date ($33.71). Grant date fair values are computed in accordance with FASB ASC Topic 718. For assumptions used in determining these values, see footnote 11 to the consolidated financial statements contained in the Companys Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2013. |
(2) | Amounts in this row reflect the range of potential payments under the Fortune Brands Home & Security, Inc. Annual Executive Incentive Compensation Plan. The target payout for Messrs. Klein, Wyatt, Randich, Lingafelter, and Elias is based on target awards of 115%, 85%, 60%, 60%, and 55%, respectively, of base salary as of December 31, 2013. See pages 25 and 26 of the CD&A for further information regarding the Annual Executive Incentive Compensation Plan. |
(3) | This row reflects the number of stock options and the grant date fair value of the stock options granted on February 25, 2013. These stock options vest ratably in three equal annual installments, subject to continued employment. |
(4) | The amounts in this row reflect the number of RSUs that were awarded and will vest in three equal annual installments, subject to continued employment. For certain NEOs, these awards were also subject to a 2013 EPS goal of $.25, which was intended to qualify these awards as performance-based compensation under Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code. |
(5) | The amounts in this row reflect the range of potential payouts for PSAs that were awarded for the 2013-2015 performance period. The performance goals for the 2013-2015 PSAs vest based on EPS (weighted 75%) and the average ROIC (weighted 25%) for the three-year performance period. |
(1) | Each outstanding stock option granted that is currently vested and exercisable is listed in this column. Stock options granted prior to February 2013 vested ratably on the first three anniversaries of the grant date. Beginning in February 2013, stock options vested ratably on the first, second and third anniversaries of February 28th. |
33
2013 EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION (CONTINUED)
(2) | Each outstanding stock option that is not yet vested and exercisable is listed in this column. All of stock options listed in this column were granted on February 22, 2011, October 4, 2011, February 22, 2012 or February 25, 2013. All stock options granted on these dates vest in three equal annual installments, except for the stock options granted on October 4, 2011. Stock options granted on October 4, 2011 were part of the one-time equity grant awarded in connection with the Spin-off and vest in three equal annual installments beginning on the second anniversary of the date of grant. The chart below reflects the number of outstanding stock options that will vest during each of 2014, 2015 and 2016 (assuming each NEOs continued employment): |
Number of Stock Options Vesting by Year | ||||||||||||
Name | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | |||||||||
Christopher J. Klein |
430,272 | 370,333 | 45,200 | |||||||||
E. Lee Wyatt, Jr. |
127,933 | 127,932 | 19,833 | |||||||||
David M. Randich |
112,953 | 83,132 | 11,133 | |||||||||
David B. Lingafelter |
134,817 | 93,065 | 10,266 | |||||||||
Charles Elias, Jr. |
6,500 | 6,500 | 6,500 |
(3) | Each outstanding RSU that is time-vested and that had not yet vested as of December 31, 2013 is listed in this column. All of the RSUs listed in the column were granted on February 22, 2011, October 4, 2011, February 22, 2012 or February 25, 2013. All RSUs granted on these dates vest in three equal annual installments, except for the RSUs granted on October 4, 2011. RSUs granted on October 4, 2011 were part of the one-time equity grant awarded in connection with the Spin-off and vest in three equal annual installments beginning on the second anniversary of the date of grant. The chart below reflects the number of outstanding RSUs that will vest during 2014, 2015 and 2016 (assuming each NEOs continued employment): |
Number of RSUs Vesting | ||||||||||||
Name | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | |||||||||
Christopher J. Klein |
187,158 | 121,399 | 12,033 | |||||||||
E. Lee Wyatt, Jr. |
41,267 | 41,265 | 5,266 | |||||||||
David M. Randich |
27,234 | 27,232 | 2,966 | |||||||||
David B. Lingafelter |
30,633 | 30,632 | 2,733 | |||||||||
Charles Elias, Jr. |
1,734 | 1,734 | 1,734 |
(4) | This column reflects the value of the outstanding RSUs that have not yet vested (using the December 31, 2013 closing price of the Companys common stock of $45.70). |
(5) | In accordance with the SEC disclosure rules, the amounts reported in this column are based on achieving maximum performance goals for awards granted in 2012 and 2013. For the 2013-2015 performance period, the following performance share awards were outstanding: 72,200 shares for Mr. Klein, 31,600 shares for Mr. Wyatt, 17,800 shares for Mr. Randich, 16,400 for Mr. Lingafelter and 10,400 shares for Mr. Elias. For the 2012-2014 performance period, the following performance share awards were outstanding: 113,000 shares for Mr. Klein; 51,400 shares for Mr. Wyatt; 22,200 shares for Mr. Randich; and 27,400 shares for Mr. Lingafelter. The performance shares are paid based on the Companys performance over the three-year performance period and are subject to the executives continued employment. The Compensation Discussion and Analysis on pages 17 to 30 and the footnotes to the table titled Grants of Plan-Based Awards on page 32 provides additional detail on the 2013-2015 PSAs. |
(6) | This column reflects the value of the performance share awards (using the December 31, 2013 closing price of the Companys common stock of $45.70). |
(1) | This column reflects the number of stock options exercised during 2013. |
(2) | This column reflects the difference between the market value of the shares on the date of exercise and the exercise price of the stock options. |
34
2013 EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION (CONTINUED)
(3) | For Mr. Klein, this column reflects the number of shares he acquired upon the vesting of RSUs granted to him in 2010, 2011 and 2012. For Messrs. Wyatt, Randich and Lingafelter, this column reflects the number of shares they each acquired upon the vesting of RSUs granted to them in 2011 and 2012. |
(4) | This column reflects the value of the shares acquired upon the vesting of RSUs, which was calculated using the market value of the shares on the vesting dates. |
(1) | Mr. Klein is currently accruing benefits under the Moen Plan, a tax-qualified defined benefit pension plan. Defined benefit pension benefits and liabilities for eligible Home & Security employees (previously held under the Fortune Brands, Inc. Pension Plan) are held under the Moen Plan. |
(2) | The earliest age at which an unreduced pension is paid is generally 62 under the Moen Plan. |
(3) | The benefit amounts listed reflect the present value of the annual benefit payable in the form of a single life annuity where payments continue for the life of the NEO but cease upon his death. All of the tax-qualified and supplemental non-qualified pension plans in which the NEOs participate provide a single-life annuity as the normal form of benefit to unmarried participants and provide a qualified joint and survivor annuity as the normal form of benefit for married participants. At the time of retirement, participants may elect, among other forms of payment, a reduced annuity in the joint and survivor form, which provides payments over the life of the participant and a named beneficiary. |
(4) | The amounts listed are based on the NEOs compensation and years of service as of December 31, 2013. The present value of accumulated plan benefits is calculated based on the following assumptions in accordance with FASB ASC 715; which reflects the updated mortality table to the 2014 Static Mortality Table for Annuitants per 1.430(h)(3)-1(e) and a discount rate of 5.15% for eligible participants in the Moen Plan, a discount rate of 5.15% for eligible participants in the Moen Incorporated Supplemental Retirement Plan, and a discount rate of 5.30% for eligible participants in the Fortune Brands Home & Security Supplemental Retirement Plan. The normal retirement benefit is unreduced at age 62 for Messrs. Klein and Lingafelter in each of these plans. |
(5) | None of the tax-qualified defined benefit pension and non-qualified supplemental retirement plans in which the NEOs participate allow in-service distributions. No payments or withdrawals were made to the NEOs in 2013. |
Tax-Qualified Pension Benefits. Messrs. Klein and Lingafelter are the only NEOs currently accruing benefits under a tax-qualified defined benefit pension plan that is broadly available to other employees. Messrs. Wyatt and Elias are not eligible for a defined benefit pension benefit because participation in the Moen Plan for new Home & Security employees was closed in 2008. Mr. Randich is not eligible to participate in the MasterBrand Cabinets, Inc. Pension Plan because participation under the MasterBrand Cabinets, Inc. Pension Plan for new and/or transferred employees in any executive or managerial position was closed in 2007.
Mr. Klein participates in the Moen Plan under a formula that is applicable to eligible employees of the Company at its corporate headquarters (the Home & Security Program). Mr. Klein receives pension benefit accruals under the Home & Security Program using the following formula: 1.75% of final average earnings multiplied by years of benefit service (up to 15 years) as of December 31, 2007, plus 1% of final average earnings multiplied by years of benefit service (in excess of 15 years) as of December 31, 2007, plus 1% of final average earnings multiplied by years of benefit service on and after January 1, 2008. Compensation taken into account is limited by the Code. Total service taken into account under the Home & Security Program is capped at 35 years. Payment of early retirement benefits for Mr. Klein under the Home & Security Program could commence as early as
35
2013 EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION (CONTINUED)
age 55 but would be calculated assuming a reduction of 6% per year if he were to commence the payment of benefits prior to the attainment of age 62. Mr. Kleins benefit will be unreduced if he commences payment after attaining age 62. Mr. Klein will not accrue any additional benefits under the Home & Security Program after December 31, 2016.
Mr. Lingafelter participates in the Moen Plan as it applies to participants who are employed directly by Moen (the Moen Program). Normal retirement benefits under the Moen Program are determined under the following formula: (a) 1.05% of final average earnings up to the covered compensation limit multiplied by years of benefit service (up to 30 years); plus (b) 1.45% of final average earnings in excess of the plans compensation limit multiplied by years of benefit service (up to 30 years); plus (c) 1% of final average earnings multiplied by years of benefit service in excess of 30 years. Compensation taken into account is limited by the Code. Payment of early retirement benefits for Mr. Lingafelter under the Moen Program could commence as early as age 55 but would be calculated by reducing his normal retirement benefit by: (a) 0.33% multiplied by the number of months by which the benefits commencement date precedes his 60th birthday; and (b) 0.5% multiplied by the number of months by which his benefits commencement date occurring after attaining age 60 precedes his 62nd birthday. Mr. Lingafelters benefit will be unreduced if he commences payment after attainting age 62. Mr. Lingafelter will not accrue any additional benefits under the Moen Program after December 31, 2016.
Non-Qualified Pension Benefits. Messrs. Klein and Lingafelter are currently the only NEOs accruing benefits under a non-qualified supplemental retirement plan that is broadly available to employees within the same entities. Mr. Klein participates in the FBHS Supplemental Plan, which is an unfunded, non-qualified retirement plan. For Mr. Klein, the FBHS Supplemental Plan pays the difference between the benefits payable under the Home & Security Program formula under the Moen Plan and the amount that would have been paid if the Code did not limit the amount of compensation taken into account under, or benefits that may be paid from, the Moen Plan. In calculating FBHS Supplemental Plan benefits, no credit is given for service in excess of 35 years.
Mr. Lingafelter participates in the Moen Incorporated Supplemental Retirement Plan (the Moen Supplemental Plan). The Moen Supplemental Plan pays the difference between the benefits payable under the Moen Program formula under the Moen Plan and the amount that would have been paid if the Code did not limit the amount of compensation taken into account under, or benefits that may be paid from, the Moen Plan. The Moen Supplemental Plan provides unreduced benefits at age 62 if participants work until they reach age 55.
Under each of the supplemental plans described above, an NEO can elect any form of distribution for supplemental pension payments that is available under the Moen Plan, and payment of benefits commences at termination of employment following attainment of age 55, subject to any delay required under Section 409A of the Code. Additionally, under each of the supplemental plans described above, in the event the supplemental retirement benefit commences prior to age 62 or is payable in a form other than a single life annuity, the supplemental retirement benefit shall be adjusted using the same factors used under the Moen Plan.
(1) | Amounts listed in this column were reported as compensation in the last fiscal year in the All Other Compensation column of the Summary Compensation Table. |
(2) | No amounts listed in the Aggregate Earnings column were reported in the All Other Compensation column of the Summary Compensation Table. |
(3) | Amounts listed in this column for Mr. Randich reflect the aggregate balance of benefits deferred while he was an employee of Therma-Tru Corp. |
36
2013 EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION (CONTINUED)
Non-Qualified Profit Sharing Contributions. Messrs. Klein, Wyatt and Elias received non-qualified profit sharing contributions under the FBHS Supplemental Plan. The Company makes profit sharing contributions to the Savings Plan on behalf of all eligible employees of the Company at its corporate headquarters. Profit sharing contributions equal to the difference between the benefits payable under the Savings Plan and the amount that would have been payable if the Code did not limit the amount of compensation taken into account under the Savings Plan are allocated to the FBHS Supplemental Plan. In 2013, the eligible profit sharing contribution amount was equal to 6% of adjusted compensation. This profit sharing formula applies uniformly to all eligible employees and is not enhanced for executives. FBHS Supplemental Plan profit sharing accounts are credited with interest monthly, using the Citigroup US Broad Investment-Grade (USBIG) Bond Index. The FBHS Supplemental Plan pays any defined contribution amounts, whether executive deferrals or supplemental profit sharing, in a lump sum following termination of employment, subject to any delay required under Section 409A of the Code.
None of the other NEOs currently make deferrals or receive profit sharing contributions under any non-qualified defined contribution or profit sharing plans. Mr. Lingafelter maintains an account holding prior contributions under Moens non-qualified defined contribution plan, and this account is credited with interest monthly, using the Citigroup US Broad Investment-Grade (USBIG) Bond Index. The Moen Supplemental Plan pays any defined contribution amounts, whether executive deferrals or supplemental profit sharing, in a lump sum following termination of employment, subject to any delay required under Section 409A of the Code.
Mr. Randich accrued supplemental qualified non-elective and supplemental profit sharing benefits under the Therma-Tru Corp. Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan (the Therma-Tru SERP) prior to his promotion in 2012. Beginning in 2013, Mr. Randich was no longer eligible to participate in the Therma-Tru SERP, however, he maintains an account holding his prior contributions and these accounts are credited with interest on a monthly basis. This account is invested in the Schwab 1000 Index Fund (SNXFX), which is a daily valued mutual fund. Any interest, dividends, gains or losses received from Schwab are allocated across the participants accounts in that fund. Participants may elect for elective deferrals, supplemental profit sharing and supplemental qualified non-elective deferral contributions earned under the Therma-Tru SERP to be paid in a lump sum or in substantially equal annual installments over a period of time not to exceed five years.
37
2013 EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION (CONTINUED)