Question: In presenting Compensation Discussion and Analysis disclosure about prior option grant programs, plans or practices, are companies required to provide disclosures about programs, plans or practices that occurred outside the scope of the information contained in the tables and otherwise disclosed pursuant to Item 402 (including periods before and after the information contained in the tables and otherwise disclosed pursuant to Item 402)?

Answer: Yes, in certain cases, depending on a company's particular circumstances, disclosure may be required as contemplated by Instruction 2 to Item 402(b) of Regulation S-K. [Jan. 24, 2007]

Question: Are companies required to include disclosure about programs, plans or practices relating to option grants in the Compensation Discussion and Analysis disclosure for their first fiscal year ending on or after December 15, 2006, or is this disclosure only required for future fiscal periods?

Answer: Companies are required to include disclosure about programs, plans or practices relating to option grants in the Compensation Discussion and Analysis disclosure for fiscal years ending on or after December 15, 2006, as well as any other periods where necessary as contemplated by Instruction 2 to Item 402(b) of Regulation S-K. [Jan. 24, 2007]

Question: How does a company determine if it may omit disclosure of performance target levels or other factors or criteria under Instruction 4 to Item 402(b)?

Answer: A company should begin its analysis of whether it is required to disclose performance targets by addressing the threshold question of materiality in the context of the company's executive compensation policies or decisions. If performance targets are not material in this context, the company is not required to disclose the performance targets. Whether performance targets are material is a facts and circumstances issue, which a company must evaluate in good faith.

  A company may distinguish between qualitative/subjective individual performance goals (e.g., effective leadership and communication) and quantitative/objective performance goals (e.g., specific revenue or earnings targets). There is no requirement that a company provide quantitative targets for what are inherently subjective or qualitative assessments — for example, how effectively the CEO demonstrated leadership.

When performance targets are a material element of a company's executive compensation policies or decisions, a company may omit targets involving confidential trade secrets or confidential commercial or financial information only if their disclosure would result in competitive harm. A company should use the same standard for evaluating whether target levels (and other factors or criteria) may be omitted as it would use when making a confidential treatment request under Securities Act Rule 406 or Exchange Act Rule 24b-2; however, no confidential treatment request is required to be submitted in connection with the omission of a performance target level or other factors or criteria.

To reach a conclusion that disclosure would result in competitive harm, a company must undertake a competitive harm analysis taking into account its specific facts and circumstances and the nature of the performance targets. In the context of the company's industry and competitive environment, the company must analyze whether a competitor or contractual counterparty could extract from the targets information regarding the company's business or business strategy that the competitor or counterparty could use to the company's detriment. A company must have a reasoned basis for concluding, after consideration of its specific facts and circumstances, that the disclosure of the targets would cause it competitive harm. The company must make its determination based on the established standards for what constitutes confidential commercial or financial information, the disclosure of which would cause competitive harm. These standards have largely been addressed in case law, including National Parks and Conservation Association v. Morton, 498 F.2d 765 (D.C. Cir. 1974); National Parks and Conservation Association v. Kleppe, 547 F.2d 673 (D.C. Cir. 1976); and Critical Mass Energy Project v. NRC, 931 F.2d 939 (D.C. Cir. 1991), vacated & reh'g en banc granted, 942 F.2d 799 (D.C. Cir. 1991), grant of summary judgment to agency aff'd en banc, 975 F.2d 871 (D.C. Cir. 1992). To the extent that a performance target level or other factor or criteria otherwise has been disclosed publicly, a company cannot rely on Instruction 4 to withhold the information.

The competitive harm standard is the only basis for omitting performance targets if they are a material element of the registrant's executive compensation policies or decisions.

Because Compensation Discussion and Analysis will be subject to staff review, a company may be required to demonstrate that withholding target information meets the confidential treatment standard, and will be required to disclose the information if that standard is not met. Finally, a company that relies on Instruction 4 to omit performance targets is required by the instruction to discuss how difficult it will be for the executive or how likely it will be for the company to achieve the undisclosed target level or other factor or criteria. [July 3, 2008]

Question: Item 402(b)(2)(xiv) provides, as an example of material information to be disclosed in the Compensation Discussion and Analysis, depending on the facts and circumstances, "[w]hether the registrant engaged in any benchmarking of total compensation, or any material element of compensation, identifying the benchmark and, if applicable, its components (including component companies)." What does "benchmarking" mean in this context?

Answer: In this context, benchmarking generally entails using compensation data about other companies as a reference point on which — either wholly or in part — to base, justify or provide a framework for a compensation decision. It would not include a situation in which a company reviews or considers a broad-based third-party survey for a more general purpose, such as to obtain a general understanding of current compensation practices. [July 3, 2008]

Question: Regarding the role of compensation consultants in determining or recommending the amount or form of executive and director compensation, on what basis should a company differentiate between the requirements of Item 407(e)(3)(iii) and Item 402(b)'s Compensation Discussion and Analysis disclosure?

Answer: The information regarding "any role of compensation consultants in determining or recommending the amount or form of executive and director compensation" required by Item 407(e)(3)(iii) is to be provided as part of the company's Item 407(e)(3) compensation committee disclosure. See Release 33-8732A at Section V.D, Corporate Governance Disclosure. If a compensation consultant plays a material role in the company's compensation-setting practices and decisions, then the company should discuss that role in the Compensation Discussion and Analysis section. [July 3, 2008]

Question: In Compensation Discussion and Analysis (CD&A), is a company required to discuss executive compensation, including performance target levels, to be paid in the current year or in future years?

Answer: No. The CD&A covers only compensation "awarded to, earned by, or paid to the named executive officers." Although Instruction 2 to Item 402(b) provides that the CD&A should also cover actions regarding executive compensation that were taken after the registrant's last fiscal year's end, such disclosure requirement is limited to those actions or steps that could "affect a fair understanding of the named executive officer's compensation for the last fiscal year." [Mar. 4, 2011]

Question: Instruction 5 to Item 402(b) provides that "[d]isclosure of target levels that are non-GAAP financial measures will not be subject to Regulation G and Item 10(e); however, disclosure must be provided as to how the number is calculated from the registrant's audited financial statements." Does this instruction extend to non-GAAP financial information that does not relate to the disclosure of target levels, but is nevertheless included in Compensation Discussion & Analysis ("CD&A") or other parts of the proxy statement - for example, to explain how pay is structured and implemented to reflect the registrant's or a named executive officer’s performance?

Answer: No. Instruction 5 to Item 402(b) is limited to CD&A disclosure of target levels that are non-GAAP financial measures. If non-GAAP financial measures are presented in CD&A or in any other part of the proxy statement for any other purpose, such as to explain how pay is structured or implemented to reflect the registrant's or a named executive officer’s performance or to justify certain levels or amounts of pay, then those non-GAAP financial measures are subject to the requirements of Regulation G and Item 10(e) of Regulation S-K (except with regards to the Company-Selected Measure or additional financial performance measures disclosed pursuant to Item 402(v)(2)(vi) of Regulation S-K).

In these pay-related circumstances only, the staff will not object if a registrant includes the required GAAP reconciliation and other information in an annex to the proxy statement, provided the registrant includes a prominent cross-reference to such annex. Or, if the non-GAAP financial measures are the same as those included in the Form 10-K that is incorporating by reference the proxy statement's Item 402 disclosure as part of its Part III information, the staff will not object if the registrant complies with Regulation G and Item 10(e) by providing a prominent cross-reference to the pages in the Form 10-K containing the required GAAP reconciliation and other information. [September 27, 2023]

Question: Instruction 5 to Item 402(b) provides that "[d]isclosure of target levels that are non-GAAP financial measures will not be subject to Regulation G and Item 10(e) of Regulation S-K; however, disclosure must be provided as to how the number is calculated from the registrant's audited financial statements."  Does this instruction extend to the disclosure of the actual results of the non-GAAP financial measure that is used as a target?

Answer: Yes, provided that this disclosure is made in the context of a discussion about target levels.  [May 16, 2013]