Question: In calculating the equity award adjustments required by Item 402(v)(2)(iii)(C)(1), are equity awards granted to a first-time named executive officer (“NEO”) in a year prior to (and not otherwise related to) their appointment as a NEO required to be included? For example, if a non-NEO employee is granted a stock option in year 1, and subsequently appointed as a NEO in year 2, must that NEOs “compensation actually paid” in year 2 reflect the adjustments required by subparagraphs (ii), (iv) or (v) (relating to prior fiscal year awards) of Item 402(v)(2)(iii)(C)(1) with respect to the stock option granted in year 1?

Answer: Yes. Although such awards may not be reported in the Summary Compensation Table required by Item 402(c) (see Question 119.01), the change in value of such awards during the executive’s tenure as a NEO should be included in the calculation of compensation actually paid. [February 10, 2023]

Question: Item 402(v)(3) of Regulation S-K requires, for each amount disclosed in columns (c) and (e) of the Pay Versus Performance table, footnote disclosure of each of the amounts deducted and added pursuant to Item 402(v)(2)(iii). Is footnote disclosure required for each of the fiscal years presented in the table?

Answer: Item 402(v) footnote disclosure for years other than the most recent fiscal year included in the Pay Versus Performance table would be required only if it is material to an investor’s understanding of the information reported in the Pay Versus Performance table for the most recent fiscal year, or of the relationship disclosure provided under Item 402(v)(5). However, in the registrant’s first Pay Versus Performance table under the new rules, the registrant should provide footnote disclosure for each of the periods presented in the table. [February 10, 2023]

Question: Item 402(v)(3) of Regulation S-K requires, for each amount disclosed in columns (c) and (e) of the Pay Versus Performance table, footnote disclosure of each of the amounts deducted and added pursuant to Item 402(v)(2)(iii). May a registrant satisfy this requirement by providing the aggregate amount calculated for pension value adjustments under Item 402(v)(2)(iii)(B)(1) and equity award adjustments under Item 402(v)(2)(iii)(C)(1)?

Answer: No. The registrant should provide footnote disclosure of each of the amounts deducted and added pursuant to Items 402(v)(2)(iii)(B)(1)(i) – (ii) and Items 402(v)(2)(iii)(C)(1)(i) – (vi). [February 10, 2023]

Question: For purposes of calculating peer group total shareholder return under Item 402(v)(2)(iv) of Regulation S-K, may a registrant use any compensation peer group that is disclosed in its Compensation Discussion & Analysis (“CD&A”), or is the registrant limited only to a peer group used in the CD&A for purposes of disclosing the registrant’s compensation benchmarking practices under Item 402(b)(2)(xiv) of Regulation S-K?

Answer: The registrant may use a peer group that is disclosed in its CD&A as a peer group actually used by the registrant to help determine executive pay, even if such peer group is not used for “benchmarking” under Item 402(v)(2)(xiv) of Regulation S-K, as that term is explained in CDI 118.05. [February 10, 2023]

Question: What time period is a registrant required to present under Item 402(v) of Regulation S-K for its cumulative total shareholder return (“TSR”) and peer group TSR when the registrant went public during the earliest year included in the “Pay Versus Performance” table?

Answer: Consistent with the calculation of TSR under Item 201(e) of Regulation S-K, if the class of securities was registered under Section 12 of the Exchange Act during the earliest year included in the “Pay Versus Performance” table, the “measurement point” for purposes of calculating TSR and peer group TSR should begin on such registration date. [February 10, 2023]

Question: In each of 2020 and 2021, a registrant provided the same list of companies as a peer group in its Compensation Discussion & Analysis (“CD&A”) under Item 402(b) but provided a different list of companies in its CD&A for 2022. With respect to a registrant providing initial Pay versus Performance disclosure in its 2023 proxy statement for three years (as permitted by Instruction 1 to Item 402(v) of Regulation S-K), may the registrant present the peer group total shareholder return for each of the three years using the 2022 peer group?

Answer: No. In this situation, the registrant should present the peer group total shareholder return for each year in the table using the peer group disclosed in its CD&A for such year. In the 2024 proxy statement, if the registrant uses the same peer group for 2023 as it used for 2022, the registrant should present its peer group total shareholder return for each of the years in the table using the 2023 peer group. If it changes the peer group in subsequent years, it must provide disclosure of the change in accordance with Regulation S-K Item 402(v)(2)(iv). [November 21, 2023]

Question: Item 402(v)(2)(v) requires “net income” to be included in column (h) of the Pay Versus Performance table required by Item 402(v)(1). May a registrant use other net income amounts presented in the audited financial statements? For example, may a registrant that consolidates subsidiaries that are not wholly-owned use net income attributable to the controlling interest or registrant to satisfy this requirement? May a registrant with material discontinued operations during the fiscal year use income or loss from continuing operations to satisfy this requirement?

Answer: No. The registrant is required to provide in column (h) its net income or loss as required by Regulation S-X to be disclosed in the registrant’s audited GAAP financial statements. [February 10, 2023]

Question: Under Item 402(v)(2)(vi), a registrant’s Company-Selected Measure must be a financial performance measure that is not otherwise required to be disclosed in the Pay Versus Performance table required by Item 402(v)(1). The required financial performance measures include net income and the cumulative total shareholder return of the registrant. May a registrant provide a Company-Selected Measure that is derived from, a component of, or similar to these required measures, such as earnings per share, gross profit, income or loss from continuing operations, or relative total shareholder return?

Answer: Yes, the Company-Selected Measure can be any financial performance measure that differs from the financial performance measures otherwise required to be disclosed in the table that meets the definition of Company-Selected Measure in Item 402(v)(2)(vi) including a measure that is derived from, a component of, or similar to those required measures. Any such measures could also be included as financial performance measures in the Tabular List required by Item 402(v)(6) of Regulation S-K. [February 10, 2023]

Question: Would it be appropriate for a registrant to disclose its stock price as its Company-Selected Measure under Item 402(v)(2)(vi) if the registrant does not use any financial measures to otherwise link pay and financial performance, but the “compensation actually paid” reported in the Pay Versus Performance table required by Item 402(v)(1) includes the fair value of time-vested share-based awards, which value is largely tied to stock price?

Answer: No. While stock price is considered a “financial performance measure” for purposes of Item 402(v)(2)(vi), it should not be disclosed as the registrant’s Company-Selected Measure if the registrant does not use it to link compensation actually paid to its named executive officers to company performance, even if it has a significant impact on the amounts reported in the Pay Versus Performance table. That is, if the only impact of stock price on a named executive officer’s compensation is through changes in the value of share-based awards (which would be evident from the registrant’s Summary Compensation Table disclosure), the registrant could not include its stock price as the Company-Selected measure. However, if, for example, the registrant’s stock price is a market condition applicable to an incentive plan award, or is used to determine the size of a bonus pool, it may be included as a registrant’s Company-Selected Measure. [February 10, 2023]

Question: Can the Company-Selected Measure included in the Pay Versus Performance table required by Item 402(v)(1) be measured over a multi-year period that includes the applicable fiscal year as the final year, similar to the use of multi-year measurement periods for calculating total shareholder return under Item 402(v)(2)(iv), as long as such performance period is used consistently for all years in the table?

Answer: No. Under Item 402(v)(2)(vi), the Company-Selected Measure is the measure which in the registrant's assessment represents the most important financial performance measure (that is not otherwise required to be disclosed in the table) used by the registrant to link compensation actually paid to the registrant's named executive officers, for the most recently completed fiscal year, to company performance. [February 10, 2023]

Question: A registrant uses a “pool plan” to determine its annual bonus awards. Under the plan, a bonus pool is available for payout only upon achievement of a financial performance measure or the size of the pool is determined based upon the extent such measure is achieved. Once that financial performance measure is achieved, the compensation committee may allocate bonus payouts to participants in its discretion, based on criteria independent of the achievement of any financial performance measure(s). If the registrant’s executive compensation does not use any other financial performance measures, may the registrant omit the Tabular List required under Item 402(v)(6) of Regulation S-K and the Company-Selected Measure required under Item 402(v)(2)(vi) of Regulation S-K and the related relationship disclosure required under Item 402(v)(5)(iii) of Regulation S-K from its disclosure under Item 402(v)?

Answer: No. Because the size of the bonuses paid from the “bonus pool” is determined based wholly or in part on satisfying the financial performance measure, the registrant is using the financial performance measure to link the executive compensation actually paid to company performance within the meaning of Item 402(v)(2)(vi) and Item 402(v)(6). [February 10, 2023]

Question: If a registrant has multiple principal executive officers (“PEOs”) in a fiscal year, Item 402(v) requires the registrant to provide separate columns for each PEO in the Pay Versus Performance table required by Item 402(v)(1). May the registrant aggregate (i.e., use the total sum of) the compensation of such PEOs in a given year for purposes of the narrative, graphical, or combined comparison between compensation actually paid and total shareholder return (“TSR”), net income, and the Company-Selected Measure provided under Item 402(v)(5)?

Answer: To the extent the presentation will not be misleading to investors, the staff will not object if a registrant aggregates the PEOs’ compensation for purposes of the narrative, graphical, or combined comparison between compensation actually paid and TSR, net income, and the Company-Selected Measure. [February 10, 2023]

Question: Should awards granted in fiscal years prior to an equity restructuring, such as a spin-off, that are retained by the holder be included in the calculation of executive compensation actually paid?

Answer: Yes. All stock awards and option awards that are outstanding and unvested at the beginning of the covered fiscal year or are granted to the principal executive officer and the remaining named executive officers during the covered fiscal year, including those awards modified in connection with an equity restructuring or retained following such a transaction, and for which compensation cost will be recognized under FASB ASC Topic 718 should be included in the table required by Item 402(v)(1) of Regulation S-K. [September 27, 2023]

Question: In periods prior to pursuing an initial public offering, a private company may grant stock awards or option awards. Once that company is required to provide Item 402(v) disclosures, should the change in fair value of awards granted prior to the date of a registrant’s initial public offering be based on the fair value of those awards as of the end of the prior fiscal year for purposes of determining executive compensation actually paid?

Answer: Yes. For outstanding stock awards and option awards, the calculations required by Item 402(v)(2)(iii)(C)(1) of Regulation S-K should be determined based on the change in fair value from the end of the prior fiscal year. The fair value of these awards should not be determined based on other dates, such as the date of the registrant’s initial public offering. [September 27, 2023]

Question: Market conditions under U.S. GAAP are certain conditions related to the price of the issuer’s shares that affect the exercise price, exercisability, or other pertinent factors used in determining the fair value of the award. Market conditions are not considered vesting conditions under U.S. GAAP even though the executive is not entitled to the compensation until the market condition is satisfied. How should awards with a market condition consider that condition in determining whether the applicable vesting conditions have been met in performing the calculation required by Item 402(v)(2)(iii)(C)(1) of Regulation S-K?

Answer: In accordance with FASB ASC Topic 718, the effect of a market condition should be reflected in the fair value of share-based awards with such a condition. In addition, for purposes of the table required by Item 402(v)(1) of Regulation S-K, market conditions should also be considered in determining whether the vesting conditions of share-based awards have been met. That is, until the market condition is satisfied, registrants must include in executive compensation actually paid any change in fair value of any awards subject to market conditions. Similarly, registrants must deduct the amount of the fair value at the end of the prior fiscal year for awards that fail to meet the market condition during the covered fiscal year if it results in forfeiture of the award. [September 27, 2023]

Question: An award did not meet vesting conditions during the year because the performance or market conditions were not met. However, there is still potential for the award to vest in the future. Should the award fair value be subtracted under Item 402(v)(2)(iii)(C)(1)(v) of Regulation S-K because it failed to vest in the current year?

Answer: No. Item 402(v)(2)(iii)(C)(1)(v) is referring to awards that were forfeited and the cumulative reported value of that award is $0. Awards that remain outstanding and have not yet vested, because, for example, performance or market conditions were not met in an eligible year, are not considered to have failed to meet the applicable vesting conditions for the purpose of Item 402(v). [September 27, 2023]

Question: Some stock and option awards with a performance condition require certification by others, such as the compensation committee, that the level of performance was attained. If the performance condition was met by fiscal year-end, however, the certification occurs after year-end, would the award be considered vested for purposes of the Item 402(v) of Regulation S-K disclosures at the end of the fiscal year-end?

Answer: If certification is an additional substantive vesting condition, then the award would not be considered vested. A performance-based vesting condition is considered satisfied when the applicable condition is achieved. However, a provision which requires the compensation committee to certify the level of performance attained should be analyzed to determine if it creates an additional substantive vesting condition, such as an employee does not vest in the award unless and until they remain employed through the date such certification occurs. [September 27, 2023]

Question: Item 402(v)(2)(iii)(C)(3) of Regulation S-K requires the fair value of all stock awards, and all option awards, with or without tandem stock appreciation rights (“SARs”) to be computed in a manner consistent with the methodology used to account for share-based payments under GAAP. May a registrant satisfy this requirement by using a valuation technique that differs from the one used to determine the grant date fair value of option or other equity-based awards that are classified as equity in the financial statements?

Answer: Yes, as long as the valuation technique would be permitted under FASB ASC Topic 718, including that it meets the criteria for a valuation technique and the fair value measurement objective. For example, if another valuation technique provides a better estimate of fair value subsequent to the grant date, which would meet the measurement objective in U.S. GAAP, then a registrant may use it to calculate executive compensation actually paid under Item 402(v) instead of the technique used to determine the grant-date fair value of share-based payments in the registrant's GAAP financial statements. Item 402(v)(4) of Regulation S-K requires disclosure about the assumptions made in the valuation that differ materially from those disclosed as of the grant date of such equity awards. A change in valuation technique from the technique used at the grant date of such equity awards in the registrant’s financial statements would require disclosure of the change if such technique differs materially. We would expect a registrant to disclose under Item 402(v)(4) both the change in valuation technique from the grant date and the reason for the change. [September 27, 2023]

Question: To comply with Item 402(v)(2)(iii)(C)(3) of Regulation S-K, the methodology used to compute the fair value amounts of all stock awards, and all option awards, with or without tandem SARs, must be consistent with the methodology used to account for share-based payments in the financial statements under GAAP. Is it ever acceptable to value these awards as of the end of a covered fiscal year based on methods not prescribed by GAAP?

Answer: No. The fair value of stock awards and option awards must be computed using a methodology and assumptions consistent with FASB ASC Topic 718. For example, the expected term assumption to value options should not be determined using a method that is not acceptable under GAAP, such as a “shortcut approach” that simply subtracts the elapsed actual life from the expected term assumption at the grant date. This approach would not be acceptable because it does not consider whether there were changes in the factors that a registrant considers in determining the expected term assumption at grant date, such as volatility and/or exercise behavior. U.S. GAAP fair value measurement objectives require that assumptions and measurement techniques be consistent with those that marketplace participants would likely use in determining an exchange price for the share options. Similarly, the expected term for options referred to as "plain vanilla" in Staff Accounting Bulletin 14.D.2 should not be determined using the “simplified” method described in that Staff Accounting Bulletin if those options do not meet the “plain vanilla” criteria at the re-measurement date, such as when the option is now out-of-the-money. [September 27, 2023]

Question: Instruction 4 to Item 402(b) of Regulation S-K provides that “registrants are not required to disclose target levels with respect to specific quantitative or qualitative performance-related factors considered by the compensation committee or the board of directors, or any other factors or criteria involving confidential trade secrets or confidential commercial or financial information, the disclosure of which would result in competitive harm for the registrant.” Item 402(v)(2)(iii)(C)(3) of Regulation S-K provides that “for any awards that are subject to performance conditions, calculate the change in fair value as of the end of the covered fiscal year based upon the probable outcome of such conditions as of the last day of the fiscal year.” In addition, Item 402(v)(4) of Regulation S-K provides that “for the value of equity awards added pursuant to paragraph (v)(2)(iii)(C) of this section, disclose in a footnote to the table required by paragraph (v)(1) of this section any assumption made in the valuation that differs materially from those disclosed as of the grant date of such equity awards.” If the disclosure required by Item 402(v)(4) would involve confidential trade secrets or confidential commercial or financial information, the disclosure of which would result in competitive harm for the registrant, may the registrant omit such information?

Answer: Yes. A registrant is not required to disclose detailed quantitative or qualitative performance condition for its awards under Item 402(v)(4) to the extent such information would be subject to the confidentiality protections of Instruction 4 to Item 402(b) of Regulation S-K. However, the registrant must provide as much information responsive to the Item 402(v)(4) requirement as possible without disclosing the confidential information, such as a range of outcomes or a discussion of how a performance condition impacted the fair value. In addition, consistent with Instruction 4 to Item 402(b), the registrant should also discuss how the material difference in the assumption affects how difficult it will be for the executive or how likely it will be for the registrant to achieve undisclosed target levels or other factors. [September 27, 2023]

Question: Some stock awards entitle the holder to receive dividends or dividend equivalents paid on the underlying shares prior to the vesting date. If the dollar value of dividends or dividend equivalents paid are not reflected in the fair value of such awards, should they be included in the calculation of executive compensation actually paid?

Answer: Yes. Item 402(v)(2)(iii)(C)(1)(vi) of Regulation S-K requires the calculation of executive compensation actually paid to include dividends or dividend equivalents paid that are not already reflected in the fair value of stock awards or included in another component of total compensation. [November 21, 2023]

Question: When identifying a total shareholder return peer group under Regulation S-K Item 402(v)(2)(iv), the registrant must use either the same index or issuers used by it to comply with Item 201(e)(1)(ii) or the companies it uses as a peer group under Regulation S-K Item 402(b). If a registrant uses more than one “published industry or line-of-business” index for purposes of Item 201(e)(1)(ii), may a registrant choose which index it uses for purposes of its pay versus performance disclosure?

Answer: Yes. In order to provide clarity to investors, the registrant should include a footnote disclosing the index chosen. If the registrant chooses to use a different published industry or line-of-business index from that used by it for the immediately preceding fiscal year, it is required under Item 402(v)(2)(iv) to explain, in a footnote, the reason(s) for this change and compare the registrant's cumulative total return with that of both the newly selected peer group and the peer group used in the immediately preceding fiscal year. [November 21, 2023]

Question: For purposes of determining the total shareholder return of a registrant’s peer group under Regulation S-K Item 402(v)(2)(iv), the registrant must use the same index or issuers used by it for purposes of Item 201(e)(1)(ii) or the companies it uses as a peer group for purposes of its disclosures under Item 402(b). If registrant discloses in its Compensation Discussion & Analysis that it determines the vesting of performance-based equity awards based on relative TSR compared to a broad-based equity index, can the registrant use that broad-based index as its peer group for purposes of Item 402(v)(2)(iv)?

Answer: No. Item 402(v)(2)(iv) does not contemplate the use of a broad-based equity index as a peer group for purposes of the pay versus performance disclosure. [November 21, 2023]

Question: Pursuant to Regulation S-K Item 402(v)(2)(iv), if the registrant’s peer group is not a published industry or line-of-business index, the identity of the issuers composing the group must be disclosed in a footnote. The returns of each component issuer of the group must be weighted according to the respective issuers' stock market capitalization at the beginning of each period for which a return is indicated. In what circumstances is such market capitalization-based weighting required?

Answer: For purposes of Item 402(v)(2)(iv), the weighting requirement is applicable only if the registrant is not using a published industry or line-of-business index pursuant to Item 201(e)(1)(ii). [November 21, 2023]

Question: If a registrant that uses a peer group other than a published industry or line-of-business index as its peer group under Regulation S-K Item 402(v)(2)(iv) adds or removes any of the companies in the peer group, is it required to footnote the change(s) and compare its cumulative total shareholder return with that of both the updated peer group and the peer group used in the immediately preceding fiscal year?

Answer: Yes. However, consistent with Regulation S-K Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations Question 206.05, comparison of the registrant's cumulative total return with that of both the newly selected peer group and the peer group used in the immediately preceding fiscal year is not required if (1) an entity is omitted solely because it is no longer in the line of business or industry, or (2) the changes in the composition of the index/peer group are the result of the application of pre-established objective criteria. In these two cases, a specific description of, and the bases for, the change must be disclosed, including the names of the companies deleted from the new index/peer group. [November 21, 2023]

Question: A smaller reporting company (SRC) with a December 31 fiscal year end provided scaled pay versus performance disclosure covering fiscal years 2021 and 2022 in its proxy statement filed in April 2023. It subsequently loses its SRC status based on its public float as of June 30, 2023. The registrant proposes to rely on General Instruction G(3) of Form 10-K to incorporate by reference executive compensation and other disclosure required by Part III of Form 10-K into its 2023 Form 10-K from its definitive proxy or information statement to be filed not later than 120 days after its 2023 fiscal year end. What pay versus performance information is the registrant required to include in such proxy or information statement?

Answer: The staff will not object if a registrant that loses SRC status as of January 1, 2024, continues to include scaled disclosure under Regulation S-K Item 402(v)(8) in its definitive proxy or information statement filed not later than 120 days after its 2023 fiscal year end from which the registrant’s Form 10-K will forward incorporate the disclosure required by Part III of Form 10-K. The pay versus performance disclosure in such filing must cover fiscal years 2021, 2022, and 2023.

Unless the registrant regains SRC status in subsequent years, any other proxy or information statement in which Item 402(v) disclosure is required and that is filed after January 1, 2024, must include non-scaled pay versus performance disclosure. For example, in the registrant’s annual meeting proxy statement filed in 2025, it must include non-scaled pay versus performance disclosure for fiscal year 2024. A non-SRC is required to provide Item 402(v) disclosure covering five years; however, the staff will not object if the registrant does not add disclosure for a year prior to the years included in the first filing in which it provided Item 402(v) disclosure. The registrant generally is not required to revise the disclosure for prior years (in this example, 2021, 2022, and 2023) to conform to non-SRC status in such filings. However, because peer group TSR is calculated on a cumulative basis, the registrant should include peer group TSR for each year included in the pay versus performance table, measured from the market close on the last trading day before the registrant’s earliest fiscal year in the table. In addition, the registrant should include its numerically quantifiable performance under the Company-Selected Measure for each fiscal year in the table. The entirety of the Item 402(v) disclosure provided for all fiscal years must be XBRL tagged in accordance with Item 402(v)(7). [November 21, 2023]

Question: A registrant that previously qualified as an emerging growth company loses that status as of December 31, 2024. Is it required to provide pay versus performance disclosure in its proxy statement filed in 2025? How many years are required in the table?

Answer: The registrant is required to provide pay versus performance disclosure in any proxy or information statement filed after it loses its EGC status. It may apply the transitional relief in Instruction 1 to Item 402(v). [November 21, 2023]

Question: Two (or more) individuals served as a registrant’s principal financial officer (PFO) during a single covered fiscal year included the pay versus performance table and related disclosure under Regulation S-K Item 402(v). Each such individual is included in the Summary Compensation table as a named executive officer (NEO) pursuant to Item 402(a)(3)(ii). For purposes of the calculation of average compensation amounts for the NEOs other than the principal executive officer reported pursuant to Items 402(v)(2)(ii) and (iii), may the registrant treat the PFOs as the equivalent of one NEO?

Answer: No. Each NEO must be included individually in the calculation of average compensation amounts. In such cases, the registrant should consider including additional disclosure on the impact of the inclusion of such individuals on the calculation in order to provide clarity to investors. [November 21, 2023]