Stay up to date with notifications from The Independent

Notifications can be managed in browser preferences.

Greenbury rejects ban on use of share options

Peter Rodgers Business Editor
Friday 23 June 1995 23:02 BST
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

The Greenbury committee on top pay will approve the use of share options in stock market flotations, and for executives of smaller quoted companies.

It has also rejected proposals for a complete ban on the use of share options to reward executive of large companies, contrary to recent reports.

But the committee plans to recommend tighter conditions for options granted in flotations.

This will include a year's extension of the three-year waiting period before profits qualify for capital gains tax treatment rather than income tax.

The latest draft of the report, to be discussed at the committee's final meeting on 3 July, strongly criticises the regional electricity companies and the generators for the way executives have made windfall profits on share options.

It will lambast the utilities for failing to devise remuneration strategies that give directors a long-term interest in their companies, by sharing the same risks as shareholders.

The committee has nevertheless resisted pressure to recommend a complete block on the use of options for executives in large firms.

At least one of the committee members, Sir Michael Angus, chairman of Whitbread, favoured the idea of restricting large firms to long-term incentive schemes and banning options.

But the draft drawn up for the final meeting of the committee is understood simply to state a preference for long-term incentive schemes over share options where large companies are concerned. It has drawn back from a general condemnation, leaving its main criticism to their past use by utilities.

The draft also says the exercise price of options in a flotation should not be set until a year after trading starts, though other periods considered were six months and 18 months. It will say the exercise price should be based on an average market price over a period.

The committee wants to encourage what it will describe as an existing trend towards long-term incentive schemes and away from the windfall profits available from traditional option schemes. It will also dwell heavily on the need to avoid rewards for failure. Even the new type of long-term scheme, already used by as many as half of Britain's biggest companies, could still include the award of shares as an incentive.

But they would be handed over on the basis that directors will keep them.

The draft, 40 pages long but being shortened, recommends that the Government should legislate to allow more disclosure of information about directors' earnings in annual reports, which will require an amendment to the Companies Act.

Changes are needed to allow disclosure of named directors' pay because the Act states that reports should show no more than the bands into which directors' pay falls, but without naming them. One decision to be taken on 3 July is whether pensions should be accounted for as the cost to the company or - more likely - as the value to the individual.

The meeting is likely to decide that the centrepiece of the report, a code of practice for directors' remuneration, should be incorporated in the Stock Exchange's listing rules, as the Cadbury corporate governance rules are now.

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in