MGIC Investment DEF 14A 2012
Documents found in this filing:
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
Proxy Statement Pursuant to Section 14(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934
Filed by the Registrant ý
Filed by a Party other than the Registrant o
Check the appropriate box:
(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):
IMPORTANT VOTING INFORMATION
If you hold your shares in “street name,” meaning your shares are held in a stock brokerage account or by a bank or other nominee, you will have received a voting instruction form from that nominee containing instructions that you must follow in order for your shares to be voted. If you do not transmit your voting instructions before the Annual Meeting, your nominee can vote on your behalf on only the matter considered to be routine, which is the ratification of the appointment of our independent registered public accounting firm.
The following matters are NOT considered routine: election of directors, approval of an amendment to our Articles of Incorporation to increase our authorized Common Stock, and the advisory vote to approve our executive compensation. Your nominee is not permitted to vote on your behalf on such matters unless you provide specific instructions by following the instructions from your nominee about voting your shares and by completing and returning the voting instruction form. For your vote to be counted on such matters, you will need to communicate your voting decisions to your bank, broker or other nominee before the date of the Annual Meeting.
Your Participation in Voting the Shares You Own is Important
Voting your shares is important to ensure that you have a say in the governance of your company and to fulfill the objectives of the majority voting standard that we apply in the election of directors. Please review the proxy materials and follow the relevant instructions to vote your shares. We hope you will exercise your rights and fully participate as a shareholder in the future of MGIC Investment Corporation.
More Information is Available
If you have any questions about the proxy voting process, please contact the bank, broker or other nominee through which you hold your shares. The SEC also has a website (www.sec.gov/spotlight/proxymatters.shtml) with more information about voting at annual meetings. Additionally, you may contact our Investor Relations personnel at (414) 347-6480.
IMPORTANT NOTICE REGARDING THE AVAILABILITY OF PROXY MATERIALS
FOR THE ANNUAL MEETING OF SHAREHOLDERS TO BE HELD ON APRIL 26, 2012
Our proxy statement and 2011 Annual Report to Shareholders are available at http://mtg.mgic.com/proxyinfo. Your vote is very important. Whether or not you plan to attend the Annual Meeting, we hope you will vote as soon as possible. You may vote your shares via a toll-free telephone number, over the Internet, or by completing, signing, dating and returning your proxy card or voting instruction form in the pre-addressed envelope provided. No postage is required if your proxy card or voting instruction form is mailed in the United States. If you attend the meeting, you may vote in person, even if you have previously voted by telephone, over the Internet or by mailing your proxy card. If you hold your shares through an account with a brokerage firm, bank or other nominee, please follow the instructions you receive from them to vote your shares.
MGIC INVESTMENT CORPORATION
NOTICE OF ANNUAL MEETING OF SHAREHOLDERS
April 26, 2012
To Our Shareholders:
The Annual Meeting of Shareholders of MGIC Investment Corporation will be held in the Bradley Pavilion of the Marcus Center for the Performing Arts, 929 North Water Street, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, on April 26, 2012, at 9:00 a.m., to vote on the following matters:
(1) Election of the five directors named in the proxy statement, each for a one-year term;
(2) Approval of an amendment to our Articles of Incorporation to increase our authorized Common Stock from 460,000,000 shares to 680,000,000 shares;
(3) An advisory vote to approve our executive compensation;
(4) Ratification of the appointment of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP as our independent registered public accounting firm for 2012; and
(5) Any other matters that properly come before the meeting.
Only shareholders of record at the close of business on March 2, 2012, will be entitled to vote at the Annual Meeting and any postponement or adjournment of the meeting.
MGIC INVESTMENT CORPORATION
MGIC Investment Corporation
P.O. Box 488
MGIC Plaza, 250 East Kilbourn Avenue
Milwaukee, WI 53201
Our Board of Directors is soliciting proxies for the Annual Meeting of Shareholders to be held at 9:00 a.m., Thursday, April 26, 2012, in the Bradley Pavilion of the Marcus Center for the Performing Arts, 929 North Water Street, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and at any postponement or adjournment of the meeting. In this proxy statement we sometimes refer to MGIC Investment Corporation as “the Company,” “we” or “us.” This proxy statement and the enclosed form of proxy are being mailed to shareholders beginning on March 26, 2012. Our Annual Report to Shareholders for the year ended December 31, 2011, which follows the proxy statement in this booklet, is a separate report and is not part of this proxy statement. If you have any questions about attending our Annual Meeting, you can call our Investor Relations personnel at (414) 347-6480.
ABOUT THE MEETING AND PROXY MATERIALS
At our Annual Meeting, shareholders will act on the matters outlined in our notice of meeting preceding the Table of Contents, including the election of the five directors named in the proxy statement, approval of an amendment to our Articles of Incorporation to increase our authorized Common Stock from 460,000,000 shares to 680,000,000 shares, an advisory vote to approve our executive compensation and ratification of the appointment of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP as our independent registered public accounting firm for 2012. In addition, management will report on our performance during the last year and, after the meeting, respond to questions from shareholders.
Only shareholders of record at the close of business on March 2, 2012, the record date for the meeting, are entitled to receive notice of and to participate in the Annual Meeting. For each share of Common Stock that you held on that date, you are entitled to one vote on each matter considered at the meeting. On the record date, 202,030,282 shares of Common Stock were outstanding and entitled to vote.
A proxy is another person you legally designate to vote your shares. If you designate someone as your proxy in a written document, that document is also called a proxy or a proxy card.
If you are a shareholder of record, meaning your shares are registered directly in your name with Wells Fargo Bank Minnesota, N.A., our stock transfer agent, you may vote your shares in one of three ways:
If you attend the meeting, you may withdraw your proxy and vote your shares in person.
If you hold your shares in “street name,” meaning your shares are held in a stock brokerage account or by a bank or other nominee, your broker or nominee has enclosed or provided a voting instruction form for you to use to direct the broker or nominee how to vote your shares. Certain of these institutions offer telephone and Internet voting.
If you hold shares as a participant in our Profit Sharing and Savings Plan, you may instruct the plan trustee how to vote those shares in any one of three ways:
The plan trustee will vote shares held in your account in accordance with your instructions and the plan terms. The plan trustee may vote the shares for you if your instructions are not received at least five days before the Annual Meeting date.
Please contact our Investor Relations personnel at (414) 347-6480 if you would like directions on attending the Annual Meeting and voting in person. At our meeting, you will be asked to show some form of identification (such as your driving license).
Yes. If you are a shareholder of record, you can revoke your proxy at any time before your shares are voted by advising our corporate Secretary in writing, by granting a new proxy with a later date, or by voting in person at the meeting. If your shares are held in street name by a broker, bank or nominee, or in our Profit Sharing and Savings Plan, you must follow the instructions of the broker, bank, nominee or plan trustee on how to change your vote.
A quorum is necessary to hold the meeting and will exist if a majority of the 202,030,282 shares of Common Stock outstanding on the record date are represented, in person or by proxy, at the meeting. Votes cast by proxy or in person at the meeting will be counted by Wells Fargo Bank Minnesota, N.A., which has been appointed by our Board to act as inspector of election for the meeting.
Shares represented by proxy cards marked “Abstain” for any matter will be counted to determine the presence of a quorum, but will not be counted as votes for or against that matter. “Broker non-votes,” which occur when a broker or other nominee does not vote on a particular matter because the broker or other nominee does not have authority to vote without instructions from the beneficial owner of the shares and has not received such instructions, will be counted for quorum purposes but will not be counted as votes for or against any matter. Brokers and other nominees have discretionary authority to vote shares without instructions from the beneficial owner of the shares only for matters considered routine. For the 2012 Annual Meeting, nominees will only have discretionary authority to vote shares on the ratification of the appointment of the independent registered public accounting firm without instructions from the beneficial owner.
Our Board of Directors recommends a vote FOR all of the nominees for director (Item 1), FOR approval of an amendment to our Articles of Incorporation to increase our authorized Common Stock from 460,000,000 shares to 680,000,000 shares (Item 2), FOR approval of our executive compensation (Item 3), and FOR ratification of the appointment of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP as our independent registered public accounting firm for 2012 (Item 4).
If you sign and return a proxy card or voting instruction form without specifying how you want your shares voted, the named proxies will vote your shares in accordance with the recommendations of the Board for all Items and in their best judgment on any other matters that properly come before the meeting.
The Board does not know of any other business to be presented at the Annual Meeting. No shareholder proposals will be presented at this year’s Annual Meeting.
Shareholders may submit proposals on matters appropriate for shareholder action at future Annual Meetings by following the SEC’s rules. Proposals intended for inclusion in next year’s proxy materials must be received by our Secretary no later than November 26, 2012.
Under our Amended and Restated Bylaws (“Bylaws”), a shareholder who wants to bring business before the Annual Meeting that has not been included in the proxy materials for the meeting, or who wants to nominate directors at the meeting, must be eligible to vote at the meeting and give written notice of the proposal to our corporate Secretary in accordance with the procedures contained in our Bylaws. Our Bylaws require that shareholders give notice to our Secretary at least 45 and not more than 70 days before the first anniversary of the date set forth in our proxy statement for the prior Annual Meeting as the date on which we first mailed such proxy materials to shareholders. For the 2013 Annual Meeting, the notice must be received by the Secretary no later than February 9, 2013, and no earlier than January 15, 2013. For director nominations, the notice must comply with our Bylaws and provide the information required to be included in the proxy statement for individuals nominated by our Board. For any other proposals, the notice must describe the proposal and why it should be approved, identify any material interest of the shareholder in the matter, and include other information required by our Bylaws.
We will pay the cost of soliciting proxies. In addition to soliciting proxies by mail, our employees may solicit proxies by telephone, email, facsimile or personal interview. We have also engaged D.F. King & Co., Inc. to provide proxy solicitation services for a fee of $13,000, plus expenses such as charges by brokers, banks and other nominees to forward proxy materials to the beneficial owners of our Common Stock.
The following table identifies the beneficial owners of more than 5% of our Common Stock as of December 31, 2011, based on information filed with the SEC, unless more recent information filed with the SEC is available. The table also shows the amount of our Common Stock beneficially owned by our named executive officers and all directors and executive officers as a group. Unless otherwise noted, the parties listed in the table have sole voting and investment power over their shares, and information regarding our directors and named executive officers is given as of March 2, 2012. Information about the Common Stock that our directors beneficially own appears below in connection with their biographies. See “Item 1— Election of Directors.”
Our Board of Directors was previously divided into three classes, with directors in each class serving for a term of three years and one class of directors elected at each Annual Meeting. We are currently transitioning to a declassified Board and that transition will be completed at the 2013 Annual Meeting, when the remaining term of all directors will be one year.
Item 1 consists of the election of directors at this Annual Meeting. The Board, upon the recommendation of the Management Development, Nominating and Governance Committee (with Mr. Muma abstaining on his own nomination), has nominated Curt S. Culver, Timothy A. Holt, William A. McIntosh, Leslie M. Muma and Mark M. Zandi for re-election to the Board to serve, for one year, until our 2013 Annual Meeting of Shareholders. Mr. Holt was appointed to the Board in January 2012. An independent director recommended him for consideration by the Management Development, Nominating and Governance Committee. If any nominee is not available for election, proxies will be voted for another person nominated by the Board or the size of the Board will be reduced.
Our Articles of Incorporation contain a majority vote standard for the election of directors in uncontested elections. Under this standard, each of the five nominees (Messrs. Culver, Holt, McIntosh, Muma and Zandi) must receive a “majority vote” at the meeting to be elected a director. A “majority vote” means that when there is a quorum present, more than 50% of the votes cast in the election of the director are cast “for” the director, with votes cast being equal to the total of the votes “for” the election of the director plus the votes “withheld” from the election of the director. Therefore, under our Articles of Incorporation, a “withheld” vote is effectively a vote “against” a nominee. Broker non-votes will be disregarded in the calculation of a “majority vote.” Any incumbent director who does not receive a majority vote (but whose term as a director nevertheless would continue under Wisconsin law until his successor is elected) is required to send our Board a resignation. The effectiveness of any such resignation is contingent upon Board acceptance. The Board will accept or reject a resignation in its discretion after receiving a recommendation made by our Management Development, Nominating and Governance Committee and will promptly publicly disclose its decision regarding the director’s resignation (including the reason(s) for rejecting the resignation, if applicable).
The Board believes that the Board, as a whole, should possess a combination of skills, professional experience, and diversity of backgrounds necessary to oversee our business. In addition, the Board believes that there are certain attributes that every director should possess, as reflected in the Board’s membership criteria. Accordingly, the Board and the Management Development, Nominating and Governance Committee consider the qualifications of directors and director candidates individually and in the broader context of the Board’s overall composition and our current and future needs.
The Management Development, Nominating and Governance Committee is responsible for developing Board membership criteria and recommending these criteria to the Board. The criteria, which are set forth in our Corporate Governance Guidelines, include an inquiring and independent mind, sound and considered judgment, high standards of ethical conduct and integrity, well-respected experience at senior levels of business, academia, government or other fields, ability to commit sufficient time and attention to Board activities, anticipated tenure on the Board, and whether an individual will enable the Board to continue to have a substantial majority of independent directors.
In addition, the Management Development, Nominating and Governance Committee in conjunction with the Board periodically evaluates the composition of the Board to assess the skills and experience that are currently represented on the Board, as well as the skills and experience that the Board will find valuable in the future, given our prospective retirements due to the Board’s policy that a director may not stand for election if he is age 74 or more. The Management Development, Nominating and Governance Committee seeks a variety of occupational and personal backgrounds on the Board in order to obtain a range of viewpoints and perspectives and enable the Board to have access to a diverse body of talent and expertise relevant to our activities. The Committee’s and the Board’s evaluation of the Board’s composition enables the Board to consider the skills and experience it seeks in the Board as a whole, and in individual directors, as our needs evolve and change over time and to assess the effectiveness of the Board’s efforts at pursuing diversity. In identifying director candidates from time to time, the Management Development, Nominating and Governance Committee may establish specific skills and experience that it believes we should seek in order to constitute a balanced and effective board.
In evaluating incumbent directors for renomination to the Board, as well as the skills and experience that other directors bring to the Board, the Management Development, Nominating and Governance Committee has considered a variety of factors. These include each director’s independence, financial literacy, personal and professional accomplishments, tenure on the Board, experience in light of our needs, and past performance on the Board based on feedback from other Board members.
Information about our directors appears below. The biographical information is as of February 1, 2012 and, for each director, includes a discussion about the skills and qualifications that the Board has determined support the director’s continued service on the Board.
NOMINEES FOR DIRECTOR -
For One-Year Term Ending 2013
DIRECTORS CONTINUING IN OFFICE -
Term Ending 2013
DIRECTORS CONTINUING IN OFFICE –
Term Ending 2014
YOUR BOARD OF DIRECTORS RECOMMENDS A VOTE FOR EACH OF THE FIVE NOMINEES. SIGNED PROXY CARDS AND VOTING INSTRUCTION FORMS WILL BE VOTED FOR THE NOMINEES UNLESS A SHAREHOLDER GIVES OTHER INSTRUCTIONS ON THE PROXY CARD OR VOTING INSTRUCTION FORM.
The Board of Directors oversees the management of the Company and our business. The Board selects our CEO and in conjunction with our CEO selects the rest of our senior management team, which is responsible for operating our business.
The Board has adopted Corporate Governance Guidelines, which set forth a framework for our governance. The Guidelines cover the Board’s composition, leadership, meeting process, director independence, Board membership criteria, committee structure and functions, succession planning and director compensation. Among other things, the Board meets in executive session outside the presence of any member of our management after each Board meeting at which directors are present in person and at any additional times determined by the Board or the Lead Director. Mr. Jastrow has, for several years, presided at these sessions and has served as the Board’s Lead Director since the position was created in October 2009. See “Board Leadership” for information about the Lead Director’s responsibilities and authority. The Corporate Governance Guidelines provide that a director shall not be nominated by the Board for re-election if at the date of the Annual Meeting of Shareholders, the director is age 74 or more (increased from 72 in 2011). The Corporate Governance Guidelines also provide that a director who retires from his principal employment or joins a new employer shall offer to resign from the Board and a director who is an officer of MGIC and leaves MGIC must resign from the Board.
We have a Code of Business Conduct emphasizing our commitment to conducting our business in accordance with legal requirements and high ethical standards. The Code applies to all employees, including our executive officers, and specified portions are applicable to our directors. Certain portions of the Code that apply to transactions with our executive officers, directors, and their immediate family members are described under “Other Matters – Related Person Transactions” below. These descriptions are subject to the actual terms of the Code.
Our Corporate Governance Guidelines and our Code of Business Conduct are available on our website (http://mtg.mgic.com) under the “Investor Information; Corporate Governance” links. Written copies of these documents are available to any shareholder who submits a written request to our Secretary. We intend to disclose on our website any waivers from, or amendments to, our Code of Business Conduct that are subject to disclosure under applicable rules and regulations.
Our Corporate Governance Guidelines regarding director independence provide that a director is not independent if the director has any specified disqualifying relationship with us. The disqualifying relationships are equivalent to those of the independence rules of the New York Stock Exchange, except that our disqualification for board interlocks is more stringent than under the NYSE rules. Also, for a director to be independent under the Guidelines, the director may not have any material relationship with us. For purposes of determining whether a disqualifying or material relationship exists, we consider relationships with MGIC Investment Corporation and its consolidated subsidiaries.
The Board has determined that all of our current directors except for Mr. Culver, our CEO, are independent under the Guidelines and the NYSE rules. In addition, each of the Audit, Management Development, Nominating and Governance, Risk Management and Securities Investment Committees consists entirely of independent directors. All members of the Audit Committee meet additional, heightened independence criteria applicable to audit committee members under SEC and NYSE rules and the independence standards adopted by the Board. The Board made its independence determinations by considering that no disqualifying relationships existed during the periods specified under the Guidelines and the NYSE rules. To determine that there were no material relationships, the Board applied categorical standards that it had adopted. All independent directors met these standards. Under these standards, a director is not independent if payments under transactions between us and a company of which the director is an executive officer or 10% or greater owner exceeded the greater of $1 million or 1% of the other company’s gross revenues. Payments made to and payments made by us are considered separately, and this quantitative threshold is applied to transactions that occurred in the three most recent fiscal years of the other company. Also under these standards, a director is not independent if during our last three fiscal years the director:
In making its independence determinations, the Board considered mortgage insurance premiums that we received on loans where American Security Mortgage Corp. (of which Mr. Abbott is the Chairman and a principal) was the original insured and our provision of contract underwriting services to American Security Mortgage Corp. These transactions were below the quantitative threshold noted above and were entered into in the ordinary course of business by us and American Security Mortgage Corp. The Board also considered payments we made to Moody’s Analytics (of which Dr. Zandi is an executive officer) for research and subscription services for Moody’s Economy.com and related publications, and payments to Moody’s Investor Services for credit rating services. These transactions were below the quantitative threshold noted above and were entered into in the ordinary course of business by us, Moody’s Analytics and Moody’s Investor Services.
Currently, Mr. Culver serves as Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer. The Board believes that we and our shareholders are best served at this time by this leadership structure, in which a single leader serves as Chairman and CEO and the Board has a Lead Director. Combining the roles of Chairman and CEO makes clear that the person serving in these roles has primary responsibility for managing our business, under the oversight and review of the Board. Under this structure, the Chairman and CEO chairs Board meetings, where the Board discusses strategic and business issues. The Board believes that this approach makes sense because the CEO is the individual with primary responsibility for developing our strategy, directing the work of other officers and leading implementation of our strategic plans as reviewed by the Board. This structure results in a single leader being directly accountable to the Board and, through the Board, to shareholders, and enables the CEO to act as the key link between the Board and other members of management. In addition, the Board believes that having a combined Chairman and CEO is appropriate for us at this time because of Mr. Culver’s familiarity with our business and history of outstanding leadership. Mr. Culver has been with us since 1985, and has served as Chief Executive Officer since 2000 and as Chairman of the Board since 2005.
Because the Board also believes that strong, independent Board leadership is a critical aspect of effective corporate governance, the Board has established the position of Lead Director. The Lead Director is an independent director selected by the independent directors. Mr. Jastrow has served as the Lead Director since the position was established in 2009. The Lead Director’s responsibilities and authority include:
The Board believes that a single leader serving as Chairman and CEO, together with an experienced and engaged Lead Director, is the most appropriate leadership structure for the Board at this time. The Board reviews the structure of the Board and the Board’s leadership as part of the succession planning process. The Board reviews succession planning for the CEO annually. The Management Development, Nominating and Governance Committee is responsible for overseeing this process and periodically reports to the Board.
Shareholders and other interested persons can communicate with the members of the Board, the non-management members of the Board as a group or the Lead Director, by sending a written communication to our Secretary, addressed to: MGIC Investment Corporation, Secretary, P.O. Box 488, Milwaukee, WI 53201. The Secretary will pass along any such communication, other than a solicitation for a product or service, to the Lead Director.
The Board of Directors held eight meetings during 2011. Each director attended at least 75% of the meetings of the Board and committees of the Board on which he served during 2011. The Annual Meeting of Shareholders is scheduled in conjunction with a Board meeting and, as a result, directors are expected to attend the Annual Meeting. Ten of our directors, including one who retired at the 2011 Annual Meeting of Shareholders, attended that meeting.
The Board has five committees: Audit; Management Development, Nominating and Governance; Risk Management; Securities Investment; and Executive. Information regarding these committees is provided below. The charters of the Audit, Management Development, Nominating and Governance, Risk Management and Securities Investment Committees are available on our website (http://mtg.mgic.com) under the “Investor Information; Corporate Governance” links. Written copies of these charters are available to any shareholder who submits a written request to our Secretary. The functions of the Executive Committee are established under our Bylaws and are described below.
The members of the Audit Committee are Messrs. Lehman (Chairman), Abbott, Holt, Kearney and McIntosh. The Board’s determination that each of these directors meets all applicable independence requirements took into account the heightened independence criteria that apply to Audit Committee members under SEC and NYSE rules. The Board has determined that Messrs. Holt and Lehman are “audit committee financial experts” as defined in SEC rules. The Committee met 18 times during 2011.
The Audit Committee assists the oversight by the Board of Directors of the integrity of MGIC Investment Corporation’s financial statements, the effectiveness of its system of internal controls, the qualifications, independence and performance of its independent accountants, the performance of its internal audit function, and its compliance with legal and regulatory requirements.
The Audit Committee reviewed and discussed with management and PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (“PwC”), MGIC Investment Corporation’s independent registered public accounting firm, its audited financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2011. The Audit Committee discussed with PwC the matters required to be discussed by PCAOB AU 380 (“Communication with Audit Committees”). The Audit Committee also received the written disclosures and the letter from PwC required by applicable requirements of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board regarding auditor-audit committee communications about independence and discussed with PwC their independence from MGIC Investment Corporation and its management.
In reliance on the reviews and discussions referred to above, the Audit Committee recommended to the Board of Directors that MGIC Investment Corporation’s audited financial statements be included in its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2011, which has been filed with the SEC. These are the same financial statements that appear in MGIC Investment Corporation’s Annual Report to Shareholders.
Members of the Audit Committee:
Michael E. Lehman, Chairman
James A. Abbott
Timothy A. Holt (joined January 2012)
Daniel P. Kearney
William A. McIntosh
The members of the Management Development, Nominating and Governance Committee are Messrs. Jastrow (Chairman), Hagerty, Muma and Nicolaisen. The Committee met six times during 2011. The Committee is responsible for overseeing our executive compensation program, including approving corporate goals relating to compensation for our CEO, determining our CEO’s annual compensation and approving compensation for our other senior executives. The Committee prepares the Compensation Committee Report and reviews the Compensation Discussion and Analysis included in our proxy statement. The Committee also makes recommendations to the Board regarding the compensation of directors. Although the Committee may delegate its responsibilities to subcommittees, it has not done so.
The Committee receives briefings throughout the year on information that includes: detailed breakdowns of the compensation of the named executive officers, the amount, if any, that our named executive officers realized in at least the previous five years pursuant to sales of shares awarded under equity grants; the total amount of stock, stock options, restricted stock and RSUs held by each named executive officer (restricted stock and RSUs are sometimes collectively referred to in this proxy statement as “restricted equity”); and the other compensation information disclosed in this proxy statement under the SEC’s rules. The Committee supports the Board’s role in overseeing the risks facing the Company, as described in more detail below under “Board Oversight of Risk.”
The Committee has retained Frederic W. Cook & Co., a nationally recognized executive compensation consulting firm, to advise it. The Committee retains this compensation consultant to, among other things, help it evaluate and oversee our executive compensation program and review the compensation of our directors. The scope of the compensation consultant’s services during 2011 is described under “Compensation Discussion and Analysis — Independent Compensation Consultant” below. In providing its services to the Management Development, Nominating and Governance Committee, the compensation consultant regularly interacts with our senior management. The compensation consultant does not provide any other services to us.
The Committee also evaluates the annual performance of the CEO, oversees the CEO succession planning process, and makes recommendations to the Board to fill open director and committee member positions. In addition, the Committee reviews our Corporate Governance Guidelines and oversees the Board’s self-evaluation process. Finally, the Committee identifies new director candidates through recommendations from Committee members, other Board members and our executive officers, and will consider candidates who are recommended by shareholders.
Shareholders may recommend a director candidate for consideration by the Management Development, Nominating and Governance Committee by submitting background information about the candidate, a description of his or her qualifications and the candidate’s consent to being recommended as a candidate. If the candidate is to be considered for nomination at the next annual shareholders meeting, the submission must be received by our corporate Secretary in writing no later than December 1 of the year preceding the meeting. Information on shareholder nominations is provided under “About the Meeting and Proxy Materials” in response to the question “What are the deadlines for submission of shareholder proposals for the next Annual Meeting?”
The Committee evaluates new director candidates under the criteria described under “Information About Our Directors” as well as other factors the Committee deems relevant, through background reviews, input from other members of the Board and our executive officers, and personal interviews with the candidates, which need not be conducted by all members of the Committee. The Committee will evaluate any director candidates recommended by shareholders using the same process and criteria that apply to candidates from other sources.
The members of the Risk Management Committee are Messrs. Nicolaisen (Chairman), Abbott and McIntosh, and Dr. Zandi. The Committee met eight times in 2011. The Committee is responsible for overseeing management’s operation of our mortgage insurance business, including reviewing and evaluating with management the insurance programs, rates, underwriting guidelines and changes in market conditions affecting our business. The Risk Management Committee supports the Board’s role in overseeing the risks facing the Company, as described in more detail below under “Board Oversight of Risk.”
The members of the Securities Investment Committee are Messrs. Kearney (Chairman), Holt, McIntosh and Muma. The Committee met seven times in 2011. The Committee oversees management of our investment portfolio and the investment portfolios of our employee benefit plans for which the plan document does not assign responsibility to other persons. The Committee also makes recommendations to the Board regarding our capital management, including dividend policy, repurchase of debt and external funding. Finally, the Committee supports the Board’s role in overseeing the risks facing the Company, as described in more detail below under “Board Oversight of Risk.”
The Executive Committee provides an alternative to convening a meeting of the entire Board should a matter arise between Board meetings that requires Board authorization. The members of the Committee are Messrs. Culver (Chairman), Jastrow and Muma. The Committee did not meet in 2011. The Committee is established under our Bylaws and has all authority that the Board may exercise with the exception of certain matters that under the Wisconsin Business Corporation Law are reserved to the Board itself.
Our senior management is charged with identifying and managing the risks facing our business and operations. The Board of Directors is responsible for oversight of how our senior management addresses these risks to the extent they are material. In this regard, the Board seeks to understand the material risks we face and to allocate, among the full Board and its committees, responsibilities for overseeing how management addresses the risks, including the risk management systems and processes that management uses for this purpose. Overseeing risk is an ongoing process. Accordingly, the Board periodically considers risk throughout the year and also with respect to specific proposed actions.
The Board implements its risk oversight function both as a whole and through delegation to various committees. These committees meet regularly and report back to the full Board. The following four committees play significant roles in carrying out the risk oversight function.
We believe that our leadership structure, discussed in “Board Leadership” above, supports the risk oversight function of the Board. We have a combined Chairman of the Board and CEO who keeps the Board informed about the risks facing us. In addition, independent directors chair the various committees involved with risk oversight and there is open communication between senior management and directors.
Under our Corporate Governance Guidelines, compensation of non-management directors is reviewed periodically by the Management Development, Nominating and Governance Committee. Mr. Culver is our CEO and receives no additional compensation for service as a director and he is not eligible to participate in any of the following programs or plans.
Annual and Meeting Fees: In 2011, our non-management directors were paid an annual retainer of $100,000, our Lead Director was paid an additional annual retainer of $25,000 and the Chairpersons of the Audit Committee and other Board committees received additional annual fees of $20,000 and $10,000, respectively. Non-Chairperson directors who were members of the Audit Committee in 2011 received an additional $5,000 annual fee. In addition, after the fifth Board or Committee meeting attended during 2011, our non-management directors also received $3,000 for each Board meeting attended, and $2,000 for all Committee meetings attended on any one day. Finally, subject to certain limits, we reimburse directors, and for meetings not held on our premises, their spouses, for travel, lodging and related expenses incurred in connection with attending Board and Committee meetings.
Deferred Compensation Plan and Annual Grant of Share Units: Our non-management directors can elect to defer payment of all or part of the annual and meeting fees until the director’s death, disability, termination of service as a director or to another date specified by the director. A director who participates in this plan will have his or her deferred compensation account credited quarterly with interest accrued at an annual rate equal to the six-month U.S. Treasury Bill rate determined at the closest preceding January 1 and July 1 of each year. In 2008 and prior years, our non-management directors could, as an alternative, elect to have the fees deferred during a quarter translated into share units. Each share unit is equal in value to one share of our Common Stock and is ultimately distributed only in cash. If a director deferred fees into share units, dividend equivalents in the form of additional share units are credited to the director’s account as of the date of payment of cash dividends on our Common Stock (we have not paid dividends since 2008).
Under the Deferred Compensation Plan, we also provide an annual grant of cash-settled share units to each director. These share units vest at least twelve months after they are awarded. Share units that have not vested when a director leaves the Board are forfeited, except in the case of the director’s death or certain events specified in the Deferred Compensation Plan. The Management Development, Nominating and Governance Committee may waive the forfeiture. Dividend equivalents in the form of additional share units are credited to the director’s account as of the date of payment of cash dividends on our Common Stock. In January 2011, each of our non-management directors was granted share units valued at $100,000, which will vest on April 1, 2012.
Former Deposit Share Program: In 2009, we eliminated the Deposit Share Program, which was previously offered to directors under our 2002 Stock Incentive Plan. Under the Deposit Share Program a non-management director was able to purchase shares of Common Stock from us at fair market value which were then held by us. The amount that could be used to purchase shares could not exceed the director’s annual and meeting fees for the preceding year. We matched each of these shares with one and one-half shares of restricted stock or, at the director’s option, RSUs. A director who deferred annual and meeting fees from the prior year into share units under the plan described above was able to reduce the amount needed to purchase Common Stock by the amount so deferred. For matching purposes, the amount so deferred was treated as if shares had been purchased and one and one-half shares of restricted stock or RSUs were awarded for each such share.
Between 2005 and 2008, the restricted stock and RSUs awarded under the program vested one year after the award. Prior to 2005, vesting occurred on the third anniversary of the award unless a director chose a later date. Except for gifts to family members, the restricted stock could not be transferred prior to vesting; RSUs were not transferable. Awards that have not vested when a director leaves the Board are forfeited, except in the case of the director’s death or certain events specified in the agreement relating to the awards. The Management Development, Nominating and Governance Committee may waive the forfeiture. All shares of restricted stock and RSUs vest on the director’s death and will immediately become vested upon a change in control. RSUs that have vested are settled in Common Stock when the director is no longer a Board member. The director receives a cash payment equivalent to the dividend corresponding to the number of shares underlying the director’s RSUs outstanding on the record date for Common Stock dividends.
Former RSU Award Program: We eliminated the RSU Award Program in 2009. Prior to its elimination, our non-management directors were each awarded RSUs representing 850 shares of Common Stock under the program annually. The RSUs vested on or about the first anniversary of the award date, or upon the earlier death of the director. RSUs that have vested will be settled in Common Stock when the director is no longer a Board member. The director receives a cash payment equivalent to the dividend corresponding to the number of shares underlying the director’s RSUs outstanding on the record date for Common Stock dividends.
Former Restricted Stock Plan: Non-management directors elected to the Board before 1997 were each awarded, on a one-time basis, 2,000 shares of Common Stock under our 1993 Restricted Stock Plan for Non-Employee Directors. The shares are restricted from transfer until the director ceases to be a director by reason of death, disability or retirement, and are forfeited if the director leaves the Board for another reason unless the forfeiture is waived by the plan administrator.
Equity Ownership Guidelines: The Management Development, Nominating and Governance Committee has adopted equity ownership guidelines for directors under which each member of the Board is expected to own 25,000 shares of our equity. Equity owned consists of shares owned outright by the director, restricted equity and share units that have vested or are scheduled to vest within one year. Directors are expected to achieve the ownership guideline within five years after joining the Board. All of our directors are in compliance with the guidelines.
Other: We also pay premiums for directors and officers liability insurance under which the directors are insureds.
The following table shows the compensation paid to each of our non-management directors in 2011. Mr. Culver, our CEO, is also a director but receives no compensation for service as a director.
At December 31, 2011, the aggregate number of stock awards (including restricted stock, restricted stock units, and share units granted under our Deferred Compensation Plan) outstanding and owned by our non-management directors was as follows: Mr. Abbott — 17,664; Mr. Hagerty — 50,338; Mr. Jastrow — 72,811; Mr. Kearney — 99,245; Mr. Lehman — 15,555; Mr. McIntosh — 16,173; Mr. Muma — 47,980; Mr. Nicolaisen — 45,308; and Dr. Zandi — 11,123. At December 31, 2011, the aggregate number of shares owned directly or in trusts by our non-management directors was as follows: Mr. Abbott — 31,437; Mr. Hagerty — 8,181; Mr. Jastrow — 1,146; Mr. Kearney — 77,483; Mr. Lehman — 7,439; Mr. McIntosh — 51,523; Mr. Muma — 142,991; and Mr. Nicolaisen — 50,182. At December 31, 2011, the total stock awards outstanding and direct / trust ownership of stock held by each of our directors was as follows: Mr. Abbott — 49,101; Mr. Hagerty — 58,519; Mr. Jastrow — 73,957; Mr. Kearney — 176,728; Mr. Lehman — 22,994; Mr. McIntosh — 67,696; Mr. Muma — 190,971; Mr. Nicolaisen — 95,490; and Dr. Zandi — 11,123.
ITEM 2 – APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO OUR ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION TO INCREASE OUR AUTHORIZED COMMON STOCK>
We are recommending that shareholders approve an amendment to Article 4 of our Articles of Incorporation to increase the number of shares of our Common Stock that we are authorized to issue from 460,000,000 to 680,000,000. As of March 2, 2012, (a) approximately 202 million shares of Common Stock were outstanding, (b) an aggregate of approximately 55 million shares may be issued upon the conversion of our convertible senior notes and our convertible junior subordinated debentures, (c) approximately 9 million shares were reserved under our stock incentive plans and (d) approximately 133 million shares are (or, in the case of shares not yet issued, will need to be) reserved to be issued pursuant to our shareholder rights agreement on account of the shares described in (a) - (c).
Based on the foregoing, only approximately 61 million shares remain available. Of these shares, only approximately 41 million could be issued, considering that issuance of these shares would require us to reserve approximately 20 million additional shares under our shareholder rights agreement.
Our Board believes that we should have the flexibility to issue additional shares of Common Stock in the discretion of the Board, without the delay or expense of a special shareholders’ meeting. All available shares, including additional shares authorized by the amendment, will be available for general corporate purposes, including stock dividends, financings, mergers and acquisitions and employee benefit programs. At the date of mailing of this proxy statement, we did not have any plans to issue any additional shares of Common Stock, other than the possible issuance of reserved shares under our 2002 Stock Incentive Plan and 2011 Omnibus Incentive Plan.
Shareholders do not have any preemptive rights to subscribe for any shares of Common Stock, including those authorized by the amendment. Any of the authorized shares of Common Stock may be issued by action of the Board without further action by shareholders, other than as may be required by the rules of the NYSE or the Business Corporation Law or Wisconsin, our state of incorporation. (In general, the rules of the NYSE would require approval only for shares issued in certain compensation programs, and in business combinations and certain non-public offerings in which, in both cases, the shares issued equal or exceed 20% of our shares outstanding prior to the combination or offering. The Wisconsin Business Corporation Law would require approval only for shares issued in certain business combinations.) The issuance of Common Stock otherwise than on a pro rata basis to all shareholders may have the effect of diluting the ownership interest and voting power of our existing shareholders. Similarly, the shares authorized by the amendment could be used to discourage or make more difficult a non-negotiated attempt to obtain control of our company. This effect could occur through issuance of additional shares of Common Stock that would dilute the interest in the equity and voting power of a party seeking to gain control, including pursuant to our shareholder rights agreement. We are not aware of any effort to obtain control of our company.
Approval of the amendment to our Articles of Incorporation requires the affirmative vote of a majority of the votes cast on this matter. Abstentions and broker non-votes will not be counted as votes cast.
YOUR BOARD OF DIRECTORS RECOMMENDS A VOTE FOR APPROVAL OF THE AMENDMENT TO OUR ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF AUTHORIZED SHARES OF COMMON STOCK. SIGNED PROXY CARDS AND VOTING INSTRUCTION FORMS WILL BE VOTED FOR THE AMENDMENT TO THE ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION UNLESS A SHAREHOLDER GIVES OTHER INSTRUCTIONS ON THE PROXY CARD OR VOTING INSTRUCTION FORM.
At our 2011 Annual Meeting, we held a non-binding, advisory shareholder vote on the frequency of future advisory shareholder votes on the compensation of our named executive officers. Our shareholders expressed a preference that advisory shareholder votes on the compensation of our named executive officers be held on an annual basis and, as previously disclosed, the Company adopted a policy to hold such votes annually. Accordingly, as required by Section 14A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, we are asking shareholders to approve, on an advisory basis, the compensation of our named executive officers as disclosed under the compensation disclosure rules of the Securities and Exchange Commission, including the Compensation Discussion and Analysis, the compensation tables and any related material contained in this proxy statement.
We strongly believe you should approve our compensation for the reasons cited in the Executive Summary that appears at the beginning of the Compensation Discussion and Analysis.
While this vote is advisory and is not binding, the Board and the Management Development, Nominating and Governance Committee will review and consider the voting results when making future decisions regarding compensation of named executive officers.
After this vote, under the Company’s policy, the next advisory vote to approve the compensation of our named executive officers is scheduled to occur at our 2013 Annual Meeting.
Approval of the compensation of our named executive officers requires the affirmative vote of a majority of the votes cast on this matter. Abstentions and broker non-votes will not be counted as votes cast.
YOUR BOARD OF DIRECTORS RECOMMENDS A VOTE FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE COMPENSATION OF OUR NAMED EXECUTIVE OFFICERS. SIGNED PROXY CARDS AND VOTING INSTRUCTION FORMS WILL BE VOTED FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION UNLESS A SHAREHOLDER GIVES OTHER INSTRUCTIONS ON THE PROXY CARD OR VOTING INSTRUCTION FORM.
This compensation discussion and analysis (“CD&A”) provides information about the compensation objectives and policies for our chief executive officer, our chief financial officer and our three other most highly compensated executive officers (our “named executive officers”) to place in perspective the information contained in the compensation tables that follow the CD&A. The Management Development, Nominating and Governance Committee oversees our executive compensation program. In this CD&A, we refer to this committee as the “Committee.” The terms “we” and “our” refer to the Company.
The Executive Summary below presents important factors to consider in evaluating our compensation program for our named executive officers. To enable us to present these factors concisely, we did not include additional information that explains, provides details or adds additional context regarding what we say. That information, which is also important and you should read, appears in the Appendix at the end of the CD&A.
We continued to make progress last year while some of our competitors failed
Our business – taking first loss credit risk on low down payment residential mortgages – is “long tailed” in that decisions made years ago can affect our current financial performance. In fact, our financial performance last year primarily reflects mortgage insurance written five and more years ago. Because restricted stock is a large percentage of our pay, our CEO, along with other shareholders, has suffered the economic consequences of the mortgage insurance written then. In analyzing compensation for 2011, however, we believe the focus should be on how decisions we made under our CEO’s leadership in 2011 and the two years before that contributed to positioning us to succeed in the future.
Before the onset of the mortgage crisis, which has been the most severe housing downturn since the Great Depression, our industry consisted of eight companies, including us. Today, three have stopped writing new business, two in 2011. The government owns almost 80% of a fourth due to financial assistance provided to its consolidated group. We remain in business and have received no government financial assistance.
During the last year,
The table below shows the incurred loss ratios for the book we wrote: in 2006 versus the one we wrote in 2009, in both cases after three years of seasoning; in 2007 versus 2010 after two years; and in 2008 versus 2011 after one year.
You should review our compensation by reference to a peer group consisting of our direct competitors and others related to our industry, not a GICS-based peer group
Peer group selection is a critical component of compensation analysis. The peer group we use consists of our direct competitors and others related to our industry. Our peer group, which is discussed under the caption “Benchmarking” (which appears after this Summary), is appropriate because:
Our CEO’s compensation is reasonable when evaluated against this peer group. His total direct compensation was at the 45th percentile of the total direct compensation of the CEOs of these companies and was 7.5% below the median total direct compensation of this group.
In contrast, our compensation practices should not be benchmarked against a peer group selected by a Standard & Poors’ Global Industry Classification Standard (GICS) in combination with a balance sheet test. The Committee, with the advice of its independent consultant, determined a GICS-related peer group is not appropriate for us because:
Our CEO’s compensation is aligned with returns to our shareholders
An important way we achieve alignment of pay and shareholder returns is by making performance-based equity awards the primary element of our CEO’s compensation. Those analyzing our compensation by reviewing only the Summary Compensation Table (“SCT”) will not see this important element of our program because the SCT reports only the grant date fair value of stock awards and does not capture subsequent changes in the value of that stock. Specifically:
Moreover, our CEO voluntarily decided to make his financial alignment with shareholders even greater. During the last five years, he purchased in the open market with his own funds over $1.8 million of our stock. He sold no shares. These purchases represent the reinvestment into our stock of over 27% of the cash compensation shown for him in the SCT.
Our executive compensation program is based on the following objectives.
How did the compensation we paid to our named executive officers for 2011 reflect these objectives?
Over the last two years, we strengthened alignment by increasing from 57% to 82% the portion of restricted stock grants that vest based on achievement of performance goals related to our loss ratio, expense ratio and market share. In 2011, we increased this portion of grants from 75% to the current 82%. See “Our 2011 Executive Compensation – Longer-Term Restricted Stock” for additional information about our grants of restricted stock.
The restricted stock awarded to the CEO in January 2011 had a grant value of approximately 65% of his total direct compensation for 2011, and the restricted stock awarded in January 2010 was approximately 44% of the CEO’s 2010 total direct compensation. (Throughout this CD&A, we use “total direct compensation” as compensation consultants generally use that term. It is the total of base salary, bonus and equity awards; the equity award portion is the grant date value in the SCT.) On average, restricted stock awarded to our other named executive officers in January 2011 was 58% of their total direct compensation in 2011 and the restricted stock awarded in January 2010 to the other named executive officers was approximately 39% of their 2010 total direct compensation. (45% including a one-time retention award to one of our named executive officers that vested over two years).
Reflecting the decline in our stock price during 2011, between the time of the award in January 2011 and December 31, 2011, the value of the restricted stock we awarded to our CEO declined by over $1.7 million. The value of the restricted stock awarded to our other named executive officers as a group in January 2011 declined by over $2.9 million.
The Committee, after input from our Board, authorized bonuses for 2011 that were reduced from 2010 levels by 44% for our CEO and on average were reduced by 37% for our other named executive officers. Among the factors considered in approving bonuses at this reduced level were the achievements referred to under “We continued to make progress last year while some of our competitors failed” in the Executive Summary; our overall financial performance in 2011; the advice of the Committee’s compensation consultant that if our CEO’s compensation were evaluated against our peer group discussed under “Benchmarking,” the compensation would not be viewed as raising high concerns under the quantitative tests used by a leading proxy advisory firm that utilize peer group comparisons; and the advisory approval at last year’s Annual Meeting of Shareholders of our executive compensation by almost 87% of the votes cast. Neither the Committee nor the Board assigned a specific weight to of any one of these factors.
The total direct compensation opportunities of our named executive officers range from base salary with no other components of total direct compensation being paid, to base salary plus maximum bonus and maximum longer-term incentives being paid. Through benchmarking, we want the total direct compensation of our named executive officers to be at about the middle of the peer group we use to evaluate our executive compensation. In a report presented to the Committee in mid-December 2010, the Committee’s compensation consultant advised that the compensation structure for the named executive officers was competitive. In a follow-up report in January 2012 that addressed only the CEO’s compensation, the consultant provided data that showed the CEO’s total direct compensation was somewhat below the median of the peer group we use and was somewhat above it when additional pension and other compensation included in the SCT “total compensation” column was considered. Further information about these reports, the peer group we use and how the CEO’s compensation compares to such median is under “Benchmarking” in this CD&A.
Our perks remained minimal in 2011 and are discussed under “Our 2011 Executive Compensation – Perquisites” below.
Our retirement benefits met this objective in 2011 and are discussed under “Pension Plan” below. Those analyzing our compensation should consider the source of the change in pension value. Even if we had paid our CEO no salary or bonus in 2011, 50% of the increase in pension value (about $490,000) would have occurred. This is primarily attributable to a decrease from 2010 to 2011 in the discount rate used to determine the present value of the benefits and our CEO being one year older and, therefore, one year closer to the retirement age assumed in our pension plan. In addition, under the SEC’s rules, the 2011 change in pension value is computed by considering the bonus we paid for performance in 2010, not 2011. Considering the 2011 bonus (which was 44% less than the 2010 bonus), approximately 63% of the increase in pension value (about $610,000) was attributable to service performed before 2011. In total, our CEO’s total SCT compensation is 12% higher than it would have been if only the 2011 SCT salary and bonus had been considered in the change in pension value calculation.
Excluding shares surrendered to the Company to cover income tax withholding, our CEO has not sold any shares of our stock for more than six years. Excluding shares surrendered for that purpose, none of our other named executive officers has sold any of our stock since April 2006, except for the sale of fewer than three shares by one officer in 2011 to close out his Profit-Sharing and Savings Plan stock account.
The total compensation disclosed in the SCT includes amounts for restricted stock valued at a point in time (the grant date). The actual amounts realized by our named executive officers for those restricted stock units have been materially different. Our named executive officers’ compensation has been materially affected by the changes in the value of our common stock. Almost $8.5 million of our CEO’s compensation as reported in the SCT for the last five years has, by year-end 2011, been lost due to declines in the value of grants of restricted stock and grant forfeitures. Over the same period, our other named executive officers as a group lost $14.2 million of their reported compensation for the same reasons. More information about these value declines and forfeitures is in the table below.
In addition to the value reported in the SCT for 2007-2011 that at December 31, 2011 had been lost, during the last five years our CEO forfeited restricted stock granted prior to 2007 due to Company performance goals not being met, and because of stock price declines, options granted to him prior to 2007 were not exercised and expired. The equity relating to these forfeitures and expirations had in earlier years either been reported in the SCT or in another proxy statement compensation table. Using grant date values (which for options were determined by the Black Scholes option pricing model), the total value of equity awards that were forfeited or expired is $14.6 million. During the last five years, our other named executive officers similarly experienced forfeitures and expirations of restricted stock and options that had grant date values of over $17 million. More information about these forfeitures and expirations is in the table below.
To provide a framework for evaluating compensation levels for our named executive officers against market practices, the Committee has periodically asked its independent compensation consultant, Frederic W. Cook & Co. (which we refer to as FWC), to prepare reports analyzing available compensation data. This data is typically gathered from SEC filings for a comparison group of publicly traded companies. The two most recent reports are discussed below. In addition, each year we review various published compensation surveys and provide the Committee with information regarding trends in expected executive compensation changes for the coming year. The compensation surveys that we reviewed and summarized in the aggregate for the Committee in connection with establishing compensation for 2011 were published by: Compensation Resources, The Conference Board, AON Hewitt, Mercer Consulting, Towers Watson and World at Work.
In December 2010, FWC provided the Committee with a report on the primary components of our executive compensation program (base salary, annual bonus and longer-term incentives) that was based on 2009 compensation information from proxy statement filings and was, at the time, the latest available data for the comparison group. The December 2010 report analyzed our compensation program against the following comparison group:
The comparison companies were jointly selected by FWC and management, and approved by the Committee. The companies in our comparison group include all of our direct competitors that are public and whose mortgage insurance operations are a significant part of their overall business, financial guaranty insurers and other financial services companies focused on the residential real estate industry that are believed to be potential competitors for executive talent. Our market capitalization as of November 30, 2010 was approximately 86% of the median market capitalization of the comparison group.
The December 2010 report was based on 2009 data (including for the Company) because that data was the latest available for the comparison group. The report concluded base salaries were close to market norms, with the named executive officers as a group at the median. Bonus opportunities remained consistent with market practice, although FWC noted that the absence of bonuses at the Company for 2009 was the primary reason for a competitive pay gap versus the comparison companies based on compensation that was paid. Long-term incentives, valued at the market price for the Company at the time of the report, directionally mirrored market levels. Actual long-term incentives were significantly below those levels using the 2009 grant date value.
FWC provided a follow-up report in January 2012 on the CEO’s compensation that used 2010 data (including for us) because that was the latest available data for the comparison group. The data in the January 2012 report indicated that the CEO’s total direct compensation was 7.5% below the median of the total direct compensation of the peer group. It also showed the CEO’s SCT total compensation was only slightly (approximately 5.3%) above the peer group median. (In addition to what is included in total direct compensation, SCT total compensation includes change in pension and non-qualified deferred compensation value plus all other compensation, which other compensation for us is de minimis.)
Longer-Term Restricted Stock
Our executive compensation program is designed to make grants of restricted stock the largest portion of the total direct compensation opportunity of our named executive officers. We emphasize this component of our executive compensation program because, as demonstrated by the information above, it aligns executives’ interests with those of shareholders by linking compensation to stock price. In 2011, grants of restricted stock, at the grant date value, represented, on average, approximately 60% of their total direct compensation.
As discussed below, we changed the performance goals for longer-term restricted stock beginning in 2008. The new goals were included in a list of goals for restricted stock awards approved by shareholders at our 2008 Annual Meeting and were again approved by shareholders at our 2011 Annual Meeting in connection with approval of our 2011 Omnibus Incentive Plan.
Performance-based Restricted Stock. Beginning with restricted stock awarded in 2008, the corporate performance goals used to determine annual vesting of performance-based restricted stock are:
The Committee adopted these performance goals, which apply to each year in the three-year performance period, because it believes that they are the building blocks of our results of operations. That is, the Loss Ratio measures the quality of the business we write; the Expense Ratio measures how efficiently we use our resources; and Market Share measures not only our success at generating revenues but also the extent to which we are successful in leading our industry.
The three performance goals are equally weighted for vesting purposes. The actual performance level corresponding to each performance goal determines Threshold, Target and Maximum vesting as indicated in the table below for the 2011 Grants of Plan-Based Awards.
Vesting for awards granted in 2011 is determined in February 2012 and the next two anniversaries based on performance during the prior year. For each performance goal, the amount that vests each year is, subject to the annual maximum described in the next paragraph, as follows:
For awards granted in 2008 through 2010, achievement of the Target performance level in each year results in 100% vesting of the award at the end of the third year, with the portion of the award granted that may vest in each year ranging from zero (if performance in a year does not meet the Threshold performance level for any of the performance goals) to 50% of the number of shares awarded (if performance meets the Maximum performance level for each performance goal). However, the total amount of these awards that vest cannot exceed 100%. Any portion of the award that remains unvested after three years is forfeited.
For awards granted in January 2011, the Compensation Committee increased the number of performance-based restricted stock units granted and adjusted the vesting schedule from the prior year grants in order to address the conclusion of the benchmarking study discussed above that the Company’s use of long-term incentive grants was well below the market median. The combined effect of the changes is such that if the Company achieves the Target performance level, the number of shares actually received by the named executive officers upon vesting will be the same as they would have received had the number of units granted and the vesting schedule not changed. However, if the Company performance exceeds the Target performance level, the number of shares actually received by the named executive officers upon vesting will be more than they would have received had the number of units granted and the vesting schedule not changed, up to 50% more if the Company achieves the Maximum performance level.
For awards granted in 2012, the Compensation Committee did not change the number of shares subject to performance-based restricted stock that were granted or the vesting schedule of those awards, notwithstanding a substantial decrease in the Company’s stock price between the time of the January 2011 awards and the January 2012 awards.
With respect to all of these awards, dividends are not paid currently, but when shares vest, a payment is made equal to the dividends that would have been paid had those vested shares been entitled to receive current dividends. In October 2008, we suspended the payment of dividends on our common stock and do not anticipate paying dividends for the foreseeable future.
For 2011, the Loss Ratio for MGIC’s primary new insurance written for that year was 1.1% (which exceeded the Maximum performance level), the Expense Ratio was 16.0% (which equaled the Maximum performance level) and Market Share was 20.4% (which was between the Target and Maximum performance levels). As a result, in February 2012, 45.2% of the performance-based restricted stock awards granted in 2010 and 2011 vested, and the remaining 6.2% of the performance-based restricted stock awards granted in 2009 vested.
Longer-term restricted stock awards granted before 2008 vest in installments over a five-year period based on the Company’s earnings per share (“EPS”). Vesting for these awards is determined in January based on EPS for the prior year. Because our EPS was negative in 2007 through 2011, no EPS-vested awards that were granted in 2004 (when we first made restricted stock awards) through 2007 vested after 2007. The performance period for awards made in 2004 – 2007 is over. These awards can no longer vest and the unvested portions of these awards have been forfeited, the last forfeiture occurring on account of our 2011 net loss.
From 2006 through 2009, 57% of the restricted stock granted to our named executive officers was granted in the form of performance-based restricted stock (described above) and 43% was granted in the form of other restricted stock (described under “Other Restricted Stock” below). In January 2010, we increased the performance-based restricted stock portion of the restricted stock granted to our named executive officers to 75%. (This percentage excludes the effect of a one-time grant to Mr. Lane in March 2010.) In January 2011, we increased the performance-based restricted stock portion of the restricted stock granted to our named executive officers to 82%. We made these changes to further align the interests of our named executive officers with our shareholders by increasing the portion of restricted stock grants that are subject to performance goals that are more difficult to meet than the performance goal applicable to our other restricted stock.
Other Restricted Stock. Since 2006, our longer-term restricted stock program for the named executive officers also has included other restricted stock that, if an annual performance goal is satisfied, except as discussed in “General” below, vests through continued service during the performance period. Beginning with restricted stock awards granted in 2008, vesting of these awards is contingent on the sum of the Expense Ratio and the Loss Ratio for MGIC’s primary new insurance written for that year being less than 100% (the “combined ratio performance goal”). The Committee adopted performance goals for these awards to further align the interests of our named executive officers with shareholders and to permit the awards to qualify for the performance-based compensation exception under Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code. See “Other Aspects of Our Executive Compensation Program – Tax Deductibility Limit” in this CD&A. One-third of the other restricted stock is scheduled to vest in each of the three years after it is granted. However, if any of the other restricted stock that is scheduled to vest in any year does not vest because we fail to meet the applicable performance goal, this equity will vest in the next year that we meet this goal, except that any of this restricted stock that has not vested after five years will be forfeited. Any dividends paid on our common stock will be paid on this restricted stock at the same time.
For 2011, the Expense Ratio was 16.0% and the Loss Ratio for MGIC’s primary new insurance written for that year was 1.1%. Therefore, we met our combined ratio performance goal because the combined ratio was 17.1%, which is less than 100%. As a result, the portions of the restricted stock that were granted in 2009 through 2011 subject to the combined ratio performance goal and that were scheduled to vest in February 2012 did vest.
Vesting of restricted stock awards granted in 2006 and 2007 is contingent on our meeting a Return on Equity (“ROE”) goal of 1%. The 2006 and 2007 awards of other restricted stock had a five-year performance period beginning with the year of grant and vested in 20% increments if the ROE goal for the year was met. If we did not meet this goal for any year, the restricted stock was forfeited. We did not meet this goal for the years 2007 through 2011. As a result, 20% of the 2006 award vested in 2007 on account of 2006 earnings and the remaining 80% of this award has been forfeited. No part of the 2007 grant has vested; 100% has been forfeited, with the last forfeiture occurring on account of our 2011 net loss.
General. As discussed above, the total number of performance-based and other restricted stock awards granted to the named executive officers increased by 38% from 2010 to 2011 (excluding the one-time grant in March 2010 to Mr. Lane). Over the same period, the percentage of equity awards granted in the form of performance-based awards increased from 75% to 82% (excluding the one-time grant).
In general, our restricted stock awards are forfeited upon a termination of employment, other than as a result of the award recipient’s death (in which case the entire award vests). In general, if employment termination occurs after age 62 for a recipient who has been employed by us for at least seven years, awards granted at least one year prior to the date of the employment termination will continue to vest, subject to performance conditions, if the recipient enters into a non-competition agreement with us. Two of our named executive officers are 62 or older and two others, including our CEO, will become 62 by October 2014.
Consistent with our belief that there should be a strong link between compensation and performance, annual bonuses are the most significant total direct compensation opportunity after awards of longer-term restricted stock. This is because all of our named executive officers have maximum bonus potentials that substantially exceed their base salaries (three times base salary in the case of the CEO and two and one-quarter times base salary in the case of the other named executive officers). In determining total direct compensation, we have weighted bonus potentials more heavily than base salaries because bonuses are more directly linked to Company and individual performance.
Our shareholders have approved a list of performance goals for an annual bonus plan for our named executive officers that condition the payment of bonuses on meeting one or more of the listed goals as selected by the Committee each year. Compensation paid under a bonus plan of this type (which we refer to as a “162(m) bonus plan”) is intended to qualify as deductible compensation, as discussed in more detail under “Other Aspects of Our Executive Compensation Program – Tax Deductibility Limit” in this CD&A. The performance goal for our 162(m) bonus plan adopted by the Committee for 2011 was the same combined ratio performance goal utilized for the restricted stock awards described above, which required the sum of the Expense Ratio and the Loss Ratio for MGIC’s primary new insurance written for that year to be less than 100%. If this goal is met, then the Committee may exercise discretion to make a subjective determination of bonuses based on an assessment of shareholder value, return on investment, primary business drivers (loss ratio, expense ratio and market share), loss mitigation, management organization, capital position, effective dealings with federal and state regulatory agencies and the profitability of our mix of new business. No specific targets or weightings were established for any of these bonus criteria for 2011.
The sum of the Expense Ratio and the Loss Ratio for MGIC’s primary new insurance written for 2011 was 17.1% and, as a result, the combined ratio performance goal was met. After paying no bonuses to our named executive officers for 2008 or 2009, we paid bonuses for 2010 that were about 52% of the maximum amounts for the named executive officer group as a whole and 50% for the CEO individually. We paid bonuses for 2011 that were about 30% of the maximum amounts for the named executive officer group as a whole and 28% for the CEO. These percentages have been computed as if Mr. Lane’s base salary, which determines his maximum bonus opportunity and which was materially increased in March 2010, had been increased in 2010 by only the same percentage as the increase for the other named executive officers.
The factors considered in the bonus payment decision are discussed above under “Objectives of our Executive Compensation Program – How did the compensation we paid to our named executive officers for 2011 reflect these objectives? – We want strong alignment between compensation and long-term shareholder interests by linking compensation to Company and executive performance.”
Base salaries provide named executive officers with a fixed, minimum level of cash compensation. Our philosophy is to target base salary range midpoints for our executive officers near the median levels compared to their counterparts at the peer group of companies discussed above under “Benchmarking.” In addition to reviewing market competitiveness, in considering any change to Mr. Culver’s compensation, including his salary, the Committee takes into account its subjective evaluation of Mr. Culver’s performance, based in part on a CEO evaluation survey completed by each non-management director. The subjects covered by the evaluation include financial results, leadership, strategic planning, succession planning, external relationships and communications and relations with the Board. Base salary changes for our other named executive officers are recommended to the Committee by Mr. Culver. Historically, these recommendations have been the product of his subjective evaluation of each executive officer’s performance, including his perception of their contributions to the Company. The Committee approves changes in salaries for these officers after taking into account Mr. Culver’s recommendations and the Committee’s independent judgment regarding the officer gained through the Committee’s and the Board’s regular contact with each of them.
Mr. Culver received a 2.9% salary increase for 2011. Mr. Lauer and Mr. Pierzchalski, received salary increases of 3% in 2011. Mr. Lane received a 1.9% salary increase in 2011 (based on his salary as increased in March 2010). The mid-December 2010 FWC report discussed under “Benchmarking” above indicated that Mr. Sinks’s salary was significantly below the market median. As a result, he received a 9.6% salary increase for 2011. Effective in late March 2012, each of the named executive officers will receive a 3% salary increase (in each case, based on his actual base salary before the increase).
Our executive compensation program includes a qualified pension plan and a supplemental executive retirement plan. We believe retirement plans of this type are an important element of a competitive compensation program. These plans compute retirement benefits based only on current cash compensation (salary and annual bonus) and therefore do not include longer-term incentives that can result in substantial increases in pension value. We also offer a broad-based 401(k) plan to which we make contributions in cash.
As with prior years, the perks we provided for 2011 to our named executive officers were a small part of the officer’s total compensation, ranging between approximately $700 and $4,200. These perks included club dues and expenses, the cost of an annual or bi-annual medical examination, a covered parking space at our headquarters and expenses of family members who accompany executives to business-related events at which family members are not expected to attend. We believe our perks are very modest and consistent with our desire to avoid an entitlement mentality.
Consideration of 2011 Shareholder Advisory Vote on Executive Compensation
The most recent shareholder advisory vote on executive compensation was at our Annual Meeting of Shareholders in May 2011. Almost 87% of the shares voting at that Meeting voted to approve our executive compensation. In making the January 2012 compensation decisions (which were the approval of bonuses for 2011 performance, approval of base salary increases to be effective in 2012 and the grant of restricted stock awards), the Committee viewed this vote as a general approval of the objectives of our executive compensation program described in this CD&A (those objectives remained unchanged from what had been presented to shareholders) and an affirmation that our program should be continued.
Tax Deductibility Limit
Under Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code, certain compensation in excess of $1 million paid during a year to any of the executive officers named in the SCT (other than the CFO) for that year is not deductible. Except for $183,593 with respect to the portions of Mr. Lane’s restricted stock award granted in March 2010 that vested in 2011, we believe that all of our compensation for 2011 qualifies as tax-deductible.
In making decisions about executive compensation, we also consider the impact of other regulatory provisions, including the provisions of Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code regarding non-qualified deferred compensation and the change-in-control provisions of Section 280G of the Internal Revenue Code.
Stock Ownership by Officers
Beginning with awards of restricted stock made in January 2007, a portion of restricted stock awarded to our named executive officers and our chief accounting officer, chief investment officer and chief information officer must not be sold for one year after vesting. Shares received upon exercise of our last grant of stock options (in January 2004) also must not be sold for one year after exercise. The number of shares that must not be sold is the lower of 25% of the shares that vested (or in the case of options, 25% of the shares for which the options were exercised) and 50% of the shares that were received by the officer after taking account of shares withheld to cover taxes. The holding period may end before one year if the officer is no longer required to report their equity transactions to the SEC. The holding period does not apply to involuntary transactions, such as would occur in a merger, and for certain other dispositions.
We also have stock ownership guidelines for executive officers. For our CEO, the stock ownership guideline is 100,000 shares and, for the other named executive officers, the guideline is 50,000 shares. Stock considered owned consists of shares owned outright by the executive (including shares in the executive’s account in our 401(k) plan), unvested restricted stock and RSUs scheduled to vest within one year (assuming ratable vesting over the performance period of longer-term restricted stock) and the number of shares underlying vested stock options whose market price exceeds their exercise price. Each of our named executive officers meets these stock ownership guidelines. In fact, our CEO exceeded the guideline by 825,097 shares and the other named executive officers exceeded the guidelines by between 186,000 shares and 500,000 shares, depending on the individual. Our stock ownership guidelines, previously based on the value of the stock held, were changed in 2010 reflecting the decrease in our share price.
Change in Control Provisions
Each of our named executive officers is a party to a Key Executive Employment and Severance Agreement with us (a “KEESA”) and some have supplemental agreements, both as described in the section titled “Potential Payments Upon Termination or Change-in-Control – Change in Control Agreements” below. No executive officer has an employment or severance agreement, other than these agreements. Our KEESAs provide for a cash termination payment in one or two lump sums only after both a change in control and a specified employment termination (a “double trigger” agreement). We adopted this approach, rather than providing for such payment only after a change in control (a “single trigger” agreement) or a change in control and a voluntary employment termination by the executive (a “modified single trigger” agreement), because we believe that double trigger agreements provide executives with adequate employment protection and reduce the potential costs associated with these agreements to an acquirer.
The KEESAs and our equity award agreements provide that all restricted stock and unvested stock options become fully vested at the date of a change in control. Once vested, a holder of an award is entitled to retain it even if he voluntarily leaves employment (although a vested stock option may expire because of employment termination as soon as 30 days after employment ends). In 2008, we amended our KEESAs for the principal purpose of complying with Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code. In 2009, we eliminated any reimbursement of our named executive officers for any additional tax due as a result of the failure of the KEESAs to comply with Section 409A.
The period for which our KEESAs provide employment protection ends on the earlier of the third anniversary of the date of a change in control or the date on which the executive attained his or her normal retirement date. In 2010, we created a supplemental benefit plan that provides benefits to compensate for the benefits that are reduced or eliminated by the age-based limitation under our KEESAs. This plan was adopted because the Committee wanted to provide such benefits for those who would, absent this age-based limitation, receive benefits under his or her KEESA. The Committee believes that age should not reduce or eliminate benefits under a KEESA, but recognized that our employees may retire with a full pension at age 62 provided they have been a pension plan participant for at least seven years. Taking the early availability of full pension benefits into account, the payments under this plan are capped by reducing such payments to an amount that will not trigger payment of federal excise taxes on such payments. As a result, unlike our KEESAs, this plan does not include an Internal Revenue Code Sections 280G and 4999 excise tax gross-up provision. Our KEESAs were not amended in connection with the adoption of this plan.
For additional information about our KEESAs, see “Compensation and Related Tables — Potential Payments Upon Termination or Change-in-Control — Change in Control Agreements” below.
Our 2002 Stock Incentive Plan, which governs equity awards granted before 2012, and our 2011 Omnibus Incentive Plan, which governs equity awards granted after 2011, both prohibit the repricing of stock options, either by amending existing options to lower the exercise price or by granting new options having a lower exercise price in exchange for outstanding options having a higher exercise price, unless such re-pricing is approved by shareholders.
Under the “clawback” policy approved by the Committee, the Company will seek to recover certain incentive compensation, to the extent the Committee deems appropriate, from any executive officer and the chief accounting officer, if a subsequent financial restatement shows that such compensation should not have been paid. The clawback policy applies to restricted stock that vests upon the achievement of a Company performance target. As an alternative to seeking recovery, the Committee may require the forfeiture of future compensation. Beginning in January 2007, our restricted stock agreements require that, to the extent the Committee deems appropriate, our executive officers must repay the difference between the amount of after-tax income that was originally recognized from restricted stock that vested based on achievement of a performance goal and the amount that would have been recognized had the restatement been in effect, plus the value of any tax deduction on account of the repayment.
Aside from its role as the Committee’s independent consultant, FWC provides no other services to the Company. In 2011, FWC provided the Committee with advice about proxy disclosures, including with respect to this CD&A, incentive plan designs, director pay, benchmarking study results, as discussed above, and whether the payment of bonuses for 2011 would be reasonable. Fees incurred for services performed by FWC in 2011 were $73,625.
When designing our compensation objectives and policies for our named executive officers, the Committee considers the incentives that such objectives and policies create, including incentives to cause the Company to undertake appropriate risks. Among other things, the Committee considers aspects of our compensation policies that mitigate incentives to take inappropriate risks, such as the holding requirements described under “Other Aspects of Our Executive Compensation Program – Stock Ownership by Officers” above and the clawback policy described in the preceding paragraph.
The Committee has not adjusted executive officers’ future compensation based upon amounts realized or forfeited pursuant to previous equity awards.
The Committee’s practice for many years has been to make equity awards and approve new salaries and bonuses, if any, at its meeting in late January, which normally follows our announcement of earnings for the prior year. The Committee also may approve changes in compensation at other times throughout the year.
While the Committee is ultimately responsible for making all compensation decisions affecting our named executive officers, our CEO participates in the underlying process because of his close day-to-day association with the other named executive officers and his knowledge of our operations. Among other things, our CEO makes recommendations regarding all of the components of compensation described above for all of the named executive officers, other than himself. Our CEO does not participate in the portion of the Committee meeting regarding the review of his own performance or the determination of the actual amounts of his compensation. Our Vice President-Human Resources and our General Counsel also participate in the Committee’s compensation process. Specifically, our Vice President-Human Resources is responsible for coordinating the work assigned to FWC by the Committee. Our Vice President-Human Resources is expected to maintain knowledge of executive compensation trends, practices, rules and regulations and works with our General Counsel on related legal and tax compliance matters.
This portion of the CD&A is the Appendix that provides additional information about the discussion in the Executive Summary that is not provided elsewhere in the CD&A. We make various statements in the Executive Summary and this Appendix that do not explicitly say they are our opinions, but you should read them as such. The Executive Summary discusses only the compensation of our CEO because his compensation sets the “compensation pace” for the rest of the named executive officers. The compensation programs for our CEO are generally no different than those for all of our named executive officers, as discussed in the CD&A, although the amount of compensation depends on what level the particular officer occupies in our organizational hierarchy. The additional information in the Appendix corresponds to the order of the discussion in the Executive Summary.
We continued to make progress last year while some of our competitors failed
The three companies that have stopped writing new business are Triad Guaranty, PMI Mortgage Insurance and Republic Mortgage Insurance, the last two in 2011. Each of the three companies is paying only a portion of its claims on a current basis. The consolidated group referred to is American International Group. Only a portion of the government support provided went to its mortgage insurance operations.
Additional information about the approvals from Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and our primary insurance regulator may be found under the caption “Regulatory capital requirements may prevent us from continuing to write new insurance on an uninterrupted basis” in Item 1A of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2011. We raised approximately $1.1 billion in 2010 and an additional $850 million in 2008, in both cases through sales of common stock and debt securities convertible into common stock.
The loss ratio is a customary measure of the quality of an insurer’s business. It is losses incurred divided by earned premiums for MGIC’s primary new insurance written, in both cases over the period of the ratio. A year of seasoning includes the year in which the book was written; that is, the first year of seasoning for the book written in 2007 was 2007.
You should review our compensation by reference to a peer group consisting of our direct competitors and others related to our industry, not a GICS-based peer group
We cite 2010 revenues because, with the exception of the bonus for 2011 performance, all compensation decisions for 2011 were made in January 2011. At that time, 2010 revenues were the latest ones available. We cite 2010 comparative compensation data because in January 2012, when the Committee made its last compensation decisions regarding 2011 compensation, it was the latest data available.
We define “total direct compensation” as described in “Compensation Discussion and Analysis – Objectives of our Executive Compensation Program – How did the compensation we paid to our named executive officers for 2011 reflect these objective?” above.
The Committee’s compensation consultant, FWC (see “Benchmarking” above), simulated a peer group based on companies within the same six digit GICS code as us that had total assets between 0.45 and 2.1 times our assets (as of September 30, 2011) and that had market capitalizations of between 0.2 times and 5 times our market capitalization (as of December 1, 2011). Because we are within the GICS Thrifts and Mortgage Finance Companies sub-classification, the particular peer group that resulted from FWC’s simulation is from this sub-classification. It consists of community banks (or their holding companies) such as Beneficial Mutual Bancorp., Capitol Federal Financial, Dime Community Bancshares, Flushing Financial, Northwest Bancshares, Provident Financial Services, TFS Financial, TrustCo Bank, Washington Federal and WSFS Financial. It also included four other companies (Berkshire Hills Bancorp, primarily a New York, Massachusetts and Vermont bank holding company; Flagstar Bancorp, a savings and loan holding company which operates throughout Michigan and in other states; Ocwen Financial, a mortgage loan servicing, special servicing and asset management services company; and Radian Group, a mortgage insurance and financial guaranty company which is also in the peer group that we use).
The table below shows the revenues reported for 2010 for us and each of the nine companies that we use in our peer group benchmarking analysis. All revenue percentiles in the Executive Summary and this Appendix are the output of the “Percentile” formula in Microsoft’s Excel software.
Our CEO’s compensation is aligned with returns to our shareholders
The last five years throughout the CD&A are 2007 – 2011, as reported in the SCT for those years.
Effective with the proxy statement for our 2010 Annual Meeting, the SEC changed the rules on how equity grants were to be reported in the SCT to provide that the entire grant date fair value on the grant date was to be reported. The SCT in that proxy statement showed 2007 and 2008 compensation on that new basis. The 69% in value that was lost approximation is computed using the compensation figures for 2007 and 2008 in that proxy statement.
The performance goals for the restricted stock that was forfeited were based on earnings per share and return on equity.
We have not granted options since 2004 and the compensation tables that reported these options were in proxy statements issued before 2006. The reference to the last five years includes options that expired in January 2012.
During the last five years, our CEO had $2.7 million in shares withheld from vestings of restricted stock on account of income tax withholding, net of withholding amounts that he paid in cash. The dollar figures for shares withheld in this calculation is determined by the closing price on the vesting date. The 27% cash compensation percentage is computed using the amount of cash compensation included in the SCT during the last five years. Cash compensation consists of base salary and bonus.
Among its other duties, the Management Development, Nominating and Governance Committee assists the oversight by the Board of Directors of MGIC Investment Corporation’s executive compensation program, including approving corporate goals relating to compensation for the CEO and senior officers, evaluating the performance of the CEO and determining the CEO’s annual compensation and approving compensation for MGIC Investment Corporation’s other senior executives.
The Committee reviewed and discussed with management the foregoing Compensation Discussion and Analysis. Based upon this review and discussion, the Committee recommended to the Board of Directors that the Compensation Discussion and Analysis be included in MGIC Investment Corporation’s proxy statement for its 2012 Annual Meeting of Shareholders and its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2011.
Members of the Management Development, Nominating and Governance Committee:
Kenneth M. Jastrow, II, Chairman
Thomas M. Hagerty
Leslie M. Muma
Donald T. Nicolaisen
The following table summarizes the compensation earned by or paid to our named executive officers in 2009 through 2011. Following the table is a summary of our annual bonus program. Other tables that follow provide more detail about the specific types of compensation.
(1) The amounts shown in this column represent the grant date fair value of the stock awards granted to named executive officers in the years shown, computed in accordance with FASB ASC Topic 718. The fair value of stock award units is based on the closing price of our common stock on the New York Stock Exchange on the date of grant. Except as described below, the vesting of all of the awards represented in this column is subject to our meeting certain performance conditions. In accordance with the rules of the SEC, all of the figures in this column represent the value at the grant date based upon the probable outcome of the applicable performance conditions as of the grant date, such probable outcome determined with reference to the performance of the fiscal year preceding the grant. The probable outcome of the applicable performance conditions associated with the 2010 awards resulted in the full value of such awards being reflected in this column. If the full value of the applicable awards for 2011 and 2009 were shown, rather than an amount based upon the probable outcome of the applicable performance conditions, then the amounts shown would have been:
For each named executive officer, the change for 2011, 2010 and 2009 consists of:
See Note 13 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2011 for additional information regarding the assumptions made in arriving at these amounts.
The following is a description of our annual bonus program. This discussion supplements the discussion included in the section titled “Compensation Discussion and Analysis” above.
Beginning in 2008, our bonus framework provided that annual bonuses, so long as we met a performance target described in “Compensation Discussion and Analysis — Our 2011 Executive Compensation — Annual Bonus” above, are determined in the discretion of the Management Development, Nominating and Governance Committee taking account of:
The maximum bonuses under this bonus framework cannot exceed three times the base salary of the CEO and 2.25 times the base salaries of our other named executive officers.
The following table shows the grants of plan-based awards to our named executive officers in 2011.
The following table shows our named executive officers’ equity awards outstanding on December 31, 2011.
The 2009 awards were granted on January 29, 2009, the 2010 awards were granted on January 27, 2010 and the 2011 awards were granted on January 25, 2011. The 2011 awards are reported in the table titled “2011 Grants of Plan-Based Awards” above. The 2010 awards were similar to the 2011 awards, except that the performance goals were changed for the 2011 awards and a greater percentage of the 2011 awards were granted in the form of performance-based awards (increased from approximately 75% to approximately 82% (excluding a one-time grant to Mr. Lane)). The 2009 awards were similar to the 2010 awards, except that the performance goals were changed for the 2010 awards and a greater percentage of the 2010 awards were granted in the form of performance-based awards (increased from approximately 57% to approximately 75% (excluding a one-time grant to Mr. Lane)). The number of units of performance-based restricted equity included in this column is a representative amount based on 2010 performance. Excludes restricted shares or RSUs, 20% of which vest on or about each of the first five anniversaries of the grant date, assuming continued employment and our meeting our ROE goal of 1% for the year prior to vesting in the following amounts: Mr. Culver — 4,800; Mr. Lauer — 1,620; Mr. Sinks — 3,000; Mr. Pierzchalski — 1,620; and Mr. Lane — 1,620. Pursuant to the rules of the SEC, these awards are excluded because we did not meet our ROE goal in 2010. Also excludes restricted shares or RSUs, the vesting of which is dependent upon our meeting a goal determined by our EPS in the following amounts: Mr. Culver — 32,000; Mr. Lauer — 10,800; Mr. Sinks — 20,000; Mr. Pierzchalski — 10,800; and Mr. Lane — 10,800. Pursuant to rules adopted by the SEC, the amounts for these shares are excluded because our EPS in 2010 was negative.
The following table shows the vesting of grants of plan-based stock awards to our named executive officers in 2011. There were no options exercised in 2011.
The following table shows the present value of accrued pension plan benefits for our named executive officers as of December 31, 2011.
Under the Pension Plan and the Supplemental Plan taken together, each executive officer earns an annual pension credit for each year of employment equal to 2% of the officer’s eligible compensation for that year. Eligible compensation is limited to salaries, wages, cash bonuses, and the portion of cash bonuses deferred and converted to restricted equity bonuses (applicable for bonuses for 2001 through 2006 performance). At retirement, the annual pension credits are added together to determine the employee’s accrued pension benefit. However, the annual pension credits for service prior to 1998 for each employee with at least five years of vested service on January 1, 1998 will generally be equal to 2% of the employee’s average eligible compensation for the five years ended December 31, 1997. Eligible employees with credited service for employment prior to October 31, 1985 also receive a past service benefit, which is generally equal to the difference between the amount of pension the employee would have been entitled to receive for service prior to October 31, 1985 under the terms of a prior plan had such plan continued, and the amount the employee is actually entitled to receive under an annuity contract purchased when the prior plan was terminated. Retirement benefits vest on the basis of a graduated schedule over a seven-year period of service. Full pension benefits are payable in monthly installments upon retirement at or after age 65 with at least five years of service (age 62 if the employee has completed at least seven years of service). Any supplemental executive retirement benefits earned on or after January 1, 2005 are payable in a lump sum. In addition, reduced benefits are payable beginning at age 55. These benefits are reduced by 0.5% for each month that payments begin prior to the normal retirement date. Messrs. Lauer and Lane are eligible for their full retirement benefits and Messrs. Culver and Pierzchalski are eligible to receive reduced benefits.
If the employment of our named executive officers terminated effective December 31, 2011, the annual amounts payable to them at age 62 under these plans would have been: Mr. Culver – $272,868; Mr. Lauer – $195,000; Mr. Sinks – $195,000; Mr. Pierzchalski – $195,000; and Mr. Lane – $190,824; and the lump-sum payment for supplemental executive retirement benefits earned on or after January 1, 2005 would have been: Mr. Culver – $3,064,393; Mr. Lauer – $677,315; Mr. Sinks – $312,286; Mr. Pierzchalski – $765,436; and Mr. Lane – $266,951. As of December 31, 2011, Messrs. Lauer and Lane were each eligible to receive this level of benefits because each was over the age of 62 and had more than seven years’ tenure. As of December 31, 2011, Messrs. Culver, Sinks and Pierzchalski were eligible to receive reduced benefits under these plans immediately upon retirement because they were over the age of 55 and had more than seven years’ tenure. As a result, if their employment had been terminated effective December 31, 2011, the annual amounts payable to them under our Pension Plan had they elected to begin receiving annual payments immediately would have been Mr. Culver – $233,302; Mr. Lauer – $195,000; Mr. Sinks – $114,075; Mr. Pierzchalski – $161,850; and Mr. Lane – $190,824; and the lump-sum payment for supplemental executive retirement benefits earned on or after January 1, 2005 would have been: Mr. Culver – $2,762,091; Mr. Lauer – $677,315; Mr. Sinks – $209,162; Mr. Pierzchalski – $675,425; and Mr. Lane – $266,951. The discount rate and post-retirement mortality assumptions used to calculate the lump-sum payments differ from the factors used in our financial statements.
The following table summarizes the estimated value of payments to each of the named executive officers assuming the triggering event or events indicated occurred on December 31, 2011.
Mr. Lane’s cash payment under his supplemental KEESA was capped by reducing such payment (by $1,315,651) to an amount that will not trigger payment of federal excise taxes on such payment.
Change in Control Agreements