UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
SCHEDULE 14A
(Rule 14a-101)
INFORMATION REQUIRED IN PROXY STATEMENT
SCHEDULE 14A INFORMATION
Proxy Statement Pursuant to Section 14(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934
Amendment No. 1
Filed by the Registrant ☒ Filed by a Party other than the Registrant ☐
Check the appropriate box:
☐ Preliminary Proxy Statement |
☐ Confidential, for Use of the Commission Only (as permitted by Rule 14a-6(e)(2)) | |
☒ Definitive Proxy Statement |
||
☐ Definitive Additional Materials |
||
☐ Soliciting Material Pursuant to Section 240.14a-12 |
Teradata Corporation
(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):
☒ | No fee required. |
☐ | Fee computed on table below per Exchange Act Rules 14a-6(i)(1) and 0-11. |
(1) | Title of each class of securities to which transaction applies: |
(2) | Aggregate number of securities to which transaction applies: |
(3) | Per unit price or other underlying value of transaction computed pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 0-11 (set forth the amount on which the filing fee is calculated and state how it was determined): |
(4) | Proposed maximum aggregate value of transaction: |
(5) | Total fee paid: |
☐ | Fee paid previously with preliminary materials. |
☐ | Check box if any part of the fee is offset as provided by Exchange Act Rule 0-11(a)(2) and identify the filing for which the offsetting fee was paid previously. Identify the previous filing by registration statement number, or the Form or Schedule and the date of its filing. |
(1) | Amount Previously Paid: |
(2) | Form, Schedule or Registration Statement No.: |
(3) | Filing Party: |
(4) | Date Filed: |
MESSAGE TO STOCKHOLDERS
March 6, 2018
Dear Fellow Stockholder:
I am pleased to invite you to attend Teradata Corporations 2018 Annual Meeting of Stockholders on April 17, 2018. The meeting will begin promptly at 8:00 a.m. local time at the Hotel Nikko San Francisco, 222 Mason Street, San Francisco, California 94102.
This proxy statement, which includes a notice of the 2018 annual meeting, tells you more about the agenda and procedures for the meeting. It also describes how our Board of Directors operates and gives information about director candidates and general compensation and corporate governance matters.
NOTICE OF ANNUAL MEETING
OF STOCKHOLDERS
TIME
8:00 a.m. local time |
DATE
Tuesday, April 17, 2018 |
PLACE
Hotel Nikko San Francisco 222 Mason Street San Francisco, CA 94102 |
Purpose
| Elect Ms. Bacus and Messrs. Chou, Ringler and Schwarz to serve as Class II directors for three-year terms expiring at the 2021 annual meeting of stockholders and to hold office until their respective successors are duly elected and qualified; |
| Consider an advisory (non-binding) vote to approve executive compensation (a say-on-pay vote); |
| Consider and vote upon the approval of the amended and restated Teradata Employee Stock Purchase Plan; |
| Consider and vote upon the ratification of the appointment of our independent registered public accounting firm for 2018; and |
| Transact such other business as may properly come before the meeting and any adjournment or postponement of the meeting by or at the direction of the Board of Directors. |
Other Important Information
| Record holders of Teradata common stock at the close of business on February 20, 2018, may vote at the meeting. |
| Your shares cannot be voted unless they are represented by proxy or in person by the record holder at the meeting. Even if you plan to attend the meeting, please submit a proxy to ensure that your shares are represented at the meeting. |
Internet Availability
Important Notice Regarding the Availability of Proxy Materials for the 2018 Annual Meeting of Stockholders to be held on April 17, 2018: This notice of the 2018 annual meeting of stockholders and proxy statement, our 2017 annual report, and form of proxy and voting instruction card are available at https://www.proxyvote.com.
By order of the Board of Directors,
Laura Nyquist
General Counsel and Secretary
March 6, 2018
1 | ||||
Election of Directors (Item 1 on Proxy Card) |
4 | |||
11 | ||||
17 | ||||
21 | ||||
22 | ||||
23 | ||||
25 | ||||
Board Compensation and Human Resource Committee Report on Executive Compensation |
27 | |||
28 | ||||
28 | ||||
34 | ||||
35 | ||||
42 | ||||
44 | ||||
46 | ||||
47 | ||||
48 | ||||
54 | ||||
61 | ||||
Advisory (non-binding) Vote on Executive Compensation (Item 2 on Proxy Card) |
62 | |||
Vote on Approval of the Teradata Employee Stock Purchase Plan, as Amended and Restated (Item 3 on Proxy Card) |
64 | |||
Directors Proposal to Ratify the Appointment of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm for 2018 (Item 4 on Proxy Card) |
68 | |||
69 | ||||
70 | ||||
72 | ||||
72 | ||||
73 | ||||
75 | ||||
A-1 |
|
i
|
|
This summary highlights information contained elsewhere in the proxy statement that is being provided to you by Teradata Corporation (Teradata, the Company, we, or us) in connection with its 2018 annual meeting of stockholders. This summary is not a complete description, and you should read the entire proxy statement carefully before voting.
This proxy statement contains important information about the 2018 annual meeting of stockholders, as well as information regarding the voting process, director elections, our corporate governance programs, and executive and director compensation, among other things. We are furnishing this proxy statement together with our 2017 annual report and form of proxy and voting instruction card (proxy card). Proxy materials for the 2018 annual meeting of stockholders are being made available in printed form on or about March 9, 2018, and they will be available online on or about March 12, 2018. On behalf of the Teradata Board of Directors, we are requesting your proxy for the 2018 annual meeting of stockholders and any adjournments or postponements that follow.
Voting Methods Your Vote is Important!
Even if you plan to attend the 2018 annual meeting of stockholders in person, we urge you to vote in advance of the meeting using one of these advance voting methods.
By Internet: www.proxyvote.com |
By Phone: 1-800-690-6903 |
By Mail: 51 Mercedes Way Edgewood, NY 11717 |
2018 Annual Meeting Information
Voting: | All common stockholders of record as of February 20, 2018 may vote. Each outstanding share of common stock is entitled to one vote on each matter to be voted upon at the annual meeting. | |
Admission: | You will need an admission ticket or proof of ownership of Teradata common stock, as well as a form of personal photo identification, to be admitted to the annual meeting. If you plan to attend, please send an email to investor.relations@teradata.com to receive a meeting reservation request form. Please refer to page 78 of this proxy statement under Other General Information for more information about attending the meeting. |
1 |
Meeting Agenda
MATTER |
BOARD VOTE RECOMMENDATION |
PAGE REFERENCE (FOR MORE DETAIL) | ||||
Proposal 1 |
Elect Ms. Bacus and Messrs. Chou, Ringler and Schwarz to serve as Class II directors for three-year terms expiring at the 2021 annual meeting of stockholders and to hold office until their respective successors are duly elected and qualified | FOR each nominee |
4 | |||
Proposal 2 |
Consider an advisory (non-binding) vote to approve executive compensation (a say-on-pay vote) | FOR | 62 | |||
Proposal 3 |
Consider and vote upon the approval of the amended and restated Teradata Employee Stock Purchase Plan | FOR | 64 | |||
Proposal 4 |
Consider and vote upon the ratification of the appointment of our independent registered public accounting firm for 2018 | FOR | 68 |
2017 Financial Highlights vs. Prior Year
41.6% TOTAL STOCKHOLDER RETURN (TSR) |
49% RECURRING REVENUE AS A % OF TOTAL REVENUE |
13% ANNUAL RECURRING REVENUE (ARR) |
Board of Directors
NAME |
CLASS | AGE | POSITION | |||
James M. Ringler* |
II | 72 | Chairman | |||
Lisa R. Bacus* |
II | 53 | Director | |||
Timothy C.K. Chou* |
II | 63 | Director | |||
John G. Schwarz* |
II | 67 | Director | |||
Daniel R. Fishback |
I | 56 | Director | |||
David E. Kepler |
I | 65 | Director | |||
William S. Stavropoulos |
I | 78 | Director | |||
Cary T. Fu |
III | 69 | Director | |||
Michael P. Gianoni |
III | 57 | Director | |||
Victor L. Lund |
III | 70 | President and Chief Executive Officer |
* Nominees for election
2 | 2018 PROXY STATEMENT |
Board and Governance Highlights
Teradata has adopted many leading governance practices that establish strong independent leadership in our boardroom and provide our stockholders with meaningful rights, including:
|
|
|
| |||||
|
all directors (other than CEO) and all audit, compensation and governance committee members are independent | |||||||
|
strategy set and overseen by board |
|||||||
|
separate CEO and board chair roles | |||||||
|
highly qualified and diverse board with extensive executive experience at global, public companies and knowledge of software and technology industries | |||||||
|
active board oversight of risk and operational plans | |||||||
|
ongoing board refreshment (4 new directors in the past 3 years) | |||||||
|
regular executive sessions of independent directors at board and committee meetings | |||||||
|
independent compensation consultant engaged to advise on compensation of our executives and directors | |||||||
|
ongoing stockholder engagement that results in impactful changes to executive compensation and corporate governance programs at the Company | |||||||
|
robust stock ownership requirements for directors and executive officers and prohibitions on hedging and pledging stock | |||||||
|
compensation clawback and harmful activity policies |
3 |
ELECTION OF DIRECTORS (Item 1 on Proxy Card)
The Board of Directors is currently divided into three classes. Directors are elected by stockholders for terms of three years and hold office until their successors are elected and qualified. One of the three classes is elected each year to succeed the directors whose terms are expiring. As of the 2018 annual meeting, the terms for the directors in Classes I, II and III of the Board of Directors expire in 2020, 2018 and 2019, respectively.
Ms. Bacus and Messrs. Chou, Ringler and Schwarz currently are Class II directors whose terms are expiring at the 2018 annual meeting. For the reasons described below, each of the Class II directors has been nominated by the board for re-election through the 2021 annual meeting of stockholders and until his or her successor is elected and qualified.
Proxies solicited by the board will be voted for the election of the nominees, unless you instruct otherwise on your proxy. Each of the nominees is willing to serve if elected. The board has no reason to believe that these nominees will be unable to serve. However, if one of them should become unavailable, the board may further reduce the size of the board or designate a substitute nominee. If the board designates a substitute, shares represented by proxies will be voted for the substitute nominee.
The Board of Directors recommends that you vote FOR the election of each of the Class II nominees as a director. |
Election of each nominee requires the affirmative vote of a majority of the voting power present (in person or by proxy) at the meeting and entitled to vote on such election. If a nominee does not receive a majority vote, he or she is required to tender his or her resignation for consideration by the disinterested members of the Board of Directors in accordance with our Corporate Governance Guidelines as described on page 12 of this proxy statement. Proxies solicited by the Board of Directors will be voted FOR each nominee, unless you specify otherwise in your proxy. Abstentions will have the same effect as votes against the matter and shares that are the subject of a broker non-vote will be deemed absent and will have no effect on the outcome of the vote.
Director Qualifications
Our Board of Directors currently consists of ten members who we believe are extremely well-qualified to serve on the board and represent our stockholders best interests. As described on page 15 of this proxy statement under the caption Selection of Nominees for Directors, the board and its Committee on Directors and Governance (the Governance Committee) select nominees with a view to establishing a Board of Directors that is comprised of members who:
| have extensive business leadership experience, |
| bring diverse perspectives to the board, |
| are independent and collegial, |
| have high ethical standards as well as sound business judgment and acumen, and |
| understand and are willing to make the time commitment necessary for the board to effectively fulfill its responsibilities. |
Key Qualifications and Attributes
4 | 2018 PROXY STATEMENT |
Election of Directors
We believe that each of the director nominees and other directors bring these qualifications to our Board of Directors. Moreover, they provide our board with a diverse complement of specific business skills, experience and perspectives, including: extensive financial and accounting expertise, public-company board experience, knowledge of the technology and software industries and of Teradatas business, experience with companies with a global presence and with growth and/or transformation strategies, and extensive operational and strategic planning experience. In addition, the board believes that each of the director nominees and other directors has demonstrated outstanding achievement in his or her professional career, the willingness to participate actively in board activities and share policy-making and strategic thinking experiences, an ability to articulate independent perspectives, make analytical inquiries and take tough positions that challenge management, and a high degree of personal and professional integrity.
The following describes the key qualifications, business skills, experience and perspectives that each of our directors brings to the Board of Directors, in addition to the general qualifications and attributes described above and information included in the biographical summaries provided below for each director. Based on all of these qualifications and attributes, we believe that the directors and nominees have the appropriate set of skills to serve as members of the board.
2018 Director Nominees
Class II Nominees Current Terms Expiring in 2018:
JAMES M. RINGLER |
Chairman of Teradata Corporation | Director since: 2007 | ||
Key Qualifications and Attributes:
Experience as the chief executive officer and chairman of the board of publicly-held, global companies
Extensive experience on public company boards
Excellent operational and leadership skills and business acumen
An in-depth knowledge of the Companys business, strategy and management team |
Biography:
Mr. Ringler, age 72, was named Chairman of the Board of Teradata in September 2007. He previously served as Chairman of the Board of NCR Corporation from July 2005 to September 2007, and served as NCRs President and Interim Chief Executive Officer for approximately 6 months in 2005. He served as Vice Chairman of Illinois Tool Works Inc., a multi-billion dollar diversified manufacturer of highly engineered components and industrial systems, from 1999 until he retired in 2004. Prior to joining Illinois Tool Works, from 1997 to 1999, Mr. Ringler was Chairman of Premark International, Inc. He also served as Premarks Chief Executive Officer from 1995 to 1999 when it merged with Illinois Tool Works. Mr. Ringler serves as a director of Autoliv, Inc., DowDuPont, Inc., TechnipFMC plc, and John Bean Technologies Corporation and served on the board of Ingredion Incorporated from 2002 until May 2014. He joined our board in September 2007.
5 |
Election of Directors
LISA R. BACUS |
Executive Vice President and Global Chief Marketing and Customer Officer for Cigna Corporation | Director since: 2015 | ||
Key Qualifications and Attributes:
Deep marketing expertise with focus on strategic planning and data analytics, in-depth knowledge of communication and marketing strategies and customer service operations
Experience as senior executive of large global companies
Diverse perspectives given gender and Hispanic heritage |
Biography:
Ms. Bacus, age 53, is the Executive Vice President, Global Chief Marketing and Customer Officer of Cigna Corporation, a global health care products and services company. Previously, from May 2013 until February 2017, Ms. Bacus was the Executive Vice President and Global Chief Marketing Officer. Prior to joining Cigna, Ms. Bacus was the Executive Vice President and Chief Marketer at American Family Insurance Group, a personal and commercial property and casualty insurance company, from February 2011 until May 2013, and its Vice President, Marketing, from 2008 to 2011. Before joining American Family Insurance, she held a number of marketing management positions with increasing responsibility at the Ford Motor Company from 1986 to 2008. She has served on the board of Shoutlet, Inc., a provider of enterprise social media management software, and currently serves on the board of another privately-held company and a number of non-profit boards. Ms. Bacus joined our board in January 2015.
TIMOTHY C.K. CHOU |
Former President of Oracle On Demand, a division of Oracle Corporation | Director since: 2017 | ||
Key Qualifications and Attributes:
Extensive experience with technology companies
Recognized as an industry leader in cloud computing, having been featured in various publications including Forbes, Business Week, The Economist, and The New York Times as well as on CNBC and NPR
Diverse perspective given Chinese heritage and experience teaching a course on cloud computing in China |
Biography:
Mr. Chou, age 63, served as President of Oracle On Demand, a division of Oracle Corporation, a multi-billion dollar global provider of enterprise software and computer hardware products and services, from November 1999 until his retirement in January 2005. Prior to that, Mr. Chou served as Chief Operating Officer of Reasoning, Inc., an information technology services firm, and as Vice President, Server Products, of Oracle Corporation. Mr. Chou is a distinguished author and lecturer on cloud computing at Stanford University and Tsinghau University in Beijing, China, and he also serves on the board of directors of Blackbaud, Inc. He joined our board in January 2017.
6 | 2018 PROXY STATEMENT |
Election of Directors
JOHN G. SCHWARZ |
Founder and Chief Executive Officer of Visier Inc. | Director since: 2010 | ||
Key Qualifications and Attributes:
Extensive experience within the software and technology industries, including as the chief executive officer and director of global, analytics technology companies
Operational and strategic planning experience leading a business organization that experienced high growth through both acquisitions and organic growth strategies
Broad global experience and perspective |
Biography:
Mr. Schwarz, age 67, is the founder and Chief Executive Officer of Visier Inc., a business analytics software firm, a position he has held since April 2010. Previously, he served as Chief Executive Officer of SAP Business Objects, a unit of SAP AG, from 2008 to 2010, during which time he was a member of the executive board of SAP AG and also served on the board of directors of SAP Business Objects. From 2005 until its acquisition by SAP in 2008, he served as Chief Executive Officer of Business Objects S.A., a provider of business intelligence software and services. Mr. Schwarz served as President and Chief Operating Officer of Symantec Corporation, a provider of infrastructure security and storage management software, from 2001 to 2005. From 2000 to 2001, he served as President and Chief Executive Officer of Reciprocal Inc., which provided business-to-business secure e-commerce services for digital content distribution over the Internet. Prior to joining Reciprocal, Mr. Schwarz spent 25 years at IBM Corporation with his last position being General Manager of IBMs Industry Solutions unit, a worldwide organization focused on building business applications and related services for IBMs large industry customers. Mr. Schwarz serves as a director of Synopsys, Inc. and Avast Software, and served as a director of SuccessFactors, Inc. from 2010 to 2011. He is also a member of the Dalhousie University Advisory Board. He joined our board in September 2010.
Class I Current Terms Expiring in 2020:
DANIEL R. FISHBACK |
Former President and Chief Executive Officer of DemandTec, Inc. | Director since: 2017 | ||
Key Qualifications and Attributes:
Experience as the chief executive officer of a global, publicly-traded company in the software-as-a service industry
Strong leadership skills and a proven track record driving financial growth and product development
Technology industry expertise |
Biography:
Mr. Fishback, age 56, served as the President and Chief Executive Officer of DemandTec, Inc. from 2001 to 2013. DemandTec is a provider of a cloud-based collaborative optimization network for retailers and consumer products companies that was acquired by IBM in 2012. From 2000 to 2001, Mr. Fishback served as Vice President of Channels for Ariba, Inc., a provider of solutions to help companies manage their corporate spending. Prior to that, he held sales and executive leadership positions at Trading Dynamics Company and Hyperion Solutions Corporation. Mr. Fishback currently serves on the board of directors for several private technology companies and serves as advisor and consultant to a number of companies, focusing on the application of analytic solutions to solve complex business problems. He joined our board in January 2017.
7 |
Election of Directors
DAVID E. KEPLER |
Retired Executive Vice President, Chief Sustainability Officer and Chief Information Officer of The Dow Chemical Company |
Director since: 2007 | ||
Key Qualifications and Attributes:
Experience as the chief information officer of a complex, global company with additional responsibility for corporate sustainability initiatives, risk management and business services operations
Financial expertise
Recognized leader in the area of cybersecurity |
Biography:
Mr. Kepler, age 65, served as the Executive Vice President, Chief Sustainability Officer and Chief Information Officer (CIO) of The Dow Chemical Company (Dow) from 2008 until his retirement in December 2014. Mr. Kepler joined Dow in 1975. He was appointed Vice President and CIO of Dow in 1998 and Corporate Vice President in 2001. At Dow, Mr. Kepler assumed responsibility for Business Services in 2004, was appointed Senior Vice President in 2006, with added responsibilities for the companys sustainability initiatives, and appointed Executive Vice President in February 2008. He also serves on the board of directors of TD Bank Group and Autoliv, Inc. Mr. Kepler serves as a trustee of the University of California Berkeley and as a board member of the Michigan Baseball Foundation and previously served on the U.S. National Infrastructure Advisory Council that advises the President on the protection of critical infrastructure and homeland security issues. He joined our board in November 2007.
WILLIAM S. STAVROPOULOS |
Chairman Emeritus of the Board of Directors of The Dow Chemical Company | Director since: 2007 | ||
Key Qualifications and Attributes:
Distinguished career with extensive public-company board experience
Leadership experience as a former chief executive officer and chairman of a major, global company
Substantial business and strategic acumen
In-depth knowledge of the Company |
Biography:
Mr. Stavropoulos, age 78, retired as Chairman of the Board of Dow on April 1, 2006. He had served in such capacity since November 2000. Mr. Stavropoulos was the President and Chief Executive Officer of Dow from 1995 to 2000 and was Chief Executive Officer from 2002 to November 2004. He is the lead director of Univar, Inc., a global distributor of commodity and specialty chemicals. In addition, he is on the advisory board for Metalmark Capital LLC, a private equity investment firm, is a trustee of the Fidelity Equity and High Income Funds, and is a director of Kissner Global Holdings, LP. He is the Chairman and CEO of the Michigan Baseball Foundation, serves as a trustee of the Rollin M. Gerstacker Foundation, and serves on the board of ArtisNaples. Mr. Stavropoulos served on the boards of Maersk Inc. from July 2002 to 2014 and Tyco International, Inc. from March 2007 until 2013 and as a special advisor to Clayton, Dubilier & Rice, Inc., from November 2006 until July 2017. Mr. Stavropoulos joined our board in September 2007.
8 | 2018 PROXY STATEMENT |
Election of Directors
Class III Current Terms Expiring in 2019:
CARY T. FU |
Co-founder and retired Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Benchmark Electronics, Inc. | Director since: 2008 | ||
Key Qualifications and Attributes:
Experience as the chief executive officer and chairman of the board of a global, publicly-traded technology company
Financial expertise and experience as a chief financial officer and certified public accountant
Experience co-founding and leading a high-growth business organization
Diverse perspectives given Taiwanese heritage and years of experience doing business in Asia |
Biography:
Mr. Fu, age 69, is the co-founder of Benchmark Electronics, Inc. (Benchmark), a publicly-held electronics manufacturing services provider. He served as Chairman of the Board of Benchmark from 2009 until his retirement in December 2012 and had been a director of Benchmark since 1990. In 2011, Mr. Fu retired as Benchmarks Chief Executive Officer, a position he had held since September 2004. Prior to becoming Chief Executive Officer of Benchmark, he served as its President and Chief Operating Officer from May 2001 to September 2004, Executive Vice President from 1992 to 2001, and Executive Vice President, Financial Administration, from 1990 to 1992. He also serves on the board of directors of Littelfuse, Inc., and is a certified public accountant. He joined our board in July 2008.
MICHAEL P. GIANONI |
President and Chief Executive Officer of Blackbaud, Inc. | Director since: 2015 | ||
Key Qualifications and Attributes:
Experience as the president and chief executive officer of a global, publicly-traded software-as-a-service company
Strong operational and leadership skills and business acumen
Proven track record driving financial performance improvement
Deep software industry knowledge |
Biography:
Mr. Gianoni, age 57, is the President and Chief Executive Officer of Blackbaud, Inc., a provider of software and services specifically designed for nonprofit organizations, a position he has held since joining the company in January 2014. Previously, Mr. Gianoni was the Executive Vice President and Group President, Financial Institutions, at Fiserv, Inc., a global technology provider serving the financial services industry, from January 2010 to December 2013. He joined Fiserv as President of its Investment Services division in 2007, where he was responsible for product, technology, sales, finance, operations, and strategy. From 2006 until its acquisition by Fiserv, Mr. Gianoni was Executive Vice President and General Manager of CheckFree Corporation, a leading provider of financial e-commerce solutions. Prior to that time, he held a number of senior management positions at DST Systems Inc., an information processing and software services company. Mr. Gianoni serves as a director of Blackbaud and joined our board in January 2015.
9 |
Election of Directors
VICTOR L. LUND |
President and Chief Executive Officer of Teradata Corporation | Director since: 2007 | ||
Key Qualifications and Attributes:
Service as the President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company with extensive knowledge of, and experience with, the software industry and the Companys operations, strategy and financial position
Significant financial expertise and business acumen
Experience as the chief financial officer and chief executive officer of a large business with a high-growth model
Extensive public-company board experience, particularly on audit committees |
Biography:
Mr. Lund, age 70, is President and Chief Executive Officer of Teradata. Previously, he served as the non-executive Chairman of the Board of DemandTec from December 2006 until February 2012, and was a member of its board until 2012. Mr. Lund served as Chairman of the Board of American Stores Company from 1995 until its acquisition by Albertsons, Inc. in June 1999, and as Chief Executive Officer of American Stores from 1992 until 1999. From 1999 until 2002, he served as Vice Chairman of Albertsons. Prior to joining American Stores in 1977, Mr. Lund was a practicing certified public accountant. He also currently serves on the board of directors of Service Corporation International and has served on a number of publicly-traded company boards, including Del Monte Foods Company and Delta Airlines. He joined our board in September 2007.
No family relationship exists among any of the directors, nominees or executive officers. No arrangement or understanding exists between any director, nominee, or executive officer and any other person pursuant to which any director, nominee or executive officer was selected as a director, nominee or executive officer of the Company.
10 | 2018 PROXY STATEMENT |
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CONCERNING THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Corporate Governance
Our Board of Directors is elected by the stockholders to govern our business. The board selects the senior management team, who is charged with conducting our business, and acts as an advisor to senior management, monitors its performance, and approves its compensation. Our Board of Directors engages in active discussion and oversight of the Companys business plans and strategy. It dedicates a two-day meeting each year as well as time at other regular meetings to cover strategic planning and monitoring. As part of this process, the board considers how best to capture opportunities and balance risks with potential stockholder returns in light of many factors such as our competitive landscape, technology developments, organizational structure, and financial objectives, among other things. The boards responsibilities also include planning for senior management succession, overseeing the integrity of our financial statements, and monitoring enterprise risks and compliance efforts.
To support these important duties, the board employs a strong framework of corporate governance practices, including those outlined below:
Independent Leadership and Oversight |
All directors except the Companys CEO are independent Separate CEO and board chair roles Two new experienced independent directors added in 2017 ensures fresh perspectives Average board tenure of 6.4 years Executive sessions held by independent directors at every regular board meeting Limit on additional board service (no director sits on more than 4 other public company boards) All directors possess highly relevant experience and knowledge (7 of 10 are current or former chief executive officers and 7 of 10 have software and/or technology industry experience)
| |
Executive Compensation Best Practices |
Emphasis on performance-based and long-term equity incentives Long-term equity program is 70% performance-based Prohibitions on hedging and pledging Company stock Clawback and harmful activity policies Annual advisory vote on compensation Annual incentive compensation is capped Approved by a fully-independent board committee using an independent consultant
| |
Stockholder Engagement & Alignment
|
Track record of proactive, ongoing stockholder dialogue
Significant Teradata stock ownership by officers and directors and strong stock ownership guidelines
| |
Stockholder Rights
|
Majority vote standard for election of directors No poison pill in place Proxy access bylaw permits eligible stockholders to nominate candidates for election to the board
| |
Ethics and Sustainability
|
Named a Worlds Most Ethical Company by The Ethisphere Institute in 2017 for 8th straight year Comprehensive sustainability program with substantive annual reporting
|
11 |
Additional Information Concerning the Board of Directors
Stockholder Outreach
Stockholder engagement is an important part of our business practices, and we greatly value the input we receive from our stockholders. Teradata Investor Relations and members of Teradata management are in frequent communication with stockholders on a variety of matters, including strategy, operations, corporate governance practices, and executive compensation.
In 2015, at the direction of the board, Teradata engaged in a robust stockholder outreach effort to better understand and address any concerns stockholders might have relating to the Companys executive compensation program. This outreach continued in 2016 and 2017, and in addition to compensation-related matters, a number of corporate governance matters were discussed with our stockholders during the outreach process. As described below on page 31 of the Compensation Discussion and Analysis section of this proxy statement, this engagement has been very productive and informative. Accordingly, stockholder interests have been taken into consideration in establishing a number of meaningful changes to Teradatas executive compensation program and corporate governance framework.
Corporate Governance Guidelines
To help discharge its responsibilities, the Board of Directors has adopted Corporate Governance Guidelines on significant corporate governance issues. These guidelines address, among other things, such matters as director independence, committee membership and structure, meetings and executive sessions, the annual self-assessments of the board and its committees, and director selection, retirement, and training. The boards Corporate Governance Guidelines are found on our corporate governance website at http://www.teradata.com/governance-guidelines. The boards independent directors meet regularly in executive session without management present and, as provided in the Corporate Governance Guidelines, the Board of Directors has selected the Chairman of the Board, who is an independent director, to preside at its executive sessions during 2018.
Board Independence and Related Transactions
We believe that the Company benefits from having a strong and independent board. For a director to be considered independent, the board must determine that the director does not have any direct or indirect material relationship with the Company that would affect his or her exercise of independent judgment. The Board of Directors has established independence standards as part of its Corporate Governance Guidelines. In general, the board must determine whether a director is considered independent, taking into account the independence guidelines of the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) and the factors listed immediately following this paragraph (which are included as Exhibit B, Director Independence Standards, to the boards Corporate Governance Guidelines referenced above) in addition to those other factors it may deem relevant. No director may qualify as independent unless the board affirmatively determines (i) under the NYSE listing standards, that he or she has no material relationship with us (either directly or as a partner, stockholder or officer of an organization that has a relationship with us), and (ii) under our independence standards, that the director or director candidate does not have any direct or indirect material relationship with us. Our independence standards include the following minimum criteria:
1. | A director will not be independent if: |
(i) | at any time during the last three years, he or she has been an employee of Teradata, or an immediate family member of the director has been an executive officer of Teradata; |
(ii) | he or she has received, or has an immediate family member who has received, during any 12-month period within the last three years, more than $120,000 in direct compensation from Teradata, other than certain limited circumstances, including: (a) compensation and other fees paid for service as a director; or (b) compensation received by an immediate family member for service as an employee of Teradata (other than as an executive officer); |
(iii) | he or she has certain relationships with any firm that serves as Teradatas internal or external auditor, including (a) the director is a current partner or employee of such firm; (b) the director has an immediate family member who is a current partner of such firm; (c) the director has an immediate family member who is a current employee of such firm and personally works on Teradatas audit; or (d) the director or an immediate family member of the director was within the last three years a partner or employee of such a firm and personally worked on Teradatas audit within that time; |
12 | 2018 PROXY STATEMENT |
Additional Information Concerning the Board of Directors
(iv) | at any time within the past three years, the director or his or her immediate family member has been employed as an executive officer of another company where any of Teradatas present executive officers at the same time serves or served on that companys compensation committee; or |
(v) | he or she is a current employee, or an immediate family member of the director is a current executive officer, of a company that has made payments to, or received payments from, Teradata for property or services in an amount which, in any of the last three fiscal years, exceeds the greater of $1 million, or 2% of such other companys consolidated gross revenues (in each case, as reported in the other companys last completed fiscal year). |
2. | A director will not be independent if he or she is an employee, or any member of the directors immediate family is an executive officer, of a company which is indebted to Teradata or to which Teradata is indebted, and the total amount of the indebtedness exceeds the greater of $1,000,000 or 2% of the consolidated annual gross revenues of either company. |
3. | A director will not be independent if he or she or any member of the directors immediate family is an officer, director or trustee of a charitable or other tax-exempt organization, and donations by Teradata during any single fiscal year to the charitable or other tax-exempt organization within the last three years exceeds the greater of $1,000,000 or 2% of the organizations consolidated annual gross revenues. |
4. | A relationship arising solely from a directors interest in another company or similar entity that is party to a transaction with Teradata will not be considered to be a material relationship with Teradata that would impair the directors independence if: (i) such interest arises only from: (a) the directors position as a director, trustee or similar position of such other company or entity, and/or (b) the direct or indirect ownership by the director and the directors immediate family members, in the aggregate, is less than 10% of the equity or similar ownership interest in such other company or entity; and (ii) the director is not involved in the negotiation of the terms of the transaction with Teradata and does not receive any special benefits as the result of the transaction. |
The boards independence standards also provide for additional criteria for members of the Audit and Compensation and Human Resource Committees as required under applicable NYSE rules.
Our Board of Directors has affirmatively determined that all of our non-employee directors and nominees, namely Ms. Bacus and Messrs. Chou, Fishback, Fu, Gianoni, Kepler, Ringler, Schwarz, and Stavropoulos, meet the NYSE listing independence standards and our independence standards for the board and the committees on which they serve. In making this determination, the board considered transactions in 2016 and 2017 pursuant to which Cigna and its affiliate purchased data warehouse and marketing applications products and related services from Teradata, and Teradata purchased employee benefit program services, with aggregate sales attributed to such purchases significantly below 2% of the annual revenues of either company. The board concluded that Ms. Bacus relationship as an officer of Cigna does not disqualify her from being deemed independent under these standards. There were no other transactions, relationships or arrangements in fiscal year 2017 that required review by the board for purposes of determining director independence.
Board Leadership Structure
While our Corporate Governance Guidelines do not require that our Chairman and CEO positions be separate, our board believes that having separate positions and having an independent director serve as Chairman is the appropriate leadership structure for us at this time and demonstrates our commitment to good corporate governance. Our board is led by an independent Chairman, Mr. Ringler. Our CEO, Mr. Lund, is the only member of the board who is not an independent director. We believe that this leadership structure enhances the accountability of the CEO to the board, strengthens the boards independence from management and benefits independent risk oversight of the Companys day-to-day risk management activities. In addition, separating these roles allows Mr. Lund to focus his efforts on running our business, meeting with customers and investors, and managing the Company in the best interests of our stockholders, while we are able to benefit from Mr. Ringlers prior leadership experience as a chairman of other public company boards.
13 |
Additional Information Concerning the Board of Directors
Board Oversight of Risk
Management is responsible for the Companys day-to-day risk management activities, and our boards role is to engage in informed risk oversight. In fulfilling this oversight role, our Board of Directors focuses on understanding the nature of our enterprise risks, including our operations and strategic direction, as well as the adequacy of our risk management process and overall risk management system. The boards committee structure and the collective knowledge and experience of its members promotes a broad perspective, open dialogue and useful insights regarding risk, thereby increasing the effectiveness of the boards role in risk oversight. There are a number of ways our board performs this function, including the following:
| at its regularly scheduled meetings, the board receives management updates on our business operations, financial results, and strategy and discusses risks related to the business; |
| the Audit Committee assists the board in its oversight of risk management by overseeing the Companys enterprise risk management process and discussing with management particularly, the Chief Financial Officer, Vice President, Information Systems, Vice President, Enterprise Risk and Assurance Services, and Chief Ethics, Compliance & Privacy Officer the Companys guidelines and policies regarding financial and enterprise risk management and risk appetite, including: (i) major risk exposures such as, for example, financial, cybersecurity, data privacy, business continuity, and legal and regulatory risks, and the steps management has taken to monitor and control such exposures; and (ii) internal audit and ethics and compliance updates, as well as whistleblower updates, if any; and |
| through management updates and committee reports, the board monitors our risk management activities, including the enterprise risk management process, risks relating to our compensation programs, and financial and operational risks being managed by the Company. |
Compensation Risk Assessment
Based on an analysis conducted by management and reviewed by the Board of Directors, we do not believe that our compensation programs for employees are reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on the Company.
Director Education
The Company encourages directors to participate in continuing education programs focused on the Companys business and industry, committee roles and responsibilities and legal and ethical responsibilities of directors, and the Company reimburses directors for their expenses associated with this participation. We also encourage our directors to attend Teradata events such as our annual users conference (Partners) and our investor day events. Continuing director education is also provided during board meetings and other board discussions as part of the formal meetings and may include internally developed materials and presentations as well as programs presented by third parties.
Executive Management Succession Planning
In consultation with its Compensation and Human Resource Committee and CEO, the Board of Directors regularly reviews short- and long-term succession plans for all senior management positions and, in particular, our CEO. The criteria used when assessing the qualifications of potential CEO successors include, among others, strategic vision and leadership, operational excellence and execution, financial management, executive officer leadership skills, ability to motivate employees particularly in a dynamic and changing work environment, as well as an ability to develop an effective working relationship with the board and engender the confidence of our stockholders. Our current CEO, management team and Board of Directors are committed to overseeing a robust succession plan for the Company. To that end, we are identifying and developing a team of capable, willing and enthusiastic internal CEO and senior management candidates through increased responsibilities, additional opportunities to engage with investors and our board, outside development education, and other similar leadership enhancement activities.
Code of Ethics
We have a Code of Conduct that sets the standard for ethics and compliance for all of our employees, including our officers, directors, chief accounting officer, and corporate controller. Our Code of Conduct is available on our corporate governance website at http://www.teradata.com/code-of-conduct.
14 | 2018 PROXY STATEMENT |
Additional Information Concerning the Board of Directors
Section 16(a) Beneficial Ownership Reporting Compliance
To the best of our knowledge, all of our executive officers and directors timely filed the reports required under Section 16(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, except that Mr. Ratzesberger filed one late report due to an inadvertent administrative oversight by the Company.
Meetings and Meeting Attendance
The Board and its committees met throughout the year on a set schedule, held special meetings, and acted by written consent from time to time as appropriate. At each of its regular meetings, the board held sessions for the independent directors to meet without the CEO present. Members of the senior management team regularly attend board meetings to present information on our business and strategy, and board members are welcome and encouraged to meet with employees worldwide and to attend industry, analyst, and other major events.
The board and its committees met a total of 30 times last year. In 2017, each of the directors attended 75% or more of the total number of meetings of the board and the committee(s) on which he or she serves. In addition, under the boards Corporate Governance Guidelines, our directors are expected to attend our annual meeting of stockholders each year. All of our directors attended the 2017 annual meeting of stockholders.
Selection of Nominees for Directors
The Board of Directors and the Governance Committee are responsible for recommending candidates for membership to the board. The director selection process and director qualification guidelines are described in detail in the boards Corporate Governance Guidelines, which are posted on our corporate governance website at http://www.teradata.com/governance-guidelines.
In determining candidates for nomination, the Governance Committee will seek the input of the Chairman of the Board, the CEO and other directors, and will consider individuals recommended for board membership by our stockholders in accordance with our bylaws and applicable law. In general, we desire to have a balanced group of directors who can perpetuate the Companys long-term success and represent stockholder interests generally through the exercise of sound business judgment based on a diversity of experiences and perspectives. As part of the selection process, the board and the Governance Committee use the qualification factors listed in our Corporate Governance Guidelines and examine candidates business skills and experience, personal integrity, judgment, and ability to devote the appropriate amount of time and energy to serving the best interests of stockholders, in addition to the desired composition of the board as a whole and the Companys current and future needs. Although we do not have a formal diversity policy, the Governance Committee and the board also consider the desire for diverse perspectives that can be gained through different professional experiences, backgrounds, and education, as well as gender, race or ethnic diversity. In addition, while the board does not have age or term limits, it seeks to balance director turnover. The board believes that new perspectives and ideas are critical to a forward-looking and strategic board as is the ability to benefit from the valuable experience and familiarity that longer-serving directors bring to the board room.
As reported by the Company, Nancy Cooper retired from the board as of December 31, 2017, and the Governance Committee has engaged the outside search firm of Spencer Stuart LLP to assist it in identifying and contacting qualified candidates should the board decide to expand its size. As described under the caption Director Qualifications on pages 4 to 10 of this proxy statement, we believe our current directors represent a highly qualified and capable board with very diverse perspectives and balanced tenure.
If you wish to recommend individuals for consideration as directors, you can submit your suggestions in writing to our Corporate Secretary as outlined in our bylaws. Under our bylaws, you will need to provide, among other things, the candidates name, age, residential and business contact information, detailed biographical data and qualifications for service as a board member, the class or series and number of shares of Teradatas capital stock (if any) which are owned beneficially or of record by the candidate, a document signed by the candidate indicating the candidates willingness to serve, if elected, and evidence of the stockholders ownership of our stock. Recommendations by stockholders that are made in this manner will be evaluated in the same manner as other candidates. Stockholders who intend to nominate directors for election at our next annual meeting of stockholders must follow the procedures described in our bylaws, which are available on our corporate governance website at http://www.teradata.com/articles-and-bylaws. See Procedures for Stockholder Proposals and Nominations on page 73 of this proxy statement for further details regarding how to nominate directors.
15 |
Additional Information Concerning the Board of Directors
The directors nominated by the Board of Directors for election at the 2018 annual meeting were recommended by the Governance Committee following the process described above. See Director Qualifications and Nominees on pages 4 through 10 of this proxy statement for further details regarding the reasons and director attributes supporting these nominations. All of these candidates for election are currently serving as our directors and have been determined by the board to be independent.
Under the boards Corporate Governance Guidelines, if any director who is nominated for election at the 2018 annual meeting is not re-elected by the required majority vote, such director is required to promptly offer his or her resignation. The Board of Directors, giving due consideration to the best interests of the Company and our stockholders, is required to evaluate the relevant facts and circumstances, including whether the underlying cause of the directors failure to receive the required majority vote can be cured, and make a decision on whether to accept the offered resignation. Any director who offers a resignation pursuant to this provision cannot participate in the boards decision process. The Board of Directors will promptly disclose publicly its decision and, if applicable, the reasons for rejecting the offered resignation. If the board accepts a directors resignation pursuant to this process, the Governance Committee will recommend to the Board of Directors whether to fill the resulting vacancy or reduce the size of the board.
16 | 2018 PROXY STATEMENT |
Committee Structure and Responsibilities
Our Board of Directors has four committees: the Audit Committee, the Compensation and Human Resource Committee, the Committee on Directors and Governance, and the Executive Committee.
Audit Committee
The Audit Committee is the principal agent of the Board of Directors in overseeing our accounting and financial reporting processes and audits of our financial statements and internal controls, including assisting in the boards oversight of (i) the integrity of our financial statements, (ii) our compliance with ethical, legal and regulatory requirements, (iii) the qualifications, independence and performance of our independent registered public accounting firm, and (iv) the qualifications and performance of our internal audit function and internal auditors.
The Audit Committee also:
| is directly responsible for the appointment, compensation, retention, and oversight of our independent registered public accounting firm and pre-approving all audit services, as well as any audit-related, tax and other non-audit services, to be performed by such firm; |
| oversees the negotiation of audit fees in connection with the retention of our independent registered public accounting firm; |
| reviews and discusses with our independent registered public accounting firm its quality control procedures; |
| regularly reviews the annual audit plan of our independent registered public accounting firm, including the scope of audit activities, and monitors the progress and results of the annual audit; |
| meets with the independent registered public accounting firm, the internal auditors and management to review and discuss the internal audit scope and plan, the results of internal audit activities, and the adequacy of our internal controls and financial, accounting and reporting processes; |
| oversees the appointment, removal and performance of our chief audit executive; |
| discusses with management and the independent registered public accounting firm our annual audited financial statements and unaudited quarterly financial statements, and recommends to the board that the audited financial statements be included in the Companys annual report filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC); |
| discusses with management and the independent registered public accounting firm (i) all critical accounting policies and practices used, (ii) any significant financial reporting issues and judgments made in connection with the preparation of our financial statements, including analyses of the effects of alternative accounting methods under generally accepted accounting principles that have been discussed with management and the treatment preferred by the independent registered public accounting firm, (iii) the effect of regulatory and accounting initiatives and off-balance sheet structures on our financial statements, and (iv) any other reports required by law to be delivered by the independent registered public accounting firm, including any management letter or schedule of unadjusted differences; |
| is directly responsible for oversight of our major financial and enterprise risk exposures such as, for example, financial, cybersecurity, information technology, data privacy, business continuity, and legal and regulatory risks, and regularly discusses managements plans and actions related to these areas; |
| receives periodic reports from our internal auditors on findings of fraud, if any, and its significant findings regarding the design and/or operation of internal control over financial reporting as well as management responses to such findings; |
| reviews our periodic SEC filings and our quarterly earnings releases; |
| oversees our ethics and compliance program; |
| prepares the committee report required pursuant to the rules of the SEC for inclusion in our proxy statements; |
| ensures that the Company has established procedures for the confidential submission of employee concerns regarding accounting or auditing matters; and |
17 |
Committees of the Board
| reviews relationships between the Company and our independent registered public accounting firm or any of its subsidiaries to ascertain the independence of the external auditors. |
The Audit Committee has three members, Messrs. Chou, Fu and Kepler, each of whom meets the NYSE listing independence standards, is independent under our recently-updated independence standards and financially literate, as determined by the board under applicable NYSE standards. In addition, the board has determined that because of his accounting and financial management expertise, Mr. Fu is an audit committee financial expert, as defined under SEC regulations. No member of the committee may receive any compensation, consulting, advisory or other fee from us, other than board compensation described beginning on page 25 of this proxy statement under the caption Director Compensation, as determined in accordance with applicable SEC and NYSE rules. Each Audit Committee member is limited to serving on the audit committees of two other public companies, unless the Board of Directors evaluates and determines that these other commitments would not impair the directors effective service to us. A more detailed discussion of the committees mission, composition, and responsibilities is contained in the Audit Committee Charter. A copy of this charter, which was last amended by the committee on July 10, 2017, can be found on our corporate governance website at http://www.teradata.com/audit-committee-charter. A report of the Audit Committee is set forth below on page 69 of this proxy statement.
Compensation and Human Resource Committee
In general, this committee (i) discharges our boards responsibilities relating to the compensation of our executives, (ii) provides general oversight of our management compensation philosophy and practices, benefit programs, and strategic workforce initiatives, (iii) oversees succession planning and leadership development activities, and (iv) reviews and approves our overall compensation principles, objectives and programs covering executive officers and key management employees as well as the competitiveness of our total executive officer compensation practices. The Compensation and Human Resource Committee also:
| evaluates and reviews the performance levels of our executive officers in light of the Companys goals and objectives and determines base salaries and equity and incentive awards for such officers; |
| establishes the annual goals and objectives of the CEO, after consulting with the independent members of the board; |
| at executive session of the Board of Directors, discusses its evaluation of, and determination of compensation for, the CEO based on the CEOs performance against annual goals and objectives; |
| reviews and, as needed, recommends to our Board of Directors for approval our executive compensation plans, including incentive compensation plans, and all equity-based compensation plans; |
| oversees our plans for management succession and development and, on an annual basis, assists the Board of Directors in reviewing and monitoring succession planning, particularly with respect to the CEO; |
| reviews and discusses with management the disclosures in our proxy statements with respect to executive compensation policies and procedures and produces the committees annual report related to such disclosure for inclusion in our proxy statements; |
| reviews managements proposals to make significant organizational changes or significant changes to existing executive officer compensation plans; |
| reviews the stock ownership guidelines and compliance of the CEO and other executive officers with such guidelines; |
| exercises administrative and oversight functions assigned to the committee under the Companys various benefit plans, including the Companys 401(k) savings plan; |
| oversees the Teradata Benefits Committee to which it delegated oversight and management responsibilities for U.S.-based employee benefit plans; |
| periodically reviews and monitors the Companys diversity and inclusion practices; and |
| reviews and makes recommendations to the board with respect to stockholder approval of executive compensation (say-on-pay votes) and the frequency of say-on-pay votes, including review of stockholder feedback as appropriate. |
18 | 2018 PROXY STATEMENT |
Committees of the Board
The Compensation and Human Resource Committee has four members, Ms. Bacus and Messrs. Fishback, Ringler and Schwarz, each of whom the Board of Directors has determined meets the NYSE listing independence standards and our independence standards. The committee may form subcommittees with authority to act on the committees behalf as it deems appropriate and has delegated authority to our CEO and Chief Human Resources Officer to award equity to individuals other than executive officers in limited instances. In addition, the CEO conducts annual performance evaluations of executives and, after consulting with the Chief Human Resources Officer, provides this committee with his assessments and recommendations with respect to the amount and form of compensation for such executives.
In August 2017, this committee engaged Frederic W. Cook & Co. (FW Cook) as its outside compensation consultant to assist the committee in the development of our executive compensation and benefit programs, including the amount and form of such compensation, and in the evaluation of our CEO. Prior to August 2017, Semler Brossy Consulting Group, LLC, served as the committees compensation consultant. The rules for the use of the compensation consultants by the committee and management include the following: (i) only the committee and its Chair can hire or fire the consultant with respect to such services; (ii) on an annual basis, the consultant will provide the committee with a letter of the projected scope of services for the year; (iii) the consultants work will be coordinated with our Chief Human Resources Officer and any project undertaken at managements request will be with the knowledge and consent of the committee Chair; (iv) the consultant will have direct contact with the committee; and (v) the committee will evaluate the performance of the consultant on an annual basis. In 2017, management did not engage the outside compensation consultants to perform any executive compensation consulting services for the Company. Moreover, the Compensation and Human Resource Committee reviewed the independence of the consultant in light of SEC rules and NYSE listing standards regarding compensation consultants and has concluded that the firms work for the committee is independent and does not raise any conflicts of interest. A more detailed discussion of the committees mission, composition, and responsibilities is contained in the Compensation and Human Resource Committee Charter, which was last amended on April 29, 2013, and is available on our corporate governance website at http://www.teradata.com/compensation-committee-charter. A report of the committee is set forth below on page 27 of this proxy statement.
Committee on Directors and Governance
This committee is responsible for reviewing the boards corporate governance practices and procedures, and:
| establishes procedures for evaluating the performance of the Board of Directors and oversees such evaluation; |
| reviews the composition of our Board of Directors and the qualifications of persons identified as prospective directors, recommends to the board the candidates to be nominated for election as directors, and, in the event of a vacancy on the board, recommends any successors; |
| reviews and makes recommendations to the board concerning non-employee director compensation; |
| sees that proper attention is given, and appropriate responses are made, to stockholder concerns regarding corporate governance matters; and |
| oversees the Companys Related Person Transactions Policy and Corporate Governance Guidelines, including the standards regarding director independence. |
In January 2018, the Committee on Directors and Governance directly engaged FW Cook as its consultant to review our director compensation program. The Governance Committee reviewed the independence of FW Cook in light of SEC rules and NYSE listing standards regarding compensation consultants and has concluded that the firms work for the committee is independent and does not raise any conflicts of interest.
This committee is composed entirely of independent directors, Messrs. Gianoni, Ringler and Stavropoulos. The committee approved the nomination of the candidates reflected in Proposal 1. A more detailed discussion of the committees mission, composition and responsibilities is contained in its charter, which was last amended on November 29, 2016, and is available on our corporate governance website at http://www.teradata.com/committee-on-directors-and-governance-charter.
Executive Committee
The Executive Committee has five members, Messrs. Gianoni, Kepler, Lund, Ringler, and Schwarz. This committee has the authority to exercise all powers of the full Board of Directors, except those prohibited by applicable law, such as amending the bylaws or approving a merger that requires stockholder approval. This committee meets between regular board meetings if urgent action is required.
19 |
Committees of the Board
Board Committee Membership as of December 31, 2017
NAME |
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE |
COMPENSATION AND HUMAN RESOURCE COMMITTEE |
AUDIT COMMITTEE |
COMMITTEE ON DIRECTORS AND GOVERNANCE | ||||
James M. Ringler
|
* | |||||||
Lisa R. Bacus
|
||||||||
Timothy C.K. Chou
|
||||||||
Daniel R. Fishback
|
||||||||
Cary T. Fu
|
||||||||
Michael P. Gianoni
|
* | |||||||
David E. Kepler
|
* | |||||||
Victor L. Lund
|
||||||||
John G. Schwarz
|
* | |||||||
William S. Stavropoulos
|
||||||||
Number of Meetings in 2017
|
0 | 8 | 11 | 4 |
* | Committee Chair |
Compensation Committee Interlocks and Insider Participation
During 2017, no member of the Compensation and Human Resource Committee was a current or former officer or employee of the Company. None of our executive officers served as a member of the compensation committee (or board of directors serving the compensation function) or director of another entity where such entitys executive officers served on our Compensation and Human Resource Committee or board.
Communications with Directors
Stockholders and interested parties wishing to communicate directly with our Board of Directors, any individual director, the Chairman of the Board, or our non-management or independent directors as a group are welcome to do so by writing our Corporate Secretary at Teradata Corporation, 10000 Innovation Drive, Dayton, Ohio 45342. The Corporate Secretary will forward any communications as directed. Any matters reported by stockholders or interested parties relating to our accounting, internal accounting controls or auditing matters will be referred to members of the Audit Committee as appropriate. Anonymous and/or confidential communications with the Board of Directors may also be made by writing to this address. For more information on how to contact our board, please see our corporate governance website at http://www.teradata.com/contact-the-board.
20 | 2018 PROXY STATEMENT |
Our Related Person Transactions Policy was adopted by the Board of Directors in 2007, and the board approved minor amendments to the policy in 2013. Under this policy, the boards Committee on Directors and Governance is responsible for reviewing and approving each transaction in which Teradata was a participant involving or potentially involving an amount in excess of $120,000 and in which a related person had a material interest. A related person is any director or executive officer, any immediate family member of a director or executive officer, a 5% or more stockholder, and any immediate family member of a 5% or more stockholder.
This policy provides for approval or ratification of each related person transaction in accordance with the procedures and policies discussed below (i) by our Governance Committee, or (ii) if the Governance Committee determines that the approval or ratification of such related person transaction should be considered by all of the disinterested members of the Board of Directors, by a majority vote of the disinterested members of the board.
The policy requires our General Counsel to advise the Chair of the Governance Committee of any potential related person transaction involving in excess of $120,000 of which the General Counsel becomes aware, including managements assessment of whether the related persons interest in the potential related person transaction is material. The Governance Committee is required to consider such potential related person transaction, including whether the related persons interest in the potential related person transaction is material, unless the Governance Committee determines that the approval or ratification of such potential transaction should be considered by all of the disinterested members of the Board of Directors, in which case such disinterested members of the board will consider the potential transaction. Except as set forth below, we will not enter into a related person transaction that is not approved in advance unless the consummation of such transaction is expressly subject to ratification.
If we enter into a transaction that we subsequently determine is a related person transaction or a transaction that was not a related person transaction at the time it was entered into but thereafter becomes a related person transaction, then in either such case the related person transaction must be presented to the Governance Committee or the disinterested members of the Board of Directors, as applicable, for ratification. If the related person transaction is not ratified, then we are required to take all reasonable actions to attempt to terminate our participation in the transaction.
Factors that are reviewed by the Governance Committee or the Board of Directors, as applicable, when evaluating a potential related person transaction include: (i) the size of the transaction and the amount payable to a related person; (ii) the nature of the interest of the related person in the transaction; (iii) whether the transaction may involve a conflict of interest; (iv) whether the transaction is fair to the Company; (v) whether the transaction might impair independence of an outside director of the Company; and (vi) whether the transaction involves the provision of goods or services to us that are available from unaffiliated third parties and, if so, whether the transaction is on terms and made under circumstances that are at least as favorable to us as would be available in comparable transactions with or involving unaffiliated third parties.
21 |
CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY
Optimizing Our World
Teradata continues to foster a culture of sustainability and responsibility. We have advanced our commitment to corporate responsibility through a number of sustainability initiatives.
Our People and Communities: We hire the most qualified people possible, and we endeavor to retain our talented resources. Our people reflect the diversity of our global marketplace and, through our employee resource groups, we actively support diversity throughout our Company because we believe that inclusion creates better outcomes. Our Teradata Cares Program empowers our employees to make a difference in their communities through volunteerism and giving. Employees are dedicated to improving education, strengthening communities and helping the environment. Through Teradata Cares, our employees volunteered more than 25,000 hours of service in 2017. | ||
Corporate Giving: Our strategic giving focus of data philanthropy aligns with our corporate emphasis on data and analytics. Together, our employees, partners, and customers come together and use our collective analytic skills to help non-profit agencies around the world mine their data troves to reveal insights that serve the public good. We support numerous hackathons and coding events to advance Doing Good with Data. | ||
Our Products: We design technology for the future, and the future demands powerful analytic solutions that are intended to meet increasingly stringent standards to support the earths precious resources, including efficient usage of power and water, as well as space efficiency. Therefore, we focus on providing customers with best-in-class products that are not only highly scalable, but environmentally sustainable as well. To that end, we continuously search to find and leverage technology alternatives that can improve performance-per-watt, reduce cooling requirements, and shrink floor space needs in data center requirements as part of our product design initiatives. | ||
Ethical Business Conduct: Teradata has been included on the Ethisphere Institutes list of the Worlds Most Ethical Companies every year since 2010. We have a zero-tolerance policy for non-ethical behavior and expect the highest standards of compliance throughout the world. | ||
Our Suppliers: Our suppliers and business partners are expected to meet or exceed the standards of our Code of Conduct which includes adherence to ethical, responsible and environmentally sustainable business practices with respect to all of their Teradata-related activities. We have also established a managed inventory program that requires suppliers to ship bulk quantities of product to local hubs near our manufacturing site, rather than discrete customer shipments. This not only reduces our inventory costs, but also greatly reduces the environmental impact of our manufacturing supply chain. | ||
Our Facilities: Teradata has designed our facilities to reduce the Companys environmental impact and has implemented many programs in the areas of video conferencing, virtual employment, recycling and energy conservation that get the job done while using and re-using resources at the most efficient level possible. From printing all corporate business cards on stock that is 100% recycled/post-consumer waste material, to installing a cutting-edge building automation system to optimize efficiency in lighting and HVAC systems, to sending our annual report and proxy statement electronically to reduce unnecessary paper usage, we adopt sustainable policies and procedures at every opportunity. |
For more information:
Visit our Corporate Social Responsibility website: https://www.teradata.com/About/Corporate-Social-Responsibility-en.
22 | 2018 PROXY STATEMENT |
Ownership by Directors and Officers
This table shows our common stock beneficially owned as of February 15, 2018, by each executive officer named in the Summary Compensation Table found on page 48 of this proxy statement, each non-employee director, and the directors and executive officers and former executive officers as a group.
NAME | TOTAL SHARES BENEFICIALLY OWNED(1) |
SHARES COVERED BY OPTIONS(2) |
% OF CLASS BENEFICIALLY OWNED(3) |
|||||||||
Non-Employee Directors
|
||||||||||||
Lisa R. Bacus, Class II Director
|
|
26,224
|
|
|
0
|
|
* | |||||
Timothy C.K. Chou, Class II Director
|
|
0
|
|
|
0
|
|
* | |||||
Daniel R. Fishback, Class I Director
|
|
9,534
|
|
|
0
|
|
* | |||||
Cary T. Fu, Class III Director
|
|
65,602
|
|
|
29,312
|
|
* | |||||
Michael P. Gianoni, Class III Director
|
|
24,696
|
|
|
0
|
|
* | |||||
David E. Kepler, Class I Director
|
|
82,031
|
|
|
13,206
|
|
* | |||||
James M. Ringler, Chairman of the Board and Class II Director(4)
|
|
145,041
|
|
|
35,185
|
|
* | |||||
John G. Schwarz, Class II Director
|
|
50,322
|
|
|
9,423
|
|
* | |||||
William S. Stavropoulos, Class I Director(5)
|
|
97,027
|
|
|
13,206
|
|
* | |||||
Named Executive Officers
|
||||||||||||
Victor L. Lund, President, Chief Executive Officer and Class III Director(6)
|
|
154,801
|
|
|
0
|
|
* | |||||
Mark Culhane, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|
|
4,500
|
|
|
0
|
|
* | |||||
Daniel Harrington, Executive Vice President, Consulting and Support Services(7)
|
|
237,042
|
|
|
165,529
|
|
* | |||||
Oliver Ratzesberger, Chief Operating Officer
|
|
38,725
|
|
|
21,871
|
|
* | |||||
Former Executive Officers who are Named Executive Officers
|
||||||||||||
John Dinning, Former Executive Vice President and Chief Business Officer
|
|
51,178
|
|
|
31,421
|
|
* | |||||
Stephen Scheppmann, Former Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer(8)
|
|
294,336
|
|
|
199,270
|
|
* | |||||
Directors and Executive Officers and former Executive Officers who are Named Executive Officers as a Group (18 persons)
|
|
1,505,442
|
|
|
678,574
|
|
|
1.22
|
%
|
* | Less than one percent. |
(1) | Unless otherwise indicated, total voting power and total investment power are exercised by each individual and/or a member of his or her household. This column includes shares covered by options that are exercisable within 60 days of February 15, 2018 (as listed in the Shares Covered by Options column). This column also includes (a) shares granted to directors, the receipt of which have been deferred, as follows: Mr. Lund, 11,628 shares; and Mr. Stavropoulos, 16,787 shares; and (b) vested restricted share units, the receipt of which have been deferred, as follows: Mr. Fishback, 7,681; Mr. Fu, 14,671 units; Mr. Lund, 43,432 units; Mr. Ringler, 5,192 units; and Mr. Schwarz, 39,178 units. In each case, these vested deferred shares subject to vested deferred restricted share units can be acquired by such person within 60 days upon such person ceasing to be a director or employee. |
(2) | Includes shares that the executive officer or director or his or her respective family members have the right to acquire through the exercise of stock options within sixty days after February 15, 2018. These shares are also included in the Total Shares Beneficially Owned column. |
(3) | The total number of shares of our common stock issued and outstanding as of February 15, 2018 was 122,250,621. |
(4) | Includes 31,270 shares held indirectly through a limited liability company. |
(5) | Includes 2,000 shares held by Mr. Stavropoulos spouse, and 1,000 shares held indirectly by her through a family limited partnership. |
(6) | Includes 93,617 shares held indirectly through a limited liability company. |
(7) | Includes 41,031 shares attributable to units held by Mr. Harrington in a unitized stock fund under the Teradata 401(k) savings plan. |
(8) | Includes 4,808 shares attributable to units held by Mr. Scheppmann in a unitized stock fund under the Teradata 401(k) savings plan. |
23 |
Stock Ownership
Other Beneficial Owners of Teradata Common Stock
To the best of our knowledge, based on filings with the SEC made in 2018 by beneficial owners of our stock, the following stockholders beneficially own more than 5% of our outstanding common stock.
NAME | TOTAL NUMBER OF SHARES |
PERCENT OF CLASS(1) |
||||||
First Eagle Investment Management, LLC(2) 1345 Avenue of the Americas, New York, New York 10105
|
|
16,968,951
|
|
|
13.88
|
%
| ||
BlackRock, Inc.(3) 55 East 52nd Street, New York, New York 10055
|
|
10,925,922
|
|
|
8.94
|
%
| ||
The Vanguard Group(4) 100 Vanguard Blvd., Malvern, Pennsylvania 19355
|
|
10,492,749
|
|
|
8.58
|
%
| ||
The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation(5) 225 Liberty Street, New York, New York 10286
|
|
9,135,804
|
|
|
7.47
|
%
| ||
Wellington Management Group LLP and affiliated entities(6) 280 Congress Street, Boston, MA 02210
|
|
6,908,311
|
|
|
5.65
|
%
|
(1) | Percent of class is based on 122,250,621 shares of Teradata common stock issued and outstanding as of February 15, 2018. |
(2) | Information is based on Amendment No. 5 to Schedule 13G filed by First Eagle Investment Management, LLC with the SEC on February 8, 2018, which reported sole voting power over 16,302,907 shares and sole dispositive power over 16,968,951 shares. According to this filing, the First Eagle Global Fund, a registered investment company for which First Eagle Investment Management, LLC acts as investment adviser, may be deemed to beneficially own 12,190,179 of these shares. |
(3) | Information is based on Amendment No. 9 to Schedule 13G filed by BlackRock, Inc. with the SEC on January 23, 2018, which reported sole voting power over 10,428,810 and sole dispositive power over 10,925,922 shares. According to this filing, these shares are beneficially owned by the following subsidiaries of Blackrock, Inc.: BlackRock Life Limited, BlackRock International Limited, BlackRock Advisors, LLC, BlackRock (Netherlands) B.V., BlackRock Institutional Trust Company, N.A., BlackRock Asset Management Ireland Limited, BlackRock Financial Management, Inc., BlackRock Asset Management Schweiz AG, BlackRock Investment Management, LLC, BlackRock Investment Management (UK) Ltd, BlackRock Asset Management Canada Limited, BlackRock (Luxembourg) S.A., BlackRock Investment Management (Australia) Limited, BlackRock Advisors (UK) Limited, BlackRock Fund Advisors, and BlackRock Fund Managers Ltd. |
(4) | Information is based on Amendment No. 8 to Schedule 13G filed by The Vanguard Group with the SEC on February 12, 2018. According to this filing, The Vanguard Group has sole dispositive power over 10,421,210 shares, shared dispositive power over 71,539 shares and sole power to vote 64,691 shares. According to this filing, (i) Vanguard Fiduciary Trust Company, a wholly-owned subsidiary of The Vanguard Group, Inc. and a registered investment adviser, is the beneficial owner of 54,624 shares as a result of its serving as investment manager of collective trust accounts, and (ii) Vanguard Investments Australia, Ltd., a wholly-owned subsidiary of The Vanguard Group, Inc. and a registered investment adviser, is the beneficial owner of 26,982 shares as a result of its serving as investment manager of Australian investment offerings. |
(5) | Information is based on Schedule 13G filed by The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation with the SEC on February 7, 2018. According to this filing, The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation has sole dispositive power over 8,645,355 shares, shared dispositive power over 483,374 shares and sole power to vote 7,705,436 shares. According to this filing, these shares are beneficially owned by the following subsidiaries of The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation: The Bank of New York Mellon (parent holding company of Mellon Overseas Investment Corporation; BNY International Financing Corporation; The Bank of New York Mellon SA/NV; and Cutwater Holdings, LLC), BNY Mellon, National Association, BNY Mellon Trust of Delaware, The Bank of New York Mellon SA/NV (parent holding company of BNY Mellon Service Kapitalanlage-Gesellschaft mbH), The Boston Company Asset Management LLC, The Dreyfus Corporation (parent holding company of MBSC Securities Corporation), Lockwood Advisors, Inc., Mellon Capital Management Corporation, BNY Mellon Capital Markets, LLC, Pershing LLC, B.N.Y. Holdings (Delaware) Corporation (parent holding company of BNY Mellon Trust of Delaware), BNY Mellon IHC, LLC (as parent holding company of MBC Investments Corporation), MBC Investments Corporation (parent holding company of Mellon Capital Management Corporation; BNY Mellon Investment Management (Jersey) Ltd.; BNY Mellon Investment Management APAC LP; Standish Mellon Asset Management Company LLC; The Boston Company Asset Management LLC; The Dreyfus Corporation; ARX Investimentos Ltda. Brazil, Pershing Group LLC (parent holding company of Lockwood Advisors, Inc and Pershing LLC), and BNY Capital Markets Holdings, Inc. (parent holding company of BNY Mellon Capital Markets, LLC). |
(6) | Information is based on the Schedule 13G filed by Wellington Management Group LLP with the SEC on February 8, 2018, which reported shared power to vote 6,218,485 shares and shared dispositive power over 6,908,311 shares. According to this filing, these shares are beneficially owned by Wellington Group Holdings LLP, Wellington Investment Advisors Holdings LLP, Wellington Management Global Holdings, Ltd., and one or more of the following investment advisers (the Wellington Investment Advisers): Wellington Management Company LLP, Wellington Management Canada LLC, Wellington Management Singapore Pte Ltd, Wellington Management Hong Kong Ltd, Wellington Management International Ltd, Wellington Management Japan Pte Ltd, Wellington Management Australia Pte Ltd. These securities are owned of record by clients of the Wellington Investment Advisers. Wellington Investment Advisors Holdings LLP controls directly, or indirectly through Wellington Management Global Holdings, Ltd., the Wellington Investment Advisers. Wellington Investment Advisors Holdings LLP is owned by Wellington Group Holdings LLP. Wellington Group Holdings LLP is owned by Wellington Management Group LLP. |
24 | 2018 PROXY STATEMENT |
Teradatas Director Compensation Program is designed to enhance our ability to attract and retain highly qualified directors and to align their interests with the long-term interests of our stockholders. The program consists of both a cash component, designed to compensate independent directors for their service on the board and its committees, and an equity component, designed to align the interests of independent directors and stockholders. Mr. Lund has received no compensation for his service on the board since his appointment as an officer of the Company in May 2016.
The compensation of the Companys non-employee directors under the Director Compensation Program is reviewed on an annual basis by the Boards Committee on Directors and Governance (the Governance Committee) with competitive benchmarking provided periodically by an independent compensation consultant retained by the committee. In April 2017, the Governance Committee engaged Semler Brossy to conduct a competitive market analysis of Teradatas director compensation levels compared to the Companys peers, using Teradatas executive compensation peer group at the time. Following this process, the committee determined that the compensation levels were reasonable and within market median levels, and slightly increased the retainer fees for the chairs of the Boards standing committees, other than the Executive Committee.
Annual Retainers
The Director Compensation Program, for the 2017-2018 board year (the period between the Companys annual stockholders meetings), includes the following annual retainers:
Each non-employee director
|
$
|
50,000
|
| |
Additional retainers:
|
||||
The Chairman of the Board of Directors (Mr. Ringler)
|
$
|
100,000
|
| |
Each Audit Committee member (including the Chair)
|
$
|
5,000
|
| |
Governance Committee Chair
|
$
|
15,000
|
(1)
| |
Audit Committee Chair
|
$
|
35,000
|
(2)
| |
Compensation and Human Resource Committee Chair
|
$
|
25,000
|
(3)
|
(1) | Increased from $10,000 in 2017. |
(2) | Increased from $20,000 in 2017. |
(3) | Increased from $15,000 in 2017. |
Prior to January 1 of each year, a director may elect to receive all or a portion of his or her annual retainer in Teradata common stock instead of cash. In addition, a director may elect to defer receipt of shares of common stock payable in lieu of cash. Payments for deferred stock may be made only in shares of Teradata common stock.
Annual Equity Grant
The Director Compensation Program provides that, on the date of each annual meeting of stockholders, each non-employee director will be granted restricted share units (RSUs) and/or stock options to purchase a number of shares of Teradata common stock in an amount determined by the Governance Committee and approved by the board. For the 2017-2018 board year, each of the non-employee directors received an annual equity grant consisting of RSUs with a total dollar value of $250,000. The RSUs vest in four equal quarterly installments commencing three months after the grant date, and directors may elect to defer receipt of their vested shares.
Initial Equity Grant
The Director Compensation Program also provides that upon initial election to the board, each non-employee director will receive a grant of RSUs, with the same vesting schedule as the annual grant described above. Similar to the annual grant, a director may elect to defer receipt of the vested shares subject to the RSUs.
Messrs. Chou and Fishback were the only directors to receive an initial equity grant during 2017 in connection with their appointments to the board. In this regard, on February 22, 2017, Messrs. Chou and Fishback each received an initial equity grant of RSUs with a grant date fair value of $75,000 on the date of grant.
25 |
Director Compensation
Mid-Year Equity Grant
Under the Director Compensation Program, the board has the discretion, based on the recommendation of the Governance Committee, to grant mid-year equity grants in the form of stock options and/or awards of restricted shares or RSUs to directors who are newly elected to the board after the annual meeting of stockholders. Mid-year equity grants made in the form of RSUs have the same vesting schedule and deferral options as the annual grants described above. Option grants made in connection with a mid-year equity grant will be fully vested and exercisable on the first anniversary of the grant. Because they joined the board on January 31, 2017, the board exercised its discretion and awarded Messrs. Chou and Fishback mid-year RSU grants on February 22, 2017 with a grant date fair value of $62,500.
Benefits
We do not provide any retirement or other benefit programs for our directors.
2017 Director Compensation Table
The following table provides information on compensation paid to our non-employee directors in 2017.
NAME | FEES EARNED OR PAID IN CASH(1) ($) |
STOCK ($) |
OPTION ($) |
TOTAL ($) |
||||||||||||
James M. Ringler, Chairman
|
|
150,000
|
|
|
256,292
|
|
|
|
|
|
406,292
|
| ||||
Lisa R. Bacus
|
|
50,000
|
|
|
256,292
|
|
|
|
|
|
306,292
|
| ||||
Timothy C.K. Chou
|
|
53,750
|
|
|
398,534
|
|
|
|
|
|
452,284
|
| ||||
Nancy E. Cooper(4)
|
|
86,250
|
|
|
256,292
|
|
|
|
|
|
342,542
|
| ||||
Daniel R. Fishback
|
|
50,000
|
|
|
398,534
|
|
|
|
|
|
448,534
|
| ||||
Cary T. Fu
|
|
55,000
|
|
|
256,292
|
|
|
|
|
|
311,292
|
| ||||
Michael P. Gianoni
|
|
62,917
|
|
|
256,292
|
|
|
|
|
|
319,209
|
| ||||
David E. Kepler
|
|
55,000
|
|
|
256,292
|
|
|
|
|
|
311,292
|
| ||||
John G. Schwarz
|
|
72,500
|
|
|
256,292
|
|
|
|
|
|
328,792
|
| ||||
William S. Stavropoulos
|
|
50,833
|
|
|
256,292
|
|
|
|
|
|
307,125
|
|
(1) | Represents the annual cash retainers earned for 2017. |
(2) | This column shows the aggregate grant date fair value, as determined in accordance with Financial Accounting Standards Board Accounting Standards Codification Topic 718, Compensation Stock Compensation, of RSU awards, of deferred shares (also referred to as phantom shares) paid in lieu of cash annual retainers, and current shares paid in lieu of the cash annual retainers, in each case in 2017. See Note 5 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements contained in the Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2017 (our 2017 Annual Report) for an explanation of the assumptions we made in the valuation of these awards. The grant date fair value of the annual award that was granted on April 19, 2017 for the 2017-2018 board year is $31.32. |
The number of RSUs outstanding as of December 31, 2017 for each of the non-employee directors is 5,225 for each of Messrs. Chou and Fishback, and 4,092 for each of the other directors. |
(3) | There were no options granted to the non-employee directors for the 2017-2018 board year. The number of shares underlying each option award outstanding as of December 31, 2017 for each of the non-employee directors is as follows: Mr. Ringler, 35,185; Ms. Bacus, 0; Mr. Chou, 0; Ms. Cooper, 18,642; Mr. Fishback, 0; Mr. Fu, 29,312; Mr. Gianoni, 0; Mr. Kepler, 13,206; Mr. Schwarz, 9,423; and Mr. Stavropoulos, 20,702. |
(4) | As reported in the Companys Current Report on Form 8-K filed on August 23, 2017, Ms. Cooper resigned as a director of the Company effective as of December 31, 2017. |
26 | 2018 PROXY STATEMENT |
Director Compensation
Director Stock Ownership Guidelines
Under the boards Corporate Governance Guidelines, each director should hold stock valued at no less than ten times the amount of the $50,000 annual retainer paid to such director within five years after he or she is first elected to the Teradata Board of Directors. Stock or stock units beneficially owned by the director, for which beneficial ownership is not disclaimed, including stock or stock units held in a deferral account, should be taken into account. However, for this purpose, the board does not believe it appropriate to include stock options granted to directors by the Company. As of December 31, 2017, all of our directors are in compliance with these ownership guidelines.
In our filings with the SEC, information is sometimes incorporated by reference. This means that we are referring you to information that has previously been filed with the SEC and the information should be considered as part of the particular filing. As provided under SEC regulations, the following Board Compensation and Human Resource Committee Report on Executive Compensation and the Board Audit Committee Report contained in this proxy statement specifically are not incorporated by reference into any other filings with the SEC and shall not be deemed to be Soliciting Material under SEC rules. In addition, this proxy statement includes several website addresses. These website addresses are intended to provide inactive, textual references only. The information on these websites is not part of this proxy statement.
BOARD COMPENSATION AND HUMAN RESOURCE
COMMITTEE REPORT ON EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION
The Compensation and Human Resource Committee of the Board of Directors (the Committee) manages the Companys compensation programs on behalf of the Board of Directors. The Committee reviewed and discussed with the Companys management the Compensation Discussion and Analysis included in this proxy statement. In reliance on the review and discussions referred to above, the Committee recommended to the Board of Directors that the Compensation Discussion and Analysis be included in this proxy statement and incorporated by reference in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017.
Dated: February 20, 2018
The Compensation and Human Resource Committee:
John G. Schwarz, Chair
Lisa R. Bacus, Member
Daniel R. Fishback, Member
James M. Ringler, Member
27 |
COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
This Compensation Discussion and Analysis (this CD&A) describes the executive compensation program for 2017 established by the Compensation and Human Resource Committee (the Committee). Our named executive officers for 2017 include:
NAME |
POSITION | |
Victor Lund
|
President and Chief Executive Officer
| |
Mark Culhane
|
EVP and Chief Financial Officer (effective November 10, 2017)
| |
Oliver Ratzesberger
|
Chief Operating Officer
| |
Daniel Harrington
|
EVP, Customer Support and Services
| |
John Dinning
|
Former EVP and Chief Business Officer (prior to February 5, 2018)
| |
Stephen Scheppmann
|
Former EVP and Chief Financial Officer (prior to November 10, 2017)
|
Business Transformation Highlights and Key Compensation Decisions
| Teradata is in the midst of a strategic turnaround that impacted our 2017 reported financial results and is factored into our executive compensation program as described below. |
| In 2017, we structured our executive compensation program to be heavily weighted on performance-based compensation that was tied to our strategy annual cash incentives were designed to drive profitable growth and long-term equity awards were tied to key business, financial and operational measures that are critical to the execution of our transformation. No changes to base salaries were made for our named executive officers in 2017. |
| Our business model is changing with our new strategy as Teradata is shifting to more subscription-based offerings in which revenue is recognized over the multi-year life of the customer agreement rather than all upfront as has been the historical practice. Because subscription-based revenue provides a more predictable revenue stream over time, it provides longer-term benefits to the Company and our stockholders. As a result, growing subscription-based revenue is one of the key factors that investors use to measure our success, particularly as our reported revenue is negatively impacted in the near term. |
| Due to this shifting revenue stream and investments related to our transformation, the Companys reported financial performance has been negatively impacted, which was factored into our annual incentive plan revenue goals (for example, the 2017 revenue target was below reported 2016 results). We believe that the actual performance of the Company in 2017 is best measured by taking this revenue shift into consideration, and the 2017 annual incentive plan was designed taking into account our new business model to measure results on a perpetual equivalent value basis (see page 36 of this CD&A for more information on this calculation). When viewed on this basis, we succeeded in exceeding our revenue plan for the year and, consequently, our annual incentives were paid out at 111%. |
| The design of the long-term incentive opportunities for our executives is also consistent with the evolution of our business during the Companys transformation. The goals for the performance-based equity awards based on |
28 | 2018 PROXY STATEMENT |
Compensation Discussion and Analysis
2017 results included key strategic performance metrics, including an EPS goal that was consistent with our guidance to investors for the year, and we achieved better than expected earnings results in 2017. In addition, as explained below on page 40 of this CD&A, the Committee had the ability under the terms of these equity awards to pay out above target level, but it chose to reduce the total payout level to 100.3% rather than 110.3%. |
| For our current 2017-2018 long-term incentive program, 70% of the long-term incentive opportunity is based on cumulative achievement of 3-year financial goals tied to our strategic objective increasing subscription-based revenue. These goals represent significant improvements and growth from current levels, including double-digit compounded growth for the annual recurring revenue measure. |
| As explained in this CD&A, we believe Teradata has made significant progress transforming the business in 2017, and the compensation of our executives is consistent with this level of performance. In addition, the Committee has demonstrated its commitment to setting challenging performance goals under our executive compensation program that will drive our strategic direction for years to come. |
2017 Strategic and Financial Performance at a Glance
Teradata continued to make tremendous progress in transforming the Company by executing our strategic initiatives and delivering value to our stockholders, as evidenced by our stock price increasing more than 41% in 2017. Under the leadership of our President and CEO, Mr. Lund, we saw real traction with our strategy to provide customers with new purchasing and deployment options and enhanced opportunities to drive business outcomes with Teradata products, solutions and services. In addition, we exceeded our guidance to investors for the year with respect to revenue and earnings per share expectations. |
|
|
FOR THE YEAR
41.6% STOCK PRICE |
| ||
|
|
EXCEEDED REVENUE AND EPS GUIDANCE |
|
Our strategic shift to multiple purchase and deployment options for our customers led to more subscription-based licenses. As a result, revenue continued to be down somewhat in 2017 from the prior year on a constant currency basis, although revenue from subscription-based offerings was up for the year in line with our changing business model. Other highlights of our key strategic advancements during the year include the following:
|
|
|
We introduced Teradata Everywhere, which brings together our expanded offerings across cloud and on-premises with a flexible pricing and licensing model. Customers began adopting this offering through which they now can: |
ANALYZE ANYTHING with the addition of new These expanded |
DEPLOY ANYWHERE either on premises or in |
BUY ANY WAY through increased of-breed technology with new subscription |
MOVE ANYTIME which allows customers to move their software with Teradatas portable their businesses evolve.
|
29 |
Compensation Discussion and Analysis
Our tradition of technology innovation continued, as we enhanced and introduced: |
INTELLIFLEX our data analytics platform that
|
INTELLICLOUD our managed cloud offering that provides data and
analytics |
INTELLIBASE a revolutionary multipurpose |
|
|
|
We also realigned our consulting services organization to streamline our offerings to a more business outcome-led approach. |
|
|
|
We continued to recognize the benefits of our new go-to-market strategy of focusing on customers who represent the 500 largest analytical opportunities. |
During 2017, stockholders saw the benefits of our strategic initiatives
through financial and operating metric improvements and increased total
stockholder return. Key financial highlights for the year included:
30 | 2018 PROXY STATEMENT |
Compensation Discussion and Analysis
Stockholder Engagement and Compensation Program Enhancements
Teradata received strong support from our stockholders for our executive compensation program, with a 97% FAVORABLE SAY-ON-PAY VOTE at our 2017 annual meeting. The Committee views this exemplary result as confirmation that our compensation program is appropriately structured to support our ongoing business transformation.
We greatly value the input received from our stockholders and engage with them on a variety of mattersincluding strategy execution, executive compensation and corporate governanceas part of a year-round engagement process described below:
We reach out to largest investors to engage in discussions regarding issues that are important to them and to seek their input on executive compensation and corporate governance matters. Our outreach team includes Investor Relations, Executive Compensation and Corporate Governance representatives from Teradatas management team, including the Chief Human Resources Officer and, if requested, the independent Chair of the Committee. | As we prepare for the proxy season, we consider investor feedback and perspectives in evaluating and structuring our executive compensation program and preparing proxy statement disclosures. | After proxy materials are filed, we invite our largest investors to discuss proposals to be considered at the next annual meeting of stockholders. As outlined on page 20 of this proxy statement, there are also a number of established channels that any investor may use to communicate with the Company. |
As part of the proxy solicitation process and following our 2017 annual meeting, we continued our practice of soliciting input from our largest 25 institutional investors, representing over 82% of our outstanding shares, and answering their questions regarding a variety of topics of interest to them, such as the design of our executive compensation program, board diversity and corporate governance best practices, and the execution of our business transformation strategy.
The feedback we received from investors through this engagement process was generally quite positive. During these discussions, some common themes emerged with respect to our executive compensation program and disclosures, all of which were consistent with what was under consideration by the committee based on managements recommendations. Importantly, as described in the chart below, we continued to make key enhancements to our executive compensation program that strengthen the link to our business strategy and the long-term interests of our stockholders.
31 |
Compensation Discussion and Analysis
AREA OF FOCUS |
WHAT WE HEARD | WHAT WE DID | ||||
Program Design | Investors believe that the primary elements and core design features of our executive compensation program are solid, and they strongly support heavy weighting of performance-based awards in our long-term incentive program. | Continued our firm commitment to pay for performance by allocating 70% of the long-term incentive opportunity to performance-based share unit awards. | ||||
|
Rounded out our long-term incentive program with a time-based restricted share unit award opportunity, providing a retention incentive for the executive talent we need to complete the execution of our business transformation. | |||||
Performance Metrics | Investors favor an executive compensation program that demonstrates a clear linkage between the Companys strategy and the programs financial performance goals and generally support moving away from a total shareholder return performance metric. | Granted performance-based share unit awards subject to two key financial metrics that are strongly linked to our long-term business strategy: ARR growth and subscription-based bookings. | ||||
|
Included detailed CD&A disclosures regarding how the design of our executive compensation program aligns with the Companys ongoing business transformation goals. | |||||
|
Discontinued use of non-financial strategic goals to measure performance under the annual bonus program and operational goals under the long-term incentive program. | |||||
Performance Periods | Several investors expressed a general preference for 3-year performance periods rather than 1-year performance periods for long-term incentive awards. | Granted performance-based share unit awards that will be earned based on achievement of cumulative financial performance metrics measured over a 3-year period. | ||||
Peer Group | Some investors sought confirmation that the Companys executive compensation peer group is reviewed regularly and includes peers that reasonably reflect companies of similar size and strategic direction as Teradata. | Continued to conduct the Committees annual review of our peer group with input from management and its independent compensation consultant. | ||||
|
Refreshed the criteria and composition of our peer group to better reflect our size and strategic direction. | |||||
Disclosure | Investors appreciate the strong narrative presented in our executive compensation disclosures, but encouraged us to consider using more graphic elements to illustrate the progress of our business transformation and the changes to our executive compensation program.
|
Redesigned the entire proxy statement to improve readability by including infographics and more tables, among other things. | ||||
|
Expanded the executive summary section of this CD&A.
|
32 | 2018 PROXY STATEMENT |
Compensation Discussion and Analysis
The changes made to our long-term incentive program in 2017 were implemented with the goal of positioning the Company as a market leader in the analytics and software-as-a-service industry with a portfolio of subscription and cloud-based offerings. With this goal in mind, the Committee focused on performance metrics that create strong incentives for management to accelerate our strategy and increase long-term stockholder value. As explained below in Section 3 of this CD&A, the Committee believes that the following metrics drive value and are aligned with stockholder interests:
|
|
|
ARR growth, which is a measure that stockholders use to determine the extent to which we are shifting to a more predictable business model that will ultimately drive revenue growth over time; and |
|
|
|
Percent of total contract value for subscription-based bookings compared to total contract value for subscription-based and perpetual license bookings, which demonstrates to investors that we are executing our strategy by growing a more reliable and profitable revenue stream that will benefit the Company and stockholders for years to come. |
Pay-For-Performance Commitment
Teradata is committed to rewarding talent that drives our organizational success. As part of our business transformation in 2017, we emphasized a culture of high performance, and our talent and rewards strategies centered on incentive programs that provided rewards based on meaningful demonstrations of business achievements and performance contributions to the Company. Moving forward, we will continue to drive this philosophy in all of our talent and rewards programs throughout the organization.
The Committee has designed the compensation program for our named executive officers to reflect the importance placed on Company and business achievement in a high performing culture. To that end, our core compensation program is closely aligned with Company performance and consists of base salary, annual incentives and long-term equity incentives. As illustrated below, in 2017, approximately 90% of the target total direct compensation for our CEO, Mr. Lund, and 81% for the other named executive officers serving at the end of the fiscal year (i.e., Messrs. Culhane, Ratzesberger, Harrington, and Dinning), was performance-based.
33 |
SECTION 2: COMPENSATION PHILOSOPHY
AND GOVERNANCE
Our executive compensation program is designed to attract, retain and align our business leaders with our goals to drive financial and strategic growth, while also delivering long-term stockholder value. Like our business, these programs must be dynamic and adjusted regularly to align with our intensely competitive and changing business, particularly as the Company is undergoing a strategic transformation. Underlying this evolving structure, all of our compensation programs promote sound governance and balance, driving results with mitigating risks. To that end, the Committee has implemented governance best practices to reduce compensation risks and to align compensation with industry norms and stockholder interests. See Section 6 of this CD&A for more details regarding some of these key policies and practices.
What We Do
ESTABLISH COMPETITIVE COMPENSATION LEVELS for our named executive officers within the technology industry |
MAINTAIN A DOUBLE TRIGGER for change in control severance benefits and equity award vesting |
MINIMIZE COMPENSATION RISKS by periodically reviewing our compensation program to confirm that our compensation policies and practices are not encouraging excessive or inappropriate risk-taking
|
IMPOSE STOCK OWNERSHIP GUIDELINES in line with stockholder interests requiring robust ownership levels for executive officers | |||||||||
MAINTAIN A CLAWBACK AND HARMFUL ACTIVITY POLICIES so that we can recover cash or equity incentive compensation based on financial results that were later restated and can cancel outstanding equity awards and recover realized gains if executives are terminated for cause or engage in certain other harmful activity
|
RETAIN AN INDEPENDENT COMPENSATION CONSULTANT to provide expert objective, third-party advice regarding executive pay programs and competitive market practices |
ANNUAL ADVISORY VOTE ON EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION to give investors the opportunity to express their views on pay on a regular basis |
REVIEW OVERHANG LEVELS AND BURN RATES to confirm that they are consistent with industry norms |
What We Dont Do
No Excise Tax Gross-Ups |
No Hedging or Pledging of Company Stock
|
No Repricing of Stock Options Without Stockholder Approval |
34 | 2018 PROXY STATEMENT |
SECTION 3: CORE COMPENSATION PROGRAM
Summary of 2017 Compensation Decisions
Mr. Lund
The Committee believes that Mr. Lund has been an exceptional leader driving change and execution during the Companys business transformation, and our results demonstrate it. As noted above, Teradatas 2017 year-end stock price increased more than 57% since the time he began as CEO in May 2016. Moreover, Mr. Lund has injected new leadership and direction to the Company, with all but one of the current executive leadership positions being held by different individuals than when he started as CEO. Even more importantly, Mr. Lund has exponentially recharged the culture and spirit of Teradatas entire workforce through his dynamic leadership style and commitment to inspiring employees to achieve exceptional outcomes. He also focuses tremendous energy on our customers and meets with them frequently to ensure that our strategy and new offerings are resonating and meeting their business needs.
As described in more detail below, while Mr. Lunds 2017 base salary and target annual incentive opportunity did not change, in recognition of his exceptional performance and his value to the Company as a seasoned leader who delivers on his commitments, the Committee slightly increased the total value of his long-term equity award. Given our CEOs strong performance and capabilities, coupled with the Committees desire to continue incenting him to drive the strategic course of the Company through the business transformation, the Committee positioned his total compensation level above market median for our peer group with heavy weighting on performance-based incentives.
Other Named Executive Officers
The following is a brief summary of each element of our core compensation program for our named executive officers as of December 31, 2017.
Base Salary
We provide a base salary to retain and attract key executive talent and to align our compensation with market practices. Base salaries are reviewed and established by the Committee on a competitive basis each year to ensure they are appropriate and consistent with market median levels and were not changed for our named executive officers in 2017. Mr. Culhanes base salary was negotiated at the time he joined the Company as our EVP and CFO based on competitive market data, taking into consideration his relative degree of experience and new hire incentive considerations.
Annual Bonus Awards
All of our named executive officers participated in our 2017 annual bonus program. The 2017 target incentive opportunities of Messrs. Lund, Ratzesberger, Harrington, Dinning, and Scheppmann remained unchanged from 2016, and are set out in the table below. Mr. Culhanes target annual incentive opportunity for 2017 was equal to 100% of his annual base salary on a prorated basis. The maximum payout opportunity under our 2017 annual bonus program was capped at 200% of the executives target annual incentive opportunity.
NAME |
TARGET OPPORTUNITY (AS % OF BASE SALARY) | ||||
Victor Lund |
125 | % | |||
Mark Culhane |
100 | % | |||
Oliver Ratzesberger |
100 | % | |||
Daniel Harrington |
100 | % | |||
John Dinning |
80 | % | |||
Stephen Scheppmann |
100 | % |
Total payouts under the 2017 annual bonus program are generally determined by our achievement of performance objectives based on two equally weighted financial measures: (i) GAAP revenue, and (ii) non-GAAP operating income (GAAP operating income excluding stock-based compensation expense and other special items identified in our earnings releases for 2017 or in our financial statements or notes to financial statements), determined on a perpetual equivalent value non-GAAP basis with pre-specified adjustments approved by the Committee, as described below. Note that the Committee discontinued the use of strategic goals to measure performance under the 2017 annual bonus program, which had been the prior practice and not universally favored by stockholders.
MEASURE | WEIGHT | BUSINESS OBJECTIVE | ||||
GAAP Revenue |
50 | % | Reward our executives for achievement of revenue objectives | |||
Non-GAAP Operating Income |
50 | % | Incent our executives to deliver attractive contribution margins and stockholder value |
35 |
Section 3: Core Compensation Program
Perpetual Equivalent Value Rationale and Calculation | ||||
When establishing the performance objectives under our 2017 annual bonus program in February 2017, the Committee formulated
the targets for the financial measures on the Companys guidance to investors with respect to its projected revenue and operating income plan for the year. In addition, as explained below, the financial goals based on these measures
were established on a perpetual equivalent value basis to account for the Companys shift to subscription-based license revenue from upfront revenue based on perpetual licenses. As a result of our changing business model,
the target levels of revenue and non-GAAP operating income were set somewhat below 2016 actual results. Nevertheless, the Committee believes that the goals set for 2017 were appropriately in line with guidance
provided to investors for the year and are rigorous because they take into account the impact of the Companys business transformationespecially (i) the shift from perpetual to subscription-based pricing, in which revenue is
recognized over the multi-year life of the customer agreement rather than upfront, and (ii) the Companys significant investments in 2017 in support of our ongoing strategic technology development and go-to-market efforts, which investments were expected to impact operating income for 2017.
| ||||
Perpetual Equivalent
Value represents the estimated value the Company would have recognized as revenue if the customer had purchased subscription licenses, rental or cloud under historical purchasing practices (i.e., under
perpetual license purchasing options) and is calculated as follows:
The value is based only on new incremental contracts with a minimum 1-year commitment that were executed during 2017.
For software subscription license and rental agreements, we applied the calculated discount for each transaction to the perpetual list prices for software and hardware.
For cloud offerings, we applied the calculated discount for the transaction to the perpetual list prices for such orders.*
For all transactions, we excluded maintenance, software upgrades and recognized revenue in 2017.
In all instances, the perpetual equivalent value could not exceed the contract value of the applicable transaction.
* For external reporting purposes in our 2017 periodic reports, we applied a more conservative approach in calculating the Perpetual Equivalent Basis in that we only applied this methodology for software sold in connection with cloud transactions and excluded the value of any charges for hosting, infrastructure and support services from the total value of our cloud offerings. As a result, our executives were incented to drive total revenue in connection with cloud transactions.
|
When establishing the performance objectives under the 2017 annual bonus plan in February 2017, the Committee also approved the use of the following adjustments to the revenue and operating income financial metrics and results: (i) the specified financial metrics would automatically increase to take into consideration the contributions of any significant acquisition transaction; (ii) the financial results would be adjusted to exclude the impact of foreign currency exchange rates from pre-established 2017 plan levels; and (iii) the financial results would be adjusted to exclude the cumulative effect of changes in federal accounting standards/GAAP.
36 | 2018 PROXY STATEMENT |
Section 3: Core Compensation Program
Financial Measures
The following chart sets forth the GAAP revenue and non-GAAP operating income targets for 2017 and the related achievement levels on a perpetual equivalent value basis and the application of other adjustments described above.
FINANCIAL MEASURE (IN MILLIONS) |
0% (THRESHOLD) |
100% (TARGET) |
200% (MAXIMUM) |
ACTUAL PERFORMANCE(1)(2) |
ACHIEVEMENT LEVEL |
|||||||||||||||
GAAP Revenue(1) |
$ | 2,195 | $ | 2,307 | $ | 2,664 | $ | 2,364 | 116 | % | ||||||||||
Non-GAAP Operating Income(1) |
$ | 353 | $ | 379 | $ | 621 | $ | 393 | 106 | % | ||||||||||
Total |
111 | % |
(1) | The performance goals for the financial measures were established on a perpetual equivalent basis. Likewise, the actual performance of GAAP revenue and non-GAAP operating income was determined by the Committee on a perpetual equivalent value basis, which resulted in a $255 million adjustment to actual GAAP revenue and a $164 million adjustment to non-GAAP operating income. |
(2) | When it established the performance goals, the Committee authorized an adjustment to actual performance to exclude the impact of foreign currency exchange rates from pre-established plan rate levels, which resulted in a $47 million adjustment to actual non-GAAP operating income results on a perpetual equivalent basis. |
Payouts of Annual Bonuses
Each of the named executive officers was entitled to a payout under our 2017 annual bonus program equal to 111% of his target annual incentive opportunity, which reflected a 111% achievement level for the financial measures, although the 2017 annual bonus payments to each of Messrs. Culhane and Scheppmann were prorated to reflect their respective period of service during 2017 as EVP and CFO. The 2017 annual bonus payment amounts are set forth in the Non-Equity Incentive Plan Compensation column of the Summary Compensation Table of this proxy statement on page 48. For more information on the 2017 annual bonus program for our named executive officers, please refer to the Grants of Plan-Based Awards section on page 50 of this proxy statement.
Long-Term Incentives (Equity Awards)
The total direct compensation levels for our named executive officers are heavily weighted to long-term incentive opportunities, which vest over a period of three years. This structure is intended to align executives interests with those of our stockholders, enhance our retention incentives and focus our executives on delivering sustainable performance over the longer-term.
Annual Grants (2017-2018 award cycle)
Our executives are generally awarded annual equity grants at the end of each year, including performance-based restricted share unit awards that are based on performance periods that commence at the start of the following fiscal year. As described under the heading 2017 Target Compensation on page 49 of this proxy statement, the performance-based restricted share unit awards approved by the Committee on November 27, 2017, as part of our 2017-2018 long-term incentive program are treated for financial accounting purposes as granted in February 2018, when the Committee established performance goals for those awards. As a result, those performance-based restricted share unit awards are not reported in the 2017 Summary Compensation Table or Grants of Plan-Based Awards Table, and will instead be reported in those tables in next years proxy statement, as awards granted during 2018.
When the Committee established the long-term incentive opportunities for our current named executive officers as part of our 2017-2018 annual award cycle (awards approved in 2017 that include performance-based awards with performance periods starting January 1, 2018), it considered a number of factors. As noted above, the Committee increased Mr. Lunds long-term incentive opportunity slightly (approximately 1%) over his target opportunity for the 2016-2017 award cycle. Mr. Culhanes target 2017-2018 long-term incentive award opportunity was negotiated at the time of his hire as our EVP and CFO based on competitive market data, taking into consideration his significant experience and new hire incentive considerations. In light of the changing scope and impact of certain executives responsibilities, the Committee made the following changes to the 2017-2018 long-term incentive opportunities for some of our named executive officers: (i) to reflect his performance and strategic importance to the Company, Mr. Ratzesbergers opportunity was increased by approximately 24% over the prior year taking into account competitive market data for executives at the chief operating officer level; and (ii) the opportunities of Messrs. Harrington and Dinning declined. Mr. Scheppmann was not granted a long-term incentive opportunity for the 2017-2018 award cycle because he is on medical leave.
37 |
Section 3: Core Compensation Program
The target 2017-2018 long-term incentive opportunities approved by the Committee for our current named executive officers are set out in the table below.
NAME | 2017-2018 LONG-TERM INCENTIVE OPPORTUNITY |
|||
Victor Lund |
$ | 8,500,000 | ||
Mark Culhane |
$ | 3,000,000 | ||
Oliver Ratzesberger |
$ | 2,800,000 | ||
Daniel Harrington |
$ | 1,750,000 | ||
John Dinning |
$ | 1,350,000 | * |
* | As noted below in Section 5 of this CD&A, Mr. Dinnings equity award was forfeited when he left the Company in February 2018. |
The Committee decided to allocate the 2017-2018 long-term incentive award opportunity 70% to performance-based restricted share units (RSUs) and 30% to time-based RSUs. The following table describes each of the awards used in the 2017-2018 long-term incentive program, along with its weighting and the rationale for its use.
EQUITY AWARD AND DESCRIPTION AND RATIONALE (2017-2018 AWARD CYCLE) |
WEIGHT | |||
Performance-Based RSUs | 70 | % | ||
Annual Recurring Revenue (ARR) Growth: 35% of the target long-term incentive award opportunity will be earned based on the achievement of cumulative double-digit ARR growth over a 3-year performance period.
ARR growth is a key strategic lever for our future business because it represents the extent to which our customers purchase Teradata products and services on a subscription basis which leads to a more predictable revenue stream over the longer-term.
ARR is a standard market measure used by stockholders to gauge the performance of software companies.
|
||||
Percent of Total Contract Value for Subscription-Based Bookings versus Total Bookings: 35% of the target long-term incentive award opportunity will be earned based on the achievement of cumulative annual goals regarding annual total contract value for subscription-based bookings over a 3-year performance period (with annual goals set in the first quarter of each year during the performance period).
This measure is a key element of our strategy and is highly valued by our investors because it demonstrates that we are shifting to a more predictable revenue stream with respect to our core business for the longer-term.
Because it provides more predictability regarding our future financial performance, investors generally value subscription-based revenue at a higher multiple than perpetual license revenue.
|
||||
Time-Based RSUs
|
30 | % | ||
Retention of Key Executives During Implementation of Business Transformation:
The time-based RSUs provide our current named executive officers with the opportunity to receive shares of our common stock if they remain employed by us for a 3-year period and are intended to help retain executives who are important to the successful implementation of our business transformation.
The 30% weighting of time-based RSUs is aligned with peer practices and the 3-year cliff vesting schedule is designed to create meaningful retention incentives.
We received positive feedback from our stockholders regarding the allocation of 30% of the long-term incentive opportunity to time-based RSUs to create a more retentive and balanced executive compensation program.
(For more information on the 2017-2018 time-based restricted share unit awards for our named executive officers, please refer to the Grants of Plan-Based Awards section on page 50 of this proxy statement.)
|
38 | 2018 PROXY STATEMENT |
Section 3: Core Compensation Program
Payout of 2016-2017 Performance-Based Restricted Share Units
As part of our annual 2016-2017 long-term incentive award cycle, we granted performance-based RSUs to our named executive officers (other than Mr. Culhane, who was not employed by the Company at that time), providing them with the opportunity to earn share units based on the extent to which specified performance objectives were achieved.
EQUITY AWARD AND DESCRIPTION AND RATIONALE (2016-2017 AWARD CYCLE) |
Performance-based RSUs
63% of the total award opportunity consisted of performance-based RSUs based on the 2017 performance period (the 2017 performance-based RSUs).
Half of these performance-based RSUs were based on three equally-weighted financial metrics and the other half were based on operational performance metrics in five key objective areas relating to our business transformation.
The payout opportunity for the portion of the award allocated to financial metrics ranged from 25% to 200% of the applicable number of share units; although no payout for financial goals could have been earned if performance was below the threshold level.
The payout opportunity for the portion of the award allocated to operational metrics ranged from 0% to 125% of the applicable number of share units.
Relative TSR Performance-based RSUs
37% of the total award opportunity consisted of performance-based RSUs based on our total stockholder return (TSR) relative to the other companies in the S&P 1500 Technology Index for the 3-year period ending December 31, 2019.
The payout opportunity for these performance-based RSUs ranges from 50% to 200% of the applicable number of share units. |
Achievement of Financial Metrics for 2017 Performance-Based RSUs
The financial metrics for the 2017 performance-based RSUs were based on: (i) TCore consumption growth and profitability, a metric that tracks growth in the consumption of Teradata software by our customers, which can be calculated for all deployment options and is critical to our long-term success, and was subject to a minimum gross margin threshold; (ii) the revenue growth of our consulting services business; and (iii) non-GAAP EPS calculated on a perpetual equivalent value basis as described above. Non-GAAP EPS was defined as earnings per share excluding stock-based compensation expense and any other special items identified in the Companys earnings releases for 2017. The non-GAAP EPS target for 2017 was consistent with the guidance given to investors for the year, and the Committee believes that the goal appropriately took into account the expected impact in 2017 of the Companys continuing shift from perpetual to subscription-based license revenue and our commitment to make significant investments in 2017 in support of our ongoing strategic technology development and go-to-market efforts.
When establishing the financial metrics for the 2017 performance-based RSUs in February 2017, the Committee determined that non-GAAP EPS performance would be determined on a perpetual equivalent value basis and further approved the adjustment of financial results to exclude: (i) the impact of foreign currency exchange rates from pre-established 2017 plan levels; (ii) the cumulative effect of changes in federal accounting standards/GAAP; (iii) the cumulative effect of any changes in applicable tax laws resulting in a discrete item of tax expense or benefit during 2017; and (iv) the effect of share repurchases that exceed or fall below the pre-established 2017 plan levels.
39 |
Section 3: Core Compensation Program
The following chart sets forth the financial metric targets for the 2017 performance-based RSUs and related achievement level after the application of the applicable adjustments described above.
PERFORMANCE GOAL | 25% (THRESHOLD) |
100% (TARGET) |
200% (MAXIMUM) |
ACTUAL PERFORMANCE |
ACHIEVEMENT LEVEL |
|||||||||||||||
TCore Consumption Growth and Profitability |
18,800 | 22,000 | 26,300 | 21,271 | 88 | % | ||||||||||||||
Consulting Revenue Growth |
2 | % | 20 | % | 60 | % | 24 | % | 111 | % | ||||||||||
Non-GAAP EPS |
$ | 1.97 | $ | 2.08 | $ | 3.44 | $ | 2.13 | (1) | 104 | % | |||||||||
Total |
100.6 | % |
(1) | Non-GAAP EPS results for 2017 were calculated on a perpetual equivalent value basis and assuming that there were 131.5 million weighted shares outstanding as of December 31, 2017, to avoid any distortions due to share repurchases being above or below 2017 plan levels, and were further adjusted by $0.09 per share to reflect the impact of foreign currency exchange rates relative to pre-established rates. |
Achievement of Operational Metrics
The operational metrics applicable to 50% of the target number of the 2017 performance-based RSUs consisted of important business transformation goals in five equally weighted key objective areas: (i) establishment of new pricing; (ii) completion of key account market analysis; (iii) implementation of Teradata Everywhere; (iv) deployment of our services IP repository; and (v) development of a new sales incentive plan for 2018. The Committee believed that these operational objectives were essential for the execution of our transformation and that management needed to be keenly focused on achieving them under a schedule tied to our operating plan for the year. Each of these goals represent meaningful building blocks for Teradatas strategy and future success.
A payout level was determined separately for each of the five equally weighted key objective areas, with no payout for performance below the threshold level, and a payout ranging from 75% to 125% for performance between threshold and maximum levels. To earn the threshold 75% payout level for a key objective area, at least 75% of the specific performance metrics for that area must have been met by the applicable deadlines. To earn the target 100% payout level for a key objective area, 100% of the specific performance metrics for that area must have been met by the applicable deadlines. To earn the maximum 125% payout level for a key objective area, 100% of the specific performance metrics for that area must have been met and at least two of those performance metrics must have been completed ahead of schedule.
The table below describes the operational metrics that were established by the Committee with respect to the 2017 performance-based RSUs and the level of achievement of those metrics. In making its objective determination of performance of these performance metrics, the Committee determined that all of the operational goals were completed on time or early during the year. As a result, under the pre-established formula for determining the achievement level of these awards, the calculated payout ranged from 100 to 120%. However, the Committee determined that a target level payout was more appropriate from a pay-for-performance perspective, elected not to pay above target, and reduced the payout level by setting it at the lower end of the prescribed range which is 100%.
40 | 2018 PROXY STATEMENT |
Section 3: Core Compensation Program
ACHIEVEMENT OF OPERATIONAL METRICS
Completed Early | ||||
|
Completed On Time |
KEY OBJECTIVE AREAS |
OPERATIONAL PERFORMANCE METRICS | RESULTS | ||
Establishment of New Pricing |
New strategy and policy completed, documented and approved, including for key new offerings | |||
Developed and implemented new training and field pricing tools |
| |||
Completed pricing assessment and recommendations for 2018 adjustments |
| |||
Teradata Everywhere |
Teradata Managed Cloud services on IntelliFlex 1.1, IntelliBase 1.0 and AWS available for sale to customers | |||
IntelliFlex 1.1 and IntelliBase 1.0 available for sale to customers |
| |||
IntelliFlex 2.0 available for sale to customers |
| |||
Teradata 16.10 available for sale to customers |
| |||
Developed integrated service management model for cloud |
| |||
Key Account Market Analysis |
Completed 2018 go-to-market planning and reporting | |||
Completed planning for account resourcing and development of prospect list for 2018 |
| |||
Services Intellectual Property Repository |
IP repository available for all services teams with documented process and training | |||
Developed and enhanced business value frameworks covering specified industries with specified increase in use of assets | ||||
Systematic tracking of assets re-used in engagements |
| |||
Use of consulting-developed assets in specified number of projects |
| |||
2018 Sales Incentive Plan |
Updated consultant compensation model to support intellectual property capture and reuse | |||
Analysis of 2017 compensation model criteria and performance used to develop 2018 compensation model design | ||||
Developed new 2018 sales compensation plan based on cross-functional team input, with appropriate incentives to support performance beyond targeted objectives | ||||
2018 sales compensation plan completed, approved and communicated to sales team |
|
Based on actual performance results described above, our named executive officers (other than Mr. Culhane) earned a payout equal to 100.3% of their target 2017 performance-based RSUs. The units earned by our current named executive officers generally vest one-third on the date the Committee certified performance results, one-third on the first anniversary of the certification date, and the remaining third on the second anniversary of the certification date, subject to continued employment with Teradata and other standard terms and conditions. However, as noted in Section 5 of this CD&A, the 2017 performance-based RSUs earned by Mr. Dinning vested in full upon his departure from the Company in February 2018. Also, pursuant to the terms of his award agreement, the number of 2017 performance-based RSUs earned by Mr. Lund are fully vested effective as of December 31, 2017, but payment of his 2017 performance-based RSUs generally is deferred until the vesting dates applicable to the 2017 performance-based RSU awards held by our other current named executive officers.
41 |
SECTION 4: COMPENSATION CONSULTANT AND
PEER GROUP
Compensation Consultant
Until July 2017, the Committee retained Semler Brossy Consulting Group, LLC (Semler Brossy) to assist in developing and reviewing our executive compensation strategy and program. In August 2017, the Committee directly retained Frederic W. Cook & Co., Inc. (FW Cook) to replace Semler Brossy as the Committees independent compensation consultant, reporting directly to the Committee and serving at the sole discretion of the Committee. Neither consulting firm performed (or performs) any other services for the Company, other than advising the Board of Directors on its director compensation program. The Committee has assessed the independence of Semler Brossy pursuant to SEC rules and NYSE listing standards, and prior to engaging FW Cook, the Committee assessed FW Cooks independence pursuant to those same rules and standards, and in each case the Committee concluded that there was no conflict of interest that would prevent the consulting firm from independently advising the Committee.
During their respective engagements, Semler Brossy and FW Cook each has provided information to the Committee regarding the target market compensation levels, pay mix, and overall design for the components of total direct compensation based on the pay practices of companies in our executive compensation peer group, as established by the Committee.
Compensation Peer Group
The Committee examines the Companys peer group on an annual basis, with input from management and its independent compensation consultant. When establishing base salary and annual incentive levels in early 2017, the Committee took into account compensation paid by the members of the following compensation peer group (consisting of companies that generally: (i) are software focused or storage focused with a software component; (ii) have revenues of between one-third to three times our size; (iii) are publicly traded in the United States; (iv) sell predominately to businesses (i.e., business-to-business); and (v) conduct business globally): |
COMPENSATION PEER GROUP (UNTIL SEPTEMBER 18, 2017)
Adobe Systems Incorporated
Akamai Technologies, Inc.
Autodesk, Inc.
CA, Inc.
Citrix Systems, Inc.
Cadence Design Systems
NetApp, Inc.
Open Text Corporation
Red Hat, Inc.
Salesforce.com, Inc.
Symantec Corporation
Synopsys, Inc.
Unisys, Inc.
|
Following the engagement of FW Cook, the Committee reviewed the Companys compensation peer group and made several changes, effective September 19, 2017. With input from FW Cook, the Committee selected an updated compensation peer group consisting of companies that generally (i) have revenues of between one-third to three times our size; (ii) have a market capitalization of between one-third to six times our size; (iii) are U.S.-based (or Canada-based with a U.S.-style pay model and disclosure); and (iv) are in the software, internet software and services, or IT consulting industries. After evaluating potential peer companies that meet the above criteria, the Committee established the following updated peer group that it believes includes a group of companies who better represent Teradatas strategic direction as a software-as-a-service business. The chart also compares our revenue with the revenues of our updated peer group, all of whom are technology-focused businesses with whom we compete for talent.
42 | 2018 PROXY STATEMENT |
Section 4: Compensation Consultant and Peer Group
Peer Group v. Teradata
COMPANY | REVENUE | APPROX. # OF EMPLOYEES | ||
|
$869 M | 3,257 | ||
|
$915 M | 3,445 | ||
|
$1,074 M | 2,800 | ||
|
$1,384 M | 4,665 | ||
|
$1,632 M | 4,500 | ||
|
$1,871 M | 7,094 | ||
|
$1,913 M | 6,500 | ||
|
$1,956 M | 9,000 | ||
|
$1,980 M | 13,500 | ||
|
$2,182 M | 10,615 | ||
|
$2,291 M | 14,467 | ||
|
$2,418 M | 6,200 | ||
|
$2,521 M | 10,700 | ||
|
$2,662 M | 10,362 | ||
|
$2,746 M | 15,000 | ||
|
$3,441 M | 8,071 | ||
|
$3,485 M | 9,000 | ||
|
$4,062 M | 11,500 | ||
|
$4,143 M | 10,000 | ||
|
$4,310 M | 11,000 | ||
|
$4,686 M | 11,500 | ||
|
$5,550 M | 10,700 |
For purposes of analyzing the pay levels of our peers, the Committees review encompassed two views of the market data: one including all of the peer group members and one excluding the two largest peer companies by revenue (VMware and Salesforce.com). The chart above compares our revenue with the revenues of our peer group for the last completed fiscal year. The Committee also reviewed competitive market data provided by FW Cook in connection with the hiring of Mr. Culhane as our CFO.
43 |
SECTION 5: SEVERANCE AND CHANGE IN CONTROL BENEFITS
Severance Agreements
We generally do not maintain employment agreements with any of our named executive officers. However, we entered into an offer letter with Mr. Dinning at the time of his promotion to Vice President, Product Marketing & Management, in December 2011, pursuant to which we were obligated to provide Mr. Dinning with mortgage subsidy payments over a five-year period that ended in 2017. As previously disclosed, the position of Executive Vice President and Chief Business Officer was eliminated effective February 5, 2018, and Mr. Dinning ceased to be an executive officer of the Company on that date, although he agreed to remain as an employee of the Company through February 28, 2018, to assist with the transition of his roles and responsibilities.
In connection with his departure from the Company, Mr. Dinning received severance benefits under the Teradata Executive Severance Plan, as described below. In addition, as agreed with Mr. Dinning in connection with his departure (and in lieu of the treatment of equity awards otherwise provided under the Executive Severance Plan): (i) all of his outstanding stock options vested as of his termination date and will be exercisable until the earlier of 59 days after such date or the expiration of the applicable option; (ii) all of his restricted share units (other than the restricted share units granted to him on November 27, 2017) vested, without pro-ration, as of his termination date; (iii) all of his performance-based RSUs (other than the performance-based RSUs granted to him on November 27, 2017) vested (or will become vested), without pro-ration, to the extent they are earned based on actual Company performance for the entire performance period; and (iv) the time-based RSUs and performance-based RSUs granted to Mr. Dinning on November 27, 2017 were forfeited and terminated upon his departure.
Effective as of November 9, 2017, Mr. Scheppmann stepped down from his role as EVP and CFO and went on medical leave under Teradatas short-term disability plan. No special compensatory arrangements were made with Mr. Scheppmann because of the change in his position with the Company.
We agreed to certain basic terms of Mr. Culhanes employment at the time he was hired to succeed Mr. Scheppmann as EVP and CFO, including his initial base salary and annual and long-term incentive opportunity levels and his entitlement to an allowance of up to $5,000 per month to cover the costs of his commuting expenses to Teradatas office in San Diego, California.
Change in Control Severance Plan
Each of our named executive officers other than Mr. Lund participates in the Teradata Change in Control Severance Plan (the CIC Plan), the objectives and provisions of which are summarized below:
Business Objectives |
Increased Retention Incentives. The CIC Plan enhances our retention incentives by reducing the personal uncertainty that arises from the possibility of a future business combination and promotes objectivity in the evaluation of transactions that are in the best interests of our stockholders.
Alignment with Market Practices. Based on information provided by the Committees independent compensation consultant, change in control severance arrangements are used by a vast majority of the companies included in our compensation peer group, and the terms of our CIC Plan are consistent with prevailing market practices. | |
Severance Provisions |
Severance Protections on Double Trigger. The CIC Plan provides for separation payments and benefits to our named executive officers (other than Mr. Lund), which are reviewed annually by the Committee. The CIC Plan provides benefits on a double trigger, meaning that the severance benefits are paid, and equity awards vest, if our executives incur a qualifying termination in connection with a change in control. The threshold for an acquisition of Teradata stock that would constitute a change in control is an acquisition of 50% or more of the Companys outstanding common stock or voting securities.
No Excise Tax Gross Ups. The CIC Plan does not allow for gross-up payments related to excise taxes that may be imposed under Section 280G of the Internal Revenue Code.
|
44 | 2018 PROXY STATEMENT |
Section 5: Severance and Change in Control Benefits
Executive Severance Plan
Effective February 1, 2017, the Committee approved the Teradata Executive Severance Plan (the Executive Severance Plan), in which each of our named executive officers other than Mr. Lund is a participant. This plan was adopted to promote retention incentives for our executives by establishing severance protections for participants that are consistent with both market levels and Teradatas past practices, while eliminating the need to negotiate individual severance agreements in connection with an executives termination or at the time of hire.
For our participating named executive officers, the Executive Severance Plan provides severance protections, as described below, in the event of termination of employment by the Company without cause (and not because of the participants disability or death) prior to (and not in connection with) a change in control of the Company. As described above, each of our named executive officers other than Mr. Lund participates in the CIC Plan, and in the event of a termination of employment by the Company without cause or by the participant for good reason in connection with a change in control, those participants would be entitled to receive severance benefits as provided under the CIC Plan. Each of our participating named executive officers would be entitled to receive the following top level of benefits under the Executive Severance Plan in the event of a qualifying termination of employment:
| Salary and target bonus continuation for one year; |
| A prorated annual cash incentive bonus for the year of termination (generally based on the executives target bonus opportunity and actual Company performance as determined under the Companys Management Incentive Plan); |
| Continued medical, dental and visual care coverage, with the Company continuing to subsidize its share of the premium during the one-year salary continuation period; |
| Outplacement services for up to one year; |
| Pro-rata vesting of time-based and performance-based RSUs (subject to achievement of applicable performance goals for performance-based RSUs); and |
| For all retirement-eligible participants (i.e., participants aged 55 or older), an additional year of vesting service for stock options and time-based RSUs (but not performance-based RSUs), and the opportunity to exercise vested stock options until the earlier of three years after termination or the original option expiration date. |
To receive severance benefits under the Executive Severance Plan, a participant must agree to a release of claims against the Company. As a condition of participation in the Executive Severance Plan, each eligible employee must also agree to comply with certain restrictive covenants, including non-competition, non-solicitation, non-disparagement and confidentiality provisions to the extent permissible under applicable law.
More information on the CIC Plan and the Executive Severance Plan, including the estimated payments and benefits payable to the named executive officers, is provided under the Potential Payments Upon Termination or Change in Control section beginning on page 54 of this proxy statement.
45 |
SECTION 6: OTHER COMPENSATION POLICIES AND PRACTICES
We maintain several key compensation policies and practices that reinforce our pay for performance culture and promote the alignment of the interests of our executives and our stockholders, including the following:
POLICY/PRACTICE |
DESCRIPTION | |
Stock Ownership Guidelines | Our executives are subject to robust stock ownership guidelines, which require our CEO to hold at least 135,000 shares and our other current named executive officers to own 35,000 shares. Each of our current named executive officers other than Mr. Culhane has exceeded his required ownership level as of December 31, 2017, and Mr. Culhane has nearly met the guidelines ahead of schedule given his open-market purchase of Teradata stock after he joined the Company in November 2017. | |
Clawback and Harmful Activity Policies | We maintain a Compensation Recovery Policy (commonly referred to as a clawback policy), which generally provides that we may recover performance-based compensation if the payout was based on financial results that were subsequently restated. This policy supports the accuracy of our financial statements and, in conjunction with our stock ownership guidelines, helps to align the interests of our named executive officers with those of our stockholders. In light of our pay-for-performance culture, we felt strongly that our executives should be held to this higher standard of accountability.
We also retain the right to cancel outstanding equity awards and recover realized gains if executives are terminated for cause or engage in certain harmful activity, such as violating a non-competition or non-solicitation covenant. | |
Prohibition on Pledging and Hedging | Our insider trading policy restricts our employees, officers and directors from engaging in hedging transactions involving Teradata stock, including short sales, or from pledging Teradata securities.
| |
Compensation Risk Assessment | Members of management from our human resources, legal and risk management groups assess whether our compensation policies and practices encourage excessive or inappropriate risk taking by our employees. This assessment includes a review of the risk characteristics of our business, our internal controls and related risk management programs, the design of our incentive plans and policies, and the impact of risk mitigation features. Management reports its findings to the Board of Directors and, based on that analysis, we do not believe that our compensation programs for employees are reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on the Company.
|
46 | 2018 PROXY STATEMENT |
SECTION 7: TAX AND ACCOUNTING CONSIDERATIONS
In structuring our executive compensation program, the Committee takes into account the tax and accounting treatment of our executive compensation arrangements. One such consideration is the potential impact of the limitation on Teradatas federal income tax deduction for certain annual compensation over $1 million paid to a covered employee under Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code, as amended (Section 162(m)). In making compensation decisions in 2017 and prior years, the Committee often sought to structure our incentive compensation arrangements with the intention that such arrangements would qualify for an exemption from Section 162(m) as qualified performance-based compensation. However, the Committee never adopted a policy that would have required all compensation to be deductible because the Committee wanted to preserve the ability to pay compensation to our executives in appropriate circumstances, even if such compensation would not be deductible under Section 162(m).
The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which was enacted on December 22, 2017, includes a number of significant changes to Section 162(m), such as the repeal of the qualified performance-based compensation exemption and the expansion of the definition of covered employees (for example, by including the chief financial officer and certain former named executive officers as covered employees). As a result of these changes, except as otherwise provided in the transition relief provisions of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, compensation paid to any of our covered employees generally will not be deductible in 2018 or future years, to the extent that it exceeds $1 million. In response, the Committee has taken steps that it deemed appropriate with the intention of preserving the deductibility of certain of our compensation arrangements that were in effect on the date of enactment of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. However, due to uncertainties regarding the scope of transition relief under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, there can be no guarantee that any compensation paid to our covered employees in excess of $1 million will be or remain exempt from Section 162(m). In any event, in light of the sweeping nature of the changes to Section 162(m), the Committee expects that, after 2017, the tax-deductible portion of Teradatas executive compensation program will decrease.
47 |
2017 Summary Compensation
The following table summarizes the total compensation paid to, or earned by, each of our named executive officers for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, and the prior two fiscal years. The 2017 Target Compensation supplemental table following this table also provides additional information regarding the 2017 total direct compensation levels for our named executive officers as approved by the boards Compensation and Human Resource Committee (the Committee).
NAME AND PRINCIPAL POSITION (1) |
YEAR | SALARY (2) ($) |
STOCK ($) |
OPTION AWARDS (4) ($) |
NON-EQUITY ($) |
ALL OTHER COMPENSATION (6) ($) |
TOTAL ($) |
|||||||||||||||||||||
Victor Lund |
|
2017 |
|
|
800,000 |
|
|
8,693,440 |
|
|
1,110,000 |
|
|
1,206 |
|
|
10,604,646 |
| ||||||||||
President and Chief Executive Officer
|
2016 | 526,776 | 8,104,841 | 680,000 | 1,930 | 9,313,547 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Mark Culhane EVP and Chief Financial Officer
|
|
2017 |
|
|
67,671 |
|
|
930,773 |
|
|
83,250 |
|
|
8,004 |
|
|
1,089,698 |
| ||||||||||
Oliver Ratzesberger |
|
2017 |
|
475,000 | 2,458,941 | 527,250 | 25,670 |
|
3,486,861 |
| ||||||||||||||||||
Chief Operating Officer
|
2016 | 434,719 | 1,431,715 | 429,675 | 16,398 |
|
2,312,507
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||
Daniel Harrington EVP, Customer Support and Services
|
|
2017 |
|
469,220 | 2,236,648 | 520,834 | 15,502 |
|
3,242,204 |
| ||||||||||||||||||
2016 | 467,737 | 1,816,809 | 477,041 | 16,591 | 2,778,178 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
2015 | 443,633 | 2,198,178 |
|
470,900
|
|
142,308 | 14,569 |
|
3,269,588
|
| ||||||||||||||||||
John Dinning |
|
2017 |
|
450,000 | 1,547,340 | 399,600 | 18,819 |
|
2,415,759 |
| ||||||||||||||||||
Former EVP and Chief Business Officer
|
2016 | 409,836 | 1,083,802 | 326,740 | 23,582 |
|
1,843,960
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||
Stephen Scheppmann Former EVP and Chief Financial Officer |
|
2017 |
|
515,346 | 1,915,306 | 508,750 | 18,092 |
|
2,957,494 |
| ||||||||||||||||||
2016 | 512,947 | 1,863,346 | 523,068 | 16,465 | 2,915,826 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
2015
|
|
478,215 | 1,038,332 |
|
403,635
|
|
152,907 | 14,374 |
|
2,087,463
|
|
(1) | Mr. Culhanes start date was November 10, 2017, and he replaced Mr. Scheppmann as EVP and Chief Financial Officer at that time. Prior to February 5, 2018, Mr. Ratzesberger was EVP and Chief Product Officer of the Company. Mr. Lund became President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company in May 2016. |
(2) | This column shows base salary earned during the year. For Mr. Scheppmann, this column also includes payments under our short-term disability program. |
(3) | This column shows the aggregate grant date fair value, as determined in accordance with Financial Accounting Standards Board Accounting Standards Codification Topic 718, Compensation Stock Compensation (FASB ASC Topic 718), of performance-based restricted share units (RSUs) and time-based RSUs granted to our named executive officers in the applicable year. |
See Note 5 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements contained in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2017 (our 2017 Annual Report) for an explanation of the assumptions made in valuing the awards reported in this column.
(4) | This column shows the aggregate grant date fair value, as determined in accordance with FASB ASC Topic 718, of the stock options granted to our named executive officers for the applicable year. See Note 5 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements contained in our 2017 Annual Report for an explanation of the assumptions made in valuing these awards. |
(5) | This column reflects the cash bonus paid to our named executive officers under the annual bonus program for the applicable year. For more information concerning the 2017 annual incentive, see the Annual Bonus Awards discussion in the Compensation Discussion and Analysis section beginning on page 35 of this proxy statement. |
(6) | The amounts reported in this column for 2017 include the following: |
| The dollar value of premiums paid to maintain life insurance for the benefit of each of Messrs. Lund, Culhane, Ratzesberger, Harrington, Dinning, and Scheppmann, in the amount of $1,206, $201, $1,528, $1,509, $1,447, and $1,769, respectively, under the Companys life insurance program that is generally available to all U.S. employees; |
| The dollar value of matching contributions to our 401(k) savings plan, which are generally available to all plan participants and were made in 2017 on behalf of each of Messrs. Culhane, Ratzesberger, Harrington, Dinning, and Scheppmann, in the amount of $2,375, $13,500, $13,500, $13,500, and $13,500, respectively; |
48 | 2018 PROXY STATEMENT |
Compensation Tables
| The final year of the dollar value of a mortgage subsidy for Mr. Dinning in the amount of $3,302, pursuant to his December 2011 offer letter; |
| For Messrs. Ratzesberger, Harrington, Dinning, and Scheppmann, the dollar value of family travel in connection with Company business in the amount of $10,642, $493, $570, and $2,823, respectively; and |
| For Mr. Culhane, $5,428 in commuting expenses for the cost of housing, airfare, and transportation. |
For the performance-based RSUs granted in 2017, the following table sets forth the target number of units, their target grant date fair value reflected in the Stock Awards column above, and their grant date fair value assuming that the highest level of performance would be achieved. Mr. Culhane did not receive any performance-based RSUs with a grant date in 2017.
NAME | TARGET NUMBER OF ANNUAL PERFORMANCE- BASED RSUs (#) |
PROBABLE GRANT DATE FAIR VALUE |
MAXIMUM GRANT DATE FAIR VALUE |
|||||||||
Victor Lund
|
|
192,875 |
|
$ |
6,056,275 |
|
$ |
12,112,550 |
| |||
Oliver Ratzesberger
|
|
50,644 |
|
$ |
1,590,222 |
|
$
|
3,180,444
|
| |||
Daniel Harrington
|
|
53,939 |
|
$ |
1,693,685 |
|
$ |
3,387,370 |
| |||
John Dinning
|
|
35,939 |
|
$ |
1,128,485 |
|
$
|
2,256,970
|
| |||
Stephen Scheppmann
|
|
60,997
|
|
$ |
1,915,306 |
|
$ |
3,830,612 |
|
2017 Target Compensation
The Committee approved the long-term incentive award opportunity for each of the named executive officers for the 2017-2018 grant cycle in November 2017 and February 2018. The Committee allocated the 2017-2018 long-term incentive award opportunity 70% to performance-based RSUs and 30% to time-based RSUs. The performance-based RSUs that were approved as part of the 2017-2018 grant cycle are not reflected in the Stock Awards column for 2017 because none of those awards had a grant date for financial accounting purposes until the Committee established performance goals in the first quarter of 2018. Instead, the Stock Awards column for 2017 includes the time-based RSUs that were approved by the Committee in November 2017 and also includes the 1-year performance-based RSUs that were approved by the Committee in November 2016 and for which the Committee established the applicable performance goals in February 2017. As a result, the Summary Compensation Table does not reflect the manner in which the Committee viewed or determined the 2017-2018 long-term incentive opportunity or the total direct compensation values for our named executive officers. The following table, which is not required under the SECs rules and is not a substitute for any of the tables required under the SECs rules, provides an alternative presentation of the target total direct compensation levels for our named executive officers as viewed by the Committee in November 2017.
NAME | SALARY ($) |
TARGET VALUE ANNUAL INCENTIVE ($) |
TARGET VALUE OF PBRSU AWARDS ($) |
TARGET VALUE OF RSU AWARDS ($) |
TOTAL DIRECT COMPENSATION ($) |
|||||||||||||||
Victor Lund
|
|
800,000
|
|
|
1,000,000
|
|
|
5,950,000
|
|
|
2,550,000
|
|
|
10,300,000
|
| |||||
Mark Culhane
|
|
475,000
|
|
|
475,000
|
|
|
2,100,000
|
|
|
900,000
|
|
|
3,950,000
|
| |||||
Oliver Ratzesberger
|
|
475,000
|
|
|
475,000
|
|
|
1,960,000
|
|
|
840,000
|
|
|
3,750,000
|
| |||||
Daniel Harrington
|
|
469,220
|
|
|
469,220
|
|
|
1,225,000
|
|
|
525,000
|
|
|
2,688,440
|
| |||||
John Dinning
|
|
450,000
|
|
|
360,000
|
|
|
945,000
|
|
|
405,000
|
|
|
2,160,000
|
|
49 |
Compensation Tables
2017 Grants of Plan-Based Awards
The following table summarizes information for each named executive officer regarding (i) estimated payouts under the 2017 annual bonus program, (ii) estimated payouts for the performance-based RSUs (also referred to as PBRSUs) that were granted in 2017, and (iii) time-based RSUs that were granted in 2017.
NAME | GRANT DATE |
APPROVAL DATE (1) |
ESTIMATED POSSIBLE PAYOUTS UNDER NON-EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN AWARDS (2) |
ESTIMATED POSSIBLE PAYOUTS UNDER EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN AWARDS (3) |
ALL OTHER STOCK AWARDS: NUMBER OF SHARES OF STOCK UNITS (4) |
OPTION OF SHARES |
EXERCISE OF |
GRANT FAIR OF
STOCK |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
THRESHOLD ($) |
TARGET ($) |
MAXIMUM ($) |
THRESHOLD (#) |
TARGET (#) |
MAXIMUM (#) |
(#) | (#) | ($/SH) | ($) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Victor Lund
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Annual Bonus Program
|
1,000,000 | 2,000,000 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RSUs
|
11/27/2017 | 11/27/2017 | 72,034 | 2,637,165 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PBRSUs
|
2/22/2017 | 2/22/2017 | 7,414 | 29,654 | 59,308 | 931,136 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PBRSUs
|
2/22/2017 | 11/28/2016 | 40,805 | 163,221 | 326,442 | 5,125,139 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mark Culhane
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Annual Bonus Program
|
83,250 | 166,500 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RSUs
|
11/27/2017 | 11/27/2017 | 25,424 | 930,773 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Oliver Ratzesberger
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Annual Bonus Program
|
475,000 | 950,000 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RSUs |
11/27/2017 | 11/27/2017 | 23,729 | 868,719 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PBRSUs
|
2/22/2017 | 2/22/2017 | 1,236 | 4,942 | 9,884 | 155,179 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PBRSUs |
2/22/2017 | 11/28/2016 | 11,426 | 45,702 | 91,404 | 1,435,043 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Daniel Harrington
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Annual Bonus Program |
469,220 | 938,440 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RSUs
|
11/27/2017 | 11/27/2017 | 14,831 | 542,963 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PBRSUs
|
2/22/2017 | 2/22/2017 | 2,059 | 8,237 | 16,474 | 258,642 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PBRSUs
|
2/22/2017 | 11/28/2016 | 11,426 | 45,702 | 91,404 | 1,435,043 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Dinning
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Annual Bonus Program
|
360,000 | 720,000 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RSUs
|
11/27/2017 | 11/27/2017 | 11,441 | 418,855 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PBRSUs
|
2/22/2017 | 2/22/2017 | 824 | 3,295 | 6,590 | 103,463 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PBRSUs
|
2/22/2017 | 11/28/2016 | 8,161 | 32,644 | 65,288 | 1,025,022 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stephen Scheppmann
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Annual Bonus Program
|
550,000 | 1,100,000 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PBRSUs
|
2/22/2017 | 2/22/2017 | 1,648 | 6,590 | 13,180 | 206,926 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PBRSUs |
2/22/2017 | 11/28/2016 | 13,602 | 54,407 | 108,814 | 1,708,380 |
(1) | In general, the grant date of the annual equity awards is the date of the meeting of the independent members of the board. The grant date of the performance-based RSUs approved on November 28, 2016, however, occurred on February 22, 2017, which is when the Committee established the applicable performance goals. |
(2) | The information included in the Threshold, Target and Maximum columns reflects the range of potential payouts under the 2017 annual bonus program (i.e., non-equity incentive plan awards) when the performance goals were established by the Committee. The actual amounts of the annual incentive awards earned for 2017 are reflected in the Non-Equity Incentive Plan Compensation column in the Summary Compensation Table. Note, Mr. Culhanes eligible award is prorated based on his employment commencing in November 2017. |
(3) | The information included in the Threshold, Target and Maximum columns reflects the range of potential payouts under the performance-based RSUs granted in 2017. Those performance-based RSUs are earned based on the extent to which specified financial and operational performance goals are achieved for fiscal 2017. The units earned generally vest in three equal installments over a 3-year period with the performance determination date being the first vesting date, provided the executive remains employed by the Company. Dividends, if any, paid on the underlying shares during the vesting period are accumulated and reinvested in additional units. |
(4) | Reflects the number of time-based RSUs granted in 2017, which generally vest on the third anniversary of the date of grant, provided that the executive remains employed by the Company. Dividends, if any, paid on the underlying shares during the vesting period are accumulated and reinvested in additional units. |
(5) | Reflects the aggregate grant date fair value, as determined in accordance with FASB ASC Topic 718, of the stock options, performance-based RSUs and time-based RSUs. See footnotes 1 and 2 of the Summary Compensation Table beginning on page 48 of this proxy statement for the assumptions used to calculate these values. |
50 | 2018 PROXY STATEMENT |
Compensation Tables
2017 Outstanding Equity Awards at Fiscal Year-End
The following table sets forth information for each named executive officer with respect to (i) each stock option that had not been exercised and remained outstanding as of December 31, 2017, and (ii) each award of performance-based RSUs and time-based RSUs that had not vested and remained outstanding as of December 31, 2017.
OPTION AWARDS | STOCK AWARDS | EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN AWARDS |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NAME | GRANT DATE |
NUMBER
OF (#) EXERCISABLE |
NUMBER
OF (#) UNEXERCISABLE |
OPTION PRICE(3) ($) |
OPTION EXERCISE DATE |
NUMBER UNITS OF STOCK HAVE VESTED(4) (#) |
MARKET OF STOCK HAVE VESTED(5) ($) |
NUMBER OR OTHER RIGHTS HAVE NOT VESTED(4) (#) |
MARKET OF OR OTHER RIGHTS HAVE NOT VESTED(5) ($) |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Victor Lund |
|
11/27/2017 |
|
|
72,034 |
|
|
2,770,428 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
11/28/2016 | 163,221 | 6,277,480 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
5/6/2016
|
|
|
78,740
|
|
|
3,028,340
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mark Culhane |
|
11/27/2017 |
|
|
25,424 |
|
|
977,807 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Oliver Ratzesberger |
|
11/27/2017 |
|
|
23,729 |
|
|
912,617 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2/22/2017 | 4,957 | 190,646 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2/22/2017 | 45,839 | 1,762,968 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
11/28/2016 | 45,702 | 1,757,699 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2/7/2016 | 6,452 | 248,144 | 10,623 | 408,561 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
12/1/2015 | 11,833 | 11,833 | 30.63 | 11/30/2025 | 4,250 | 163,455 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
7/1/2015 | 10,433 | 401,253 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
12/1/2014 | 4,235 | 1,412 | 44.43 | 11/30/2024 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
12/3/2013
|
|
|
5,803
|
|
|
45.35
|
|
|
12/2/2023
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Daniel Harrington |
|
11/27/2017 |
|
|
14,831 |
|
|
570,400 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2/22/2017 | 8,262 | 317,757 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2/22/2017 | 45,839 | 1,762,968 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
11/28/2016 | 45,702 | 1,757,699 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2/7/2016 | 11,291 | 434,252 | 18,591 | 715,010 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
12/1/2015 | 20,708 | 20,708 | 30.63 | 11/30/2025 | 7,437 | 286,027 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
5/15/2015 | 23,196 | 892,118 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2/9/2015 | 457 | 17,576 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
12/1/2014 | 25,412 | 8,471 | 44.43 | 11/30/2024 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
12/3/2013 | 34,816 | 45.35 | 12/2/2023 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
11/27/2012 | 26,122 | 61.55 | 11/26/2022 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
11/29/2011 | 28,606 | 50.70 | 11/28/2021 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
11/30/2010 | 29,865 | 41.09 | 11/29/2020 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1/3/2000
|
|
|
7,777
|
|
|
299,103
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Dinning |
|
11/27/2017 |
|
|
11,441 |
|
|
440,021 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2/22/2017 | 3,305 | 127,110 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2/22/2017 | 32,742 | 1,259,257 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
11/28/2016 | 32,645 | 1,255,527 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2/7/2016 | 5,377 | 206,799 | 8,853 | 340,486 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
12/1/2015 | 9,861 | 9,861 | 30.63 | 11/30/2025 | 3,541 | 136,187 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
7/1/2015 | 6,521 | 250,798 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
12/1/2014 | 2,435 | 812 | 44.43 | 11/30/2024 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
12/3/2013 | 2,901 | 45.35 | 12/2/2023 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
11/27/2012 | 2,177 | 61.55 | 11/26/2022 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
11/29/2011 | 1,714 | 50.70 | 11/28/2021 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
11/30/2010 | 3,077 | 41.09 | 11/29/2020 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
12/1/2009 | 3,963 | 30.68 | 11/30/2019 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
12/2/2008
|
|
|
5,293
|
|
|
13.77
|
|
|
12/1/2018
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stephen Scheppmann |
|
2/22/2017 |
|
|
6,610 |
|
|
254,221 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2/22/2017 | 54,570 | 2,098,762 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
11/28/2016 | 54,407 | 2,092,493 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2/7/2016 | 9,678 | 372,216 | 15,935 | 612,860 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
12/1/2015 | 17,750 | 17,750 | 30.63 | 11/30/2025 | 6,374 | 245,144 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2/9/2015 | 355 | 13,653 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
12/1/2014 | 19,765 | 6,589 | 44.43 | 11/30/2024 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
12/3/2013 | 34,816 | 45.35 | 12/2/2023 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
11/27/2012 | 26,122 | 61.55 | 11/26/2022 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
11/29/2011 | 28,606 | 50.70 | 11/28/2021 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
11/30/2010 | 32,579 | 41.09 | 11/1/2019 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
12/1/2009
|
|
|
39,632
|
|
|
30.68
|
|
|
11/30/2019
|
|
(1) | This column shows the number of common shares underlying outstanding stock options that have vested as of December 31, 2017. |
51 |
Compensation Tables
(2) | This column shows the number of common shares underlying outstanding stock options that have not vested as of December 31, 2017. The remaining vesting dates for each award are as follows: |
GRANT DATE | REMAINING VESTING DATES | VESTING SCHEDULE | ||
12/1/2014
|
12/1/2018
|
25% vests each year for four years after the date of grant
| ||
12/1/2015
|
12/1/2018, 12/1/2019
|
25% vests each year for four years after the date of grant
|
(3) | This column shows the exercise price for each stock option reported in the table, which equaled the fair market value per share on the date of grant. |
(4) | These columns show the aggregate number of performance-based RSUs and time-based RSUs outstanding as of December 31, 2017. The remaining vesting dates for each award are as follows: |
GRANT DATE | REMAINING VESTING DATES | VESTING SCHEDULE | ||
1/3/2000
|
4/30/2018
|
100% vests on 55th birthday
| ||
2/9/2015
|
2/9/2018
|
1/3 increments over a 3-year time period after performance level determination is made by the Committee
| ||
5/15/2015
|
5/15/2018
|
100% vests three years from the date of grant
| ||
7/1/2015
|
7/1/2018
|
100% vests three years from the date of grant
| ||
12/1/2015
|
12/1/2018
|
1/3 increments each year for three years after the date of grant
| ||
5/6/2016
|
Q1 2019*
|
2016-2018 performance period: 100% vests after performance level determination is made by the Committee
| ||
2/7/2016
|
Q1 2019*
|
2016-2018 performance period: 100% vests after performance level determination is made by the Committee
| ||
2/7/2016
|
2/7/2018, 2/7/2019
|
1/3 increments over a 3-year time period after performance level determination is made by the Committee
| ||
11/28/2016
|
Q1 2020*
|
2017-2019 performance period: 100% vests after performance level determination is made by the Committee
| ||
2/22/2017
|
2/22/2018, 2/22/2019, 2/22/2020
|
1/3 increments over a 3-year time period after performance level determination is made by the Committee
| ||
11/27/2017
|
11/27/2020
|
100% vests three years from the date of grant
|
* | Additionally, this column under the Equity Incentive Plan Awards heading shows the number of outstanding performance-based RSUs at the target level for awards with grant dates of February 7, 2016 and May 6, 2016, because our relative TSR performance through December 31, 2017 was above threshold level for those awards. For awards with grant dates of November 28, 2016 the number of outstanding performance-based RSUs is reported at the next highest level (150%) because our relative TSR performance through December 31, 2017 was above target level for those awards. |
(5) | These columns show the aggregate dollar value of the performance-based RSUs and time-based RSUs using the closing stock price on December 29, 2017 of $38.46 per share. |
2017 Option Exercises and Stock Vested
The following table sets forth information for each named executive officer with respect to (i) the exercise of stock options in 2017, and (ii) the vesting of performance-based RSUs and time-based RSUs during 2017.
OPTION AWARDS | STOCK AWARDS | |||||||||||||||
NAME | NUMBER OF SHARES (#) |
VALUE REALIZED ($) |
NUMBER OF SHARES (#) |
VALUE REALIZED ($) |
||||||||||||
Victor Lund
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
265,186
|
|
|
9,389,185
|
| ||||
Mark Culhane
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||
Oliver Ratzesberger
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9,757
|
|
|
347,711
|
| ||||
Daniel Harrington
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
18,102
|
|
|
643,703
|
| ||||
John Dinning
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7,542
|
|
|
267,545
|
| ||||
Stephen Scheppmann
|
|
69,383
|
|
|
657,797
|
|
|
15,118
|
|
|
537,006
|
|
52 | 2018 PROXY STATEMENT |
Compensation Tables
(1) | The value realized on exercise equals the number of shares exercised multiplied by the excess of the closing market price of our common stock on the exercise date over the exercise price per share. |
(2) | The value realized on vesting equals the number of shares acquired multiplied by the closing market price of our common stock on the acquisition date. For Mr. Lund, the amount reported in this column includes $7,440,226, representing the vesting date value of 193,454 performance-based RSUs that vested on December 31, 2017 and $1,948,958, representing the vesting date value of 71,732 performance-based RSUs that vested on December 31, 2016, which vested performance-based RSUs generally are paid on a deferred basis, in 1/3 installments on the date that the applicable performance level determination was made by the Committee and on each of first and second anniversaries of the applicable performance level determination date. |
Non-Qualified Deferred Compensation
The Company does not maintain a non-qualified defined contribution plan or other deferred compensation plans. However, the 1-year performance-based RSU awards granted to Mr. Lund for the 2017 and 2016 fiscal year performance periods were fully vested at December 31, 2016 and December 31, 2017, respectively, but generally are payable on a deferred basis in 1/3 installments (except for certain termination of employment scenarios described further in the Potential Payments Upon Termination or Change in Control section on page 54 of this proxy statement) on the date that the applicable performance level determination was made by the Committee and on each of first and second anniversaries of the applicable performance level determination date. As a result, the Non-Qualified Deferred Compensation Table below includes information about Mr. Lunds 2017 and 2016 performance-based RSUs. The performance-based RSUs granted to Mr. Lund for the performance period commencing in 2018 follow the vesting terms of the award agreements granted to our other named executive officers, which generally require continued employment during the full performance period.
NAME | EXECUTIVE ($) |
REGISTRANT LAST FISCAL ($) |
AGGREGATE EARNINGS ($) |
AGGREGATE WITHDRAWALS / DISTRIBUTIONS(3) ($) |
AGGREGATE BALANCE ($) |
|||||||||||||||
Victor Lund
|
|
|
|
|
9,389,185
|
|
|
641,050
|
|
|
750,774
|
|
|
9,279,461
|
| |||||
Mark Culhane
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||||
Oliver Ratzesberger
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||||
Daniel Harrington
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||||
John Dinning
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||||
Stephen Scheppmann
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) | For Mr. Lund, the amount reported in this column includes $7,440,226, representing the vesting date value of 193,454 2017 performance-based RSUs that vested on December 31, 2017 and $1,948,958, representing the vesting date value of 71,732 2016 performance-based RSUs that vested on December 31, 2016. The grant date fair value of the target number of Mr. Lunds 2017 performance-based RSUs ($6,056,275) is reported as compensation to Mr. Lund in the Summary Compensation Table for the 2017 fiscal year. |
(2) | Represents the appreciation in value in the number of shares of our common stock underlying Mr. Lunds vested 2017 and 2016 performance-based RSUs from December 31, 2016 through December 31, 2017 (or, if earlier, until the time of settlement of those performance-based RSUs). No portion of this amount was reported as compensation to Mr. Lund in the Summary Compensation Table for 2017. |
(3) | Represents the payment date value of the number of shares of our common stock that were delivered in settlement of Mr. Lunds vested 2016 performance-based RSUs during fiscal 2017. |
(4) | Represents the aggregate dollar value of 241,276 outstanding vested performance-based RSUs held by Mr. Lund on December 31, 2017, using our closing stock price on December 29, 2017 of $38.46 per share. The grant date fair value of the target number of Mr. Lunds 2016 performance-based RSUs ($2,215,744) was previously reported as compensation to Mr. Lund in the Summary Compensation Table for the 2016 fiscal year. |
Pension Benefits
We do not maintain any qualified or non-qualified defined benefit plans.
53 |
TERMINATION OR CHANGE IN CONTROL
Background
We have entered into agreements and maintain plans and arrangements that may require us to pay or provide compensation and benefits to our named executive officers in the event of certain terminations of employment or a change in control. For example, all of our named executive officers other than Mr. Lund are participants in our CIC Plan, which provides double-trigger severance protections in the event that a participating executives employment is terminated under qualifying circumstances in connection with a change in control, and in our Executive Severance Plan, which provides severance protections in the event that a participants employment is terminated by the Company without cause (other than as a result of death, disability or a change in control). Estimates of the amounts to be paid or provided to each of our named executive officers in connection with a termination of employment or a change in control are provided below.
Estimated Payments to Named Executive Officers
The estimates set forth below of the amounts payable to our named executive officers upon termination of employment or in connection with a change in control are based on the assumption that the various triggering events occurred on the last day of 2017, along with other material assumptions noted below. The actual amounts that would be paid to a named executive officer upon termination or a change in control can only be determined at the time the actual triggering event occurs.
The estimated amount of compensation and benefits described below for our named executive officers generally does not take into account compensation and benefits that were already earned at the time of the applicable triggering event, such as equity awards that have previously vested in accordance with their terms or vested benefits otherwise payable under our compensation programs. As a result, the estimates below for our named executive officers do not provide information on the payout of 2017 incentive awards under the annual bonus program for our named executive officers, because those awards were earned as of December 31, 2017, subject to Committee approval, regardless of whether the executive terminated employment or a change in control occurred on that date. Please refer to the Outstanding Equity Awards at Fiscal Year-End table for a complete summary of each named executive officers vested equity awards as of December 31, 2017, and to the Summary Compensation Table for the annual incentives earned by our named executive officers in 2017.
Non-Change in Control Scenarios
Executive Severance Plan
Each of our named executive officers other than Mr. Lund participates in the Executive Severance Plan, which was adopted effective February 1, 2017. In the event of an involuntary termination of his employment in connection with a reduction-in-force, Mr. Lund would be eligible to receive severance benefits under our reduction-in-force programs that are generally available to the Companys salaried, U.S.-based employees.
For our participating named executive officers, the Executive Severance Plan generally provides severance benefits in the event of termination of employment by the Company without cause (but not as a result of the participants disability or death). However, in the event of the termination of a participating named executive officers employment in connection with a change in control of Teradata, severance benefits generally would be provided under the CIC Plan, as discussed below.
In the event of a qualifying termination of employment without cause (not in connection with a change in control), each of our participating named executive officers would be entitled to receive the following severance benefits under the terms of the Executive Severance Plan:
| Salary and target bonus continuation for one year; |
| A prorated annual cash incentive bonus for the year of termination (generally based on the executives target bonus opportunity and actual Company performance as determined under the Companys Management Incentive Plan); |
54 | 2018 PROXY STATEMENT |
Potential Payments Upon Termination or Change in Control
| Continued medical, dental and vision care coverage, with the Company continuing to subsidize its share of the premium during the 1-year salary continuation period; |
| Outplacement services for up to one year; |
| Pro-rata vesting of time-based and performance-based RSUs (subject to achievement of applicable performance goals for performance-based RSUs); and |
| For all retirement-eligible participants (i.e., participants aged 55 or older), an additional year of vesting service for stock options and time-based RSUs (but not performance-based RSUs), and the opportunity to exercise vested stock options until the earlier of three years after termination or the original option expiration date. |
Severance benefits under the Executive Severance Plan are conditioned upon the participants release of claims against the Company, as well as compliance with certain restrictive covenants, including non-competition, non-solicitation, non-disparagement and confidentiality provisions to the extent permissible under applicable law.
Treatment of Equity Awards on Termination of Employment (not in Connection with a Change in Control)
The following chart summarizes the vesting treatment of the equity awards held by our named executive officers in the event of termination of employment, other than termination in connection with a change in control. The vesting treatment described below is conditioned upon the participants compliance with non-competition and non-solicitation provisions for a 12-month period (or, if applicable law requires a shorter period, for the maximum period allowed under applicable law), as well as confidentiality restrictions. Our performance-based RSUs and time-based RSUs generally pay out upon vesting. However, to the extent necessary to comply with Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code, as amended, and avoid triggering adverse tax consequences to our executives, payment of vested performance-based RSUs and time-based RSUs may be delayed until termination of employment, six months after termination of employment, or the end of the scheduled performance or service period.
SITUATION | PERFORMANCE-BASED RSUS | TIME-BASED RSUs | STOCK OPTIONS | |||
Death and Long-Term Disability (LTD) |
In the event of death or LTD during the performance period, a pro-rata portion of the award, calculated as of the date of death or LTD, will become vested based on actual results during the performance period.
In the event of death or LTD after the end of the performance period and prior to payment, awards vest in full, to the extent earned, upon the date of death or LTD.
|
Awards vest in full upon the date of death or LTD. |
Awards vest in full upon the date of death or LTD. Awards granted after 2008 remain exercisable until the later of the expiration of the 10-year term or three years after death or LTD. Awards granted in 2007 and 2008 remain exercisable until the later of the expiration of the 10-year term or (a) one year after death or LTD, if death or LTD occurs prior to age 55, or (b) three years after death or LTD, if death or LTD occurs on or after age 55.
| |||
Retirement (termination on or after age 55, with the consent of the Committee, where applicable) |
Generally, a pro-rata portion of the award, calculated as of retirement, will become vested based on actual results during the performance period.
Mr. Lunds performance-based RSUs for performance periods beginning in 2016 and 2017 will become vested in full (without pro-ration), based on actual results if his employment terminates after the first year of the applicable performance period for any reason other than a termination by Teradata for cause.
|
Generally, a pro-rata portion will become vested as of date of retirement. |
Unvested awards are forfeited. Vested awards expire the earlier of three years following retirement date or the expiration date. |
55 |
Potential Payments Upon Termination or Change in Control
SITUATION | PERFORMANCE-BASED RSUS | TIME-BASED RSUs | STOCK OPTIONS | |||
Termination without Cause |
A pro-rata portion of the award, calculated as of the date of termination will become vested based on actual results during the performance period. |
A pro-rata portion will become vested as of the date of termination, and retirement-eligible participants (i.e., participants aged 55 or older) may be credited with an additional year of vesting service.
|
Unvested awards are forfeited. Vested awards generally expire the earlier of the fifty-ninth day after termination or the expiration date.
However, retirement-eligible participants (i.e., participants aged 55 or older) are credited with an additional year of vesting service, and their options remain exercisable until the earlier of 3 years after termination or the original option expiration date.
| |||
Voluntary Resignation (other than retirement, as described above)
|
Unvested awards are forfeited. |
Unvested awards are forfeited. |
Unvested awards are forfeited. Vested awards expire the earlier of the fifty-ninth day after termination or the expiration date.
|
The tables below quantify the amounts that would be payable to our named executive officers in the event of termination of employment, other than termination in connection with a change in control.
Death or Disability
We would have provided each named executive officer (or his beneficiary) with the following estimated payments or benefits had he died or become disabled on December 31, 2017.
EXECUTIVE | LIFE INSURANCE ($)(1) |
DISABILITY PAYMENTS ($)(2) |
STOCK OPTIONS ($)(3) |
RESTRICTED SHARE UNITS ($)(3) |
TOTAL ($) | |||||||||||||||
Victor Lund
|
|
1,200,000
|
|
|
642,028
|
|
|
|
|
|
19,263,215
|
|
|
21,105,243
|
| |||||
Mark Culhane
|
|
950,000
|
|
|
524,408
|
|
|
|
|
|
977,807
|
|
|
2,452,215
|
| |||||
Oliver Ratzesberger
|
|
3,450,000
|
|
|
527,454
|
|
|
185,305
|
|
|
4,309,504
|
|
|
8,472,263
|
| |||||
Daniel Harrington
|
|
938,400
|
|
|
570,543
|
|
|
324,287
|
|
|
5,115,814
|
|
|
6,949,044
|
| |||||
John Dinning
|
|
1,800,000
|
|
|
585,000
|
|
|
154,423
|
|
|
2,902,908
|
|
|
5,442,331
|
| |||||
Stephen Scheppmann
|
|
1,100,000
|
|
|
564,473
|
|
|
277,965
|
|
|
3,818,814
|
|
|
5,761,252
|
|
(1) | Proceeds would be payable by a third-party insurer. Benefits provided upon death depend on the individual level of benefits chosen by the named executive officer during the annual benefits enrollment process. The named executive officers receive the same Company-provided life insurance coverage as is generally offered to U.S.-based employees. The coverage generally is 200% of base salary for life insurance. Each U.S.-based employee has the option of choosing a higher level of coverage at his own expense. Each named executive officer opted for core coverage for 2017, except for Messrs. Ratzesberger and Dinning, who opted for higher coverage. |
(2) | Benefits provided upon disability generally depend on the individual level of benefits chosen by the named executive officer during the annual benefits enrollment process. The named executive officers receive the same short-term and long-term disability coverage as is generally offered to U.S.-based employees. The core coverage is (i) for short-term disability, 100% of base salary for two to 18 weeks depending on years of service and 66 2/3% of base salary for the remainder of a 26-week period, and (ii) for long-term disability, 50% of base salary (up to a maximum monthly payment of $15,000) for the duration of an employees long-term disability. Each U.S. employee has the option of choosing a higher level of coverage at his own expense. Each named executive officer opted for core coverage for 2017, except for Messrs. Ratzesberger and Dinning, who opted for higher coverage. The payments above assume maximum payout based on the named executive officers coverage election for 26 weeks of short-term disability plus two years of long-term disability. |
(3) | Equity valuations are based on a closing price of our stock on December 29, 2017 of $38.46. |
56 | 2018 PROXY STATEMENT |
Potential Payments Upon Termination or Change in Control
Retirement
We would have provided each named executive officer with the following estimated payments if he had retired (with Committee consent, where applicable) on December 31, 2017.
EXECUTIVE | RESTRICTED SHARE UNITS ($)(1)(2) |
TOTAL ($) | ||||||
Victor Lund
|
|
16,569,744
|
|
|
16,569,744
|
| ||
Mark Culhane
|
|
27,161
|
|
|
27,161
|
| ||
Oliver Ratzesberger
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
Daniel Harrington
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
John Dinning
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
Stephen Scheppmann
|
|
1,822,676
|
|
|
1,822,676
|
|
(1) | Equity valuations are based on a closing price of our stock on December 29, 2017 of $38.46. |
(2) | Only Messrs. Lund, Culhane and Scheppmann were eligible for retirement (age 55 or older) on December 31, 2017. Committee consent would be required for retirement vesting of Mr. Culhanes and Mr. Scheppmanns RSU awards, but not for Mr. Lunds RSU awards. |
Termination without Cause (not in Connection with a Change in Control)
Each named executive officer would have been entitled to the following estimated payments and benefits if, on December 31, 2017 and not in connection with a change in control, we terminated the executives employment without cause (and not as a result of death or disability). For named executive officers other than Mr. Lund, the amounts reported in the table below reflect the benefits that would have been provided under the Executive Severance Plan in the event of a termination of employment without cause on that date.
EXECUTIVE | CASH ($)(1) | STOCK OPTIONS ($)(2) |
RESTRICTED SHARE UNITS ($)(2) |
WEFARE BENEFITS($) |
OUT-PLACEMENT COUNSELING ($) |
TOTAL ($) | ||||||||||||||||||
Victor Lund
|
|
400,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
17,493,220
|
|
|
|
|
|
10,000
|
|
|
17,903,220
|
| ||||||
Mark Culhane
|
|
950,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
353,097
|
|