UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
SCHEDULE 14A
Proxy Statement Pursuant to Section 14(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934
☑ 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 ss.240.14a-12
|
GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY
(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)(4) 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:
|
We are committed to safety in everything we do. We earn Customers for life. We build brands that inspire passion and loyalty. We translate breakthrough technologies into vehicles and experiences that people love. We create sustainable solutions that improve the communities in which we live and work.
|
i |
ii |
|
Notice of 2018 Annual Meeting of Shareholders
This summary highlights information contained elsewhere in this Proxy Statement. It does not contain all of the information that you should consider. Please read the entire Proxy Statement carefully before voting.
Agenda and Voting Recommendations
Proposal |
Board Vote Recommendation | Page Reference | ||||
MANAGEMENT PROPOSALS:
|
||||||
Item No. 1 Election of Directors
|
FOR
|
|
7
|
| ||
Item
No. 2 Approval of, on an Advisory Basis,
|
FOR | 68 | ||||
Item
No. 3 Ratification of the Selection of
|
FOR | 69 | ||||
SHAREHOLDER PROPOSALS:
|
||||||
Item No. 4 Independent Board Chairman
|
AGAINST
|
|
72
|
| ||
Item No. 5 Shareholder Right to Act by Written Consent
|
AGAINST
|
|
74
|
| ||
Item No. 6 Report on Greenhouse Gas Emissions and CAFE Standards
|
AGAINST
|
|
76
|
|
Composition of Board Nominees
WE HAVE THE RIGHT BOARD AT THE RIGHT TIME FOR GM The Board and management are overseeing a period of unprecedented change at GM. Ensuring the Board is composed of directors who bring diverse viewpoints and perspectives, exhibit a variety of skills, professional experience, and backgrounds, and effectively represent the long-term interests of shareholders is a top priority of your Board and the Governance Committee. Our membership criteria and director recruitment initiatives align the Boards capabilities with the execution of the Companys business strategy. The Board recognizes the need for refreshment to bring new perspectives, keeping in mind our commitment to diversity. In fact, we added four new directors in the past three years as part of our comprehensive refreshment and recruitment process, including Mr. Wenig, President and Chief Executive Officer of eBay. These new directors complemented our directors mix of skills by bringing key leadership, technology, consumer-facing and capital markets expertise to the Board. For a detailed discussion of why we have the right Board for GM, see Item No. 1Election of Directors on page 7.
|
1 |
PROXY STATEMENT SUMMARY
The following table provides summary information about each director nominee. For more detailed information about our directors, see Item No. 1Election of DirectorsYour Boards Nominees for Director on page 10.
Name | Age | Director Since |
Principal Occupation | Independent | Committee Memberships | |||||
Mary T. Barra |
56 | 2014 | Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, General Motors Company |
Executive Chair | ||||||
Theodore M. Solso |
71 | 2012 | Independent Lead Director, General Motors Company, and Retired Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, Cummins, Inc. |
Executive | ||||||
Linda R. Gooden |
65 | 2015 | Retired Executive Vice President, Information Systems & Global Solutions, Lockheed Martin Corporation |
Audit Cybersecurity Chair Executive Risk | ||||||
Joseph Jimenez |
58 | 2015 | Retired Chief Executive Officer, Novartis AG |
Executive Compensation Governance | ||||||
Jane L. Mendillo |
59 | 2016 | Retired President & Chief Executive Officer, Harvard Management Company |
Finance Audit | ||||||
Admiral Michael G. Mullen |
71 | 2013 | Former Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff |
Audit Cybersecurity Executive Risk Chair | ||||||
James J. Mulva |
71 | 2012 | Retired Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, ConocoPhillips |
Executive Executive Compensation Finance Chair Risk | ||||||
Patricia F. Russo |
65 | 2009 | Chairman, Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company |
Executive Executive Compensation Finance Governance Chair | ||||||
Thomas M. Schoewe |
65 | 2011 | Retired Executive Vice President & Chief Financial Officer, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. |
Audit Chair Cybersecurity Executive Finance Risk | ||||||
Carol M. Stephenson |
67 | 2009 | Retired Dean, Ivey Business School, The University of Western Ontario |
Executive Executive Compensation Chair Governance | ||||||
Devin N. Wenig |
51 | 2018 | President & Chief Executive Officer, eBay Inc. |
Committee memberships to be determined at the Boards June 2018 meeting
|
2 |
|
PROXY STATEMENT SUMMARY
We recognize that strong corporate governance contributes to long-term shareholder value. We are committed to sound governance practices, including those described below.
Independence [Ten] out of [eleven] directors are independent Strong Independent Lead Director with clearly delineated duties All standing Board Committees other than the Executive Committee composed entirely of independent directors Regular executive sessions of non-management directors Board and Committees may hire outside advisors independently of management Best Practices Active shareholder engagement process, including a Director-Shareholder Engagement Policy Diverse Board in terms of gender, ethnicity, and specific skills and qualifications Strategy and risk oversight by full Board and Committees, including newly formed Cybersecurity Committee Long-standing commitment to sustainability and corporate social responsibility Robust stock ownership guidelines for executive officers and non-employee directors Overboarding limits Orientation program for new directors and continuing education for all directors Accountability Annual election of all directors Majority voting with director resignation policy (plurality standard to apply in contested elections) Annual Board and Committee self-evaluations, including individual Board member evaluation Annual evaluation of CEO (including compensation) by independent directors clawback policy that applies to our short- and long-term incentive plans Shareholder Rights Proxy access for shareholders Shareholder right to call special meetings No poison pill One-share, one-vote standard Public Policy Engagement Our Board has adopted a U.S. Corporate Political Contributions & Expenditures Policy, which together with other policies and procedures of the Company, guides GMs approach to political contributions. Our Political Contributions Policy and Voluntary Report on Political Contributions are available on our website at gm.com/investors/corporate-governance.html. NEW FOR 20172018 As part of our comprehensive refreshment and recruitment process, we added a new director, Mr. Wenig, who is the President and Chief Executive Officer of eBay and brings considerable technology and consumer-facing expertise to your Board. Established new Cybersecurity Committee to enhance Board oversight of GMs cybersecurity risk management program, policies, and procedures. Selected Ernst & Young LLP as the Companys new independent registered public accounting firm. Enhanced Proxy Statement disclosures: Q&A with our Chairman and CEO, Independent Lead Director, and Governance Committee Chair to outline the Boards strategic framework for driving long-term shareholder value creation, the importance of shareholder engagement, and why GM has the right Board at the right time. Expanded Proxy Statement Summary to highlight our director nominees, governance best practices, Company performance, compensation strategy, and corporate social responsibility, environmental, and sustainability performance. Overview of Boards leadership structure and risk oversight responsibilities.
|
3 |
PROXY STATEMENT SUMMARY
A Year of Transformation
Sweeping change accompanied record performance at General Motors in 2017. To continue focusing resources on its most profitable franchises, GM sold its Opel/Vauxhall and GM Financial European operations, and exited South and East Africa, and India. To advance its vision of a zero emissions world, GM laid out plans to introduce at least 20 new all-electric vehicles that will launch by 2023. The Company also recently filed a Safety Petition asking the U.S. Department of Transportation to allow GM to safely deploy its fourth-generation self-driving Cruise AV on public roads. This vehicle eliminates the steering wheel, pedals, and other unnecessary manual controls. GM expects to deploy self-driving vehicles at scale in a dense urban environment in 2019.
The actions we took to further strengthen our core business and advance our vision for personal mobility made 2017 a
transformative year. We will continue executing our plan and reshaping our company to position it for long-term success.
Mary Barra, Chairman & CEO
GAAP NET REVENUE $145.6B INCOME $0.3B AUTO OPERATING CASH FLOW $13.9B EPS-DILUTED $0.22 Non-GAAP EBIT-adj. MARGIN 8.8% EBIT-adj. $12.8B Adj. AUTO FCF $5.2B EPS-DILUTED adj. $6.62 Note: EBIT-adjusted, EBIT-adjusted margin, adjusted automotive free cash flow and EPS-diluted-adjusted are non-GAAP financial measures. Appendix A includes a reconciliation of these non-GAAP financial measures to their most directly comparable measures reported under accounting principles generally accepted in the United States.
4 |
|
PROXY STATEMENT SUMMARY
Executive Compensation Highlights
We provide highlights of our compensation program below. Please review our Compensation Discussion and Analysis and compensation-related tables beginning on page 35 of this Proxy Statement for a complete understanding of our compensation program.
u | Performance-Based Compensation Structure |
u | 2017 Summary Compensation Snapshot |
Name |
Salary ($) |
Bonus ($) |
Stock Awards ($) |
Option Awards ($) |
Nonequity Incentive Plan Compensation ($) |
Change in Pension Value and NQ Deferred Compensation Earnings ($) |
All Other Compensation |
Total ($) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mary T. Barra
|
|
2,100,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
10,737,570
|
|
|
3,250,003
|
|
|
4,956,000
|
|
|
52,792
|
|
|
861,683
|
|
|
21,958,048
|
| ||||||||
Charles K. Stevens, III
|
|
1,100,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,076,744
|
|
|
931,251
|
|
|
1,622,500
|
|
|
54,114
|
|
|
316,430
|
|
|
7,101,039
|
| ||||||||
Daniel Ammann
|
|
1,450,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,078,222
|
|
|
1,234,378
|
|
|
2,138,800
|
|
|
|
|
|
356,918
|
|
|
9,258,318
|
| ||||||||
Mark L. Reuss
|
|
1,200,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,345,168
|
|
|
1,012,504
|
|
|
1,770,000
|
|
|
54,390
|
|
|
344,446
|
|
|
7,726,508
|
| ||||||||
Alan S. Batey
|
|
1,025,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,224,928
|
|
|
673,426
|
|
|
1,447,800
|
|
|
316,601
|
|
|
287,373
|
|
|
5,975,128
|
| ||||||||
Karl-Thomas Neumann
|
|
916,936
|
|
|
2,000,000
|
|
|
1,961,676
|
|
|
593,751
|
|
|
1,276,317
|
|
|
126,796
|
|
|
12,563
|
|
|
6,888,039
|
|
Note: For additional information on the table above, please see the Summary Compensation Table in Executive Compensation on page 57.
CEO 2017 COMPENSATION STRUCTURE AVERAGE NEO 2017 COMPENSATION STRUCTURE COMPENSATION PROGRAM EVOLUTION AND ENHANCEMENTS IN 2017 Since 2013, we have taken significant actions to align our compensation programs with shareholders interests by focusing our leaders on the key areas that both drive the business forward and align to the short-term and long-term interests of our shareholders. For an in-depth discussion of how we have evolved our programs, including in response to active shareholder engagement, see Executive CompensationCompensation OverviewShareholder Engagement Initiatives on page 38. Key 2017 Enhancements: For short-term incentive compensation, we increased focus on key financial measures and added an individual performance element to incorporate individual performance goals for each NEO. For long-term incentive compensation, we eliminated time-vested restricted stock units and replaced them with Stock Options and incorporated relative performance measures into the performance stock units.
|
5 |
PROXY STATEMENT SUMMARY
Environmental and Sustainability Performance
Our vision for the future can be summed up with three numbers: zero crashes, zero emissions, and zero congestion.
ZERO CRASHES
GMs number one priority is safety. We are developing new technologies to help keep our customers safe.
u GMs Cruise AV has the potential to provide a level of safety far beyond the capabilities of human drivers.
u We launched Super Cruise, the worlds first hands-free highway driving technology, on the Cadillac CT6.
u GM offers 53 global models with forward collision alert and lane departure warning and 40 models with side blind zone alert.
|
ZERO EMISSIONS
GM is committed to an all-electric, zero emissions future. We are working to make cars more efficient and embrace environmentally conscious options.
u GM will introduce 20 new all-electric vehicles by 2023.
u In 2018, GM will increase Bolt EV production at its Orion Assembly Plant north of Detroit.
u GM has committed to using 100% renewable energy in its operations by 2050. |
ZERO CONGESTION
GM is building autonomous, connected, and shared personal mobility options that will help end the congestion that wastes our time and money.
u Maven Gig members have driven more than 6.5 million all-electric miles since February 2017, saving an estimated 250,000 gallons of gas.
u As of March 2018, more than 250 million Maven miles have been driven.
u In 2018, GM submitted a petition to the U.S. Department of Transportation seeking permission to begin operating fully autonomous vehicles, without steering wheels or pedals, at scale in a dense urban environment in 2019.
| ||||||||||
In 2017, GM documented existing practices by memorializing and publishing policies for shareholders, including:
u Conflict Minerals Policy
u Global Environmental Policy
u Human Rights Policy
u Global Integrity Policy, Gifts, Entertainment and Anti-Corruption
u Global Speak-Up! Non-Retaliation Policy
u Supplier Code of Conduct |
LEADERS IN ACTION
Dow Jones Sustainability World Index included GM for the first time and Dow Jones Sustainability North America Index included GM as the only automaker for the third consecutive year.
Other third parties regularly recognize our leadership. A few of those awards include:
u CDP (Carbon Disclosure Project) named GM to the Global Climate A List in 2016 for its performance and disclosure of its CO2 and climate impacts and to the Water A List in 2017 for its effective water management practices.
u U.S. Energy Star Partner of the Year Sustained Excellence Company.
|
Find more online.
For additional information, please read our Sustainability Report, available at: gmsustainability.com, which includes information about how our sustainability strategy integrates with corporate performance and other topics, such as:
u GM initiatives to service communities and youth in science, technology, engineering and math (STEM).
u Actions GM has taken to maintain and improve a responsible supply chain.
u Efforts GM has led to create a diverse and safe workplace of choice.
|
CUSTOMER-DRIVEN SUSTAINABILITY Putting the customer at the center of everything we do extends both to how we build our products and to how we serve and improve our communities. When it comes to sustainability, we pursue a future that creates value for all of our stakeholders.
6 |
|
ITEM NO. 1 ELECTION OF DIRECTORS
SUMMARY At the 2018 Annual Meeting, 11 directors will be elected. The Governance Committee evaluated the nominees in accordance with the Committees charter and our Corporate Governance Guidelines and submitted the nominees to the full Board for approval. On April 17, 2018, the Board elected Mr. Wenig as a member of the Board. All of the other nominees are current GM Board members who were elected by shareholders at the 2017 Annual Meeting.
|
7 |
ITEM NO. 1 ELECTION OF DIRECTORS
WE HAVE THE RIGHT BOARD AT THE RIGHT TIME FOR GM GMs long-term strategy is to strengthen its core business by deploying capital to higher-return opportunities and developing new technologies that will unlock our vision of zero crashes, zero emissions, and zero congestion while also driving cost efficiencies. Your Board believes that it is composed of individuals who collectively possess the right mix of skills, qualifications, and experiences to promote shareholder interests and value and oversee management as it executes its strategic plan, capitalizes on key opportunities, and addresses critical risks. Transforming Our Core Business: GM remains focused on strengthening our core business by delivering winning vehicles, building profitable adjacent businesses, making tough, strategic decisions, and targeting 10% core margins. Your Board has directors with established track records of driving strong performance as CEOs of large public companies. Overseeing a Complex, Global Manufacturing Company: As a large, complex manufacturing company with operations around the globe, GM faces a variety of critical challenges from managing our global supply chain, addressing international trade issues, and controlling raw material costs to maintaining strong relationships with our international workforce. To help management tackle these challenges, your Board has directors with extensive experience leading large, global organizations as CEOs and in other key leadership positions. Performance Throughout the Business Cycle: GM operates in a cyclical industry. It is crucial that GM maintain a strong balance sheet and consistently deploy its capital to the highest-return opportunities. Your Board has directors with deep finance and capital markets expertise to oversee managements capital allocation strategy and effectively balance long-term investment with return of value to shareholders in the near term. Navigating a Heavily Regulated Industry: As an automotive manufacturing company, GM must navigate a complicated regulatory landscape with overlapping, and sometimes conflicting, federal, state, and international emissions, environmental, and safety regulations. In addition, as a leader in autonomous vehicle (AV) development, GM is working with regulators to develop new rules for AVs, a technology that did not exist just a few years ago. Your Board has directors with experience leading automotive companies and companies in other highly regulated industries such as the pharmaceutical and energy industries as well as directors with public policy expertise, including a former high-ranking government official. Fostering Deep Customer Relationships: In addition to being a global manufacturing company, GM is at its core a consumer products company. One of our key priorities is to put the customer at the center of everything we do. To support this priority, your Board has directors with marketing expertise and experience leading consumer products companies to help management grow our brands and drive customer loyalty. Leading in the Future of Personal Mobility: With our vision of zero crashes, zero emissions, and zero congestion, GM is transforming the future of personal mobility through investments in electrification, AV, and car and ridesharing. Your Board has directors with extensive technology expertise gained from senior leadership roles at large technology companies. Your Board is a strategic asset for GM and is driving effective oversight and execution of GMs strategic plan and holding management accountable.
8 |
|
ITEM NO. 1 ELECTION OF DIRECTORS
u | Diversity of Skills, Qualifications, and Experience |
Your Board nominees offer a diverse range of skills and experience in relevant areas.
SKILL/ QUALIFICATION |
BARRA | SOLSO | GOODEN | JIMENEZ | MENDILLO | MULLEN | MULVA | RUSSO | SCHOEWE | STEPHENSON | WENIG | |||||||||||
● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ||||||||||||
|
● | ● | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | |||||||||||||||
|
● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ||||||||||||||
|
● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | |||||||||||
|
● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | |||||||||||
|
● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ||||||||||||
|
● | ● | ● | ● | ||||||||||||||||||
|
● | ● | ● | ● | ● | |||||||||||||||||
|
● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● |
Board Membership Criteria, Refreshment, and Succession Planning
The selection of qualified directors is fundamental to the Boards successful oversight of GMs strategy and enterprise risks. As a result, ensuring your Board is composed of directors who bring diverse viewpoints and perspectives, exhibit a variety of skills, professional experiences, and backgrounds, and effectively represent the long-term interests of shareholders is critical to your Board and the Governance Committee. The priorities for recruiting new directors are continually evolving based on the Companys strategic needs and the skills composition of your Board at any particular time. These dynamic priorities ensure the Board remains a strategic asset capable of addressing the risks, trends, and opportunities that GM will face in the future. In evaluating potential director candidates, the Governance Committee considers, among other factors, the criteria shown above in the skills and qualifications matrix for your current directors and any additional characteristics that it believes one or more directors should possess based on an assessment of the needs of the Board at that time. In every case, director candidates must be able to contribute significantly to your Boards discussion and decision-making on the broad array of complex issues facing GM. The Governance Committee also engages a reputable, qualified search firm that uses our skills matrix to inform the search and help identify and evaluate potential candidates.
u | Board Diversity |
The Governance Committee considers individuals with a broad range of business experience and varied backgrounds. Although GM does not have a formal policy governing diversity among directors, your Board strives to identify candidates with diverse backgrounds. We recognize the value of overall diversity and consider members and candidates opinions, perspectives, personal and professional experiences, and backgrounds, including gender, race, ethnicity, and country of origin. We believe that the judgment and perspectives offered by a diverse board of directors improves the quality of decision making and enhances the Companys business performance. We also believe such diversity can help the Board respond more effectively to the needs of customers, shareholders, employees, suppliers, and other stakeholders.
|
9 |
ITEM NO. 1 ELECTION OF DIRECTORS
u | Candidate Recommendations |
The Governance Committee will consider persons recommended by shareholders for election to the Board. The Governance Committee will review the qualifications and experience of each recommended candidate using the same criteria for candidates proposed by Board members and communicate its decision to the candidate or the person who made the recommendation.
u | Director Recruitment Process |
Your Boards Nominees for Director
Set forth below is other information about our director nominees, including their name and age, recent employment or principal occupation, their period of service as a GM director, the names of other public companies for which they currently serve as a director or have served as a director in the past, and a summary of their specific experiences, qualifications, attributes, and skills. We believe each of your Boards nominees is highly qualified with unique experiences that are particularly beneficial to GM. Collectively, we believe these director nominees represent the best mix of expertise, qualifications, and skills to advance GMs business strategy and serve the interest of all of our shareholders by driving long-term shareholder value.
The Board of Directors recommends a vote FOR each of the nominees below.
TO RECOMMEND AN INDIVIDUAL FOR BOARD MEMBERSHIP, WRITE TO: GMs Corporate Secretary, at General Motors Company, Mail Code 482-C24-A68, 300 Renaissance Center, Detroit, Michigan 48265, or by e-mail to shareholder.relations@gm.com.
10 |
|
ITEM NO. 1 ELECTION OF DIRECTORS
Mary T. Barra | Theodore M. Solso | |
Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, General Motors Company |
Independent Lead Director, General Motors Company and Retired Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, | |
56 years old | 71 years old | |
Director since: 2014 | Director since: 2012 | |
Committees
Executive (Chair)
Current Public Company Directorships
The Walt Disney Company
Prior Public Company Directorships
General Dynamics Corporation (2011 to 2017)
Prior Experience Ms. Barra has served as Chairman of GMs Board of Directors since January 2016 and Chief Executive Officer of GM since January 2014. Prior to that time, she served as Executive Vice President, Global Product Development, Purchasing and Supply Chain from 2013 to 2014; Senior Vice President, Global Product Development from 2011 to 2013; Vice President, Global Human Resources from 2009 to 2011; and Vice President, Global Manufacturing Engineering from 2008 to 2009. Ms. Barra began her career at GM in 1980.
Reasons for Nomination u Extensive senior leadership experience gained as the CEO of GM and in other key leadership positions at the Company, including experience in operational excellence, strategic planning, purchasing and supply chain, human resources, and manufacturing and engineering. u In-depth knowledge of the global automotive industry. u Deep understanding of GMs strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, challenges, risks, and corporate culture. u Ability to drive the efficient execution of GMs strategic plan and vision for the future. u Strong leadership and management skills coupled with extensive engineering and global product development experience. u Valuable knowledge of key governance matters gained as a director of GM and other large global public companies. |
Committees
Executive
Current Public Company Directorships
Ball Corporation (Lead Director)
Prior Public Company Directorships
Ashland Inc. (1999 to 2012) (Lead director 2003 to 2010)
Prior Experience Mr. Solso served as Non-Executive Chairman of the GM Board of Directors from 2014 to 2016. He was Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Cummins, Inc. (Cummins) from 2000 until his retirement in 2011 and President and Chief Operating Officer of Cummins from 1995 to 2000.
Reasons for Nomination u Extensive senior leadership experience gained as the CEO of Cummins, including automotive-related experience and experience in finance, accounting, and vehicle and workplace safety. u Background leading a company through strong financial performance and shareholder returns, international growth, and business restructurings. u Valuable knowledge of key governance matters, including environmental issues, corporate responsibility, diversity, and human rights issues, gained as the CEO of Cummins and the lead director of GM and other large global public companies. u Extensive experience in automotive manufacturing and engineering, including with respect to emissions reduction technology, development of diesel engines, and compliance with challenging emissions laws and regulations. u Valuable insight into advancing the business priorities of GMs international operations gained as the U.S. Chairman of the U.S.-Brazil CEO Forum. |
|
11 |
ITEM NO. 1 ELECTION OF DIRECTORS
Linda R. Gooden | Joseph Jimenez | |
Retired Executive Vice President, Information Systems & Global Solutions, Lockheed Martin Corporation |
Retired Chief Executive Officer, Novartis AG | |
65 years old | 58 years old | |
Director since: 2015 | Director since: 2015 | |
Committees
Audit, Cybersecurity (Chair), Executive, Risk
Current Public Company Directorships
Automatic Data Processing, Inc., The Home Depot, Inc., WGL Holdings, Inc., and Washington Gas & Light Company, a subsidiary of WGL Holdings, Inc.
Prior Experience Ms. Gooden served as Executive Vice President, Information Systems & Global Solutions of Lockheed Martin Corporation (Lockheed) from 2007 to 2013. She was Deputy Executive Vice President, Information and Technology Services of Lockheed from October to December 2006; and President, Information Technology of Lockheed from 1997 to December 2006.
Reasons for Nomination u Significant senior leadership experience gained through various leadership positions at Lockheed, including experience in technology, innovation, acquisitions, divestitures, business restructuring, finance, and risk management. u Valuable insight into GMs information technology (IT) function, technology systems and processes, and cybersecurity framework, including those related to mobility and autonomous vehicles, gained through various leadership roles at Lockheed. u Extensive expertise in cybersecurity and IT as well as significant operational, strategic planning, and government relations experience. u Valuable knowledge of key governance matters gained as a director of GM and other large global public companies. |
Committees
Executive Compensation, Governance and Corporate Responsibility
Current Public Company Directorships
The Procter & Gamble Co.
Prior Public Company Directorships
Colgate-Palmolive Company (2010 to 2015)
Prior Experience Mr. Jimenez served as Chief Executive Officer of Novartis AG (Novartis) from 2010 until his retirement in 2017. He was Head of Novartis Pharmaceuticals Division from October 2007 to 2010 and Head of Novartis Consumer Health Division from April to October 2007. Prior to joining Novartis, Mr. Jimenez served as Advisor to the Blackstone Group L.P., a private equity firm, from 2006 to 2007. He was President and Chief Executive Officer of H.J. Heinz Company (Heinz) North America from 2002 to 2006 and Executive Vice President, President and Chief Executive Officer of Heinz Europe from 1999 to 2002. Prior to joining Heinz, Mr. Jimenez held various leadership positions at ConAgra Foods Inc. (ConAgra), including President and Senior Vice President of two operating divisions from 1993 to 1998.
Reasons for Nomination u Extensive senior leadership experience gained as the CEO of Novartis and in other senior leadership positions in the consumer products industry, including experience in international operations, strategic planning, and finance. u Valuable insight into GMs strategy to enhance the customer experience and earn customers for life gained through various senior leadership positions at Heinz and ConAgra and as a director of Colgate-Palmolive Company. u Experience executing business restructurings and significant business transformations at both Heinz and Novartis. u Valuable knowledge of key governance matters gained as the CEO of Novartis and a director of GM and other large global public companies. |
12 |
|
ITEM NO. 1 ELECTION OF DIRECTORS
Jane L. Mendillo | Admiral Michael G. Mullen | |
Retired President & Chief Executive Officer, Harvard Management Company |
Former Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff | |
59 years old | 71 years old | |
Director since: 2016 | Director since: 2013 | |
Committees
Audit, Finance
Current Public Company Directorships
Lazard Ltd
Prior Experience Ms. Mendillo served as President and Chief Executive Officer of the Harvard Management Company (HMC) from 2008 to 2014, managing Harvard Universitys approximately $37 billion global endowment and related assets. Prior to joining HMC, she was Chief Investment Officer of Wellesley College from 2002 to 2008; and prior to that, she spent 15 years at HMC in various other investment roles. She also served as Chair of the investment committee of the Partners Healthcare System; a member of the board of directors and investment committee of the Mellon Foundation; Senior Investment Advisor and Trustee to the Old Mountain Private Trust Company; and a member of the Board and Executive Committee of Berklee College of Music.
Reasons for Nomination u Extensive senior leadership experience gained as the CEO of HMC, including experience in risk and crisis management. u Deep capital markets expertise gained from her more than 30 years managing globally diverse endowments and investment portfolios. u Valuable insight into GMs disciplined capital allocation framework and its financial policies and strategies. u Valuable knowledge of key governance matters gained as a director of GM and another large global public company. |
Committees
Audit, Cybersecurity, Executive, Risk (Chair)
Current Public Company Directorships
Sprint Corporation
Prior Experience Admiral Mullen served as the 17th Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 2007 until his retirement in 2011, one of his four different four-star assignments; the others included the 28th Chief of Naval Operations from 2005 to 2007; Commander, U.S. Naval Forces Europe/Allied Joint Force Command Naples from 2004 to 2005; and the 32nd Vice Chief Naval Officer from 2003 to 2004. Admiral Mullen has been President of MGM Consulting LLC since 2012, and he serves as a Charles and Marie Robertson Visiting Professor at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University.
Reasons for Nomination u Extensive senior leadership experience gained over a 43-year career in the U.S. military, including four-star assignments in the U.S. Navy, which were equivalent to the Navys Chief Executive Officer, Chief Operating Officer, and Chief Financial Officer, and culminating in his appointment as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. u Valuable insight into GMs IT function, technology systems and processes, and cybersecurity framework gained through overseeing the rapid development and deployment of innovative technologies for effective 21st-century military solutions. u Deep experience leading change in complex organizations, strategic planning, budget policy, risk and crisis management, executive development and succession planning, diversity implementation, cybersecurity, and technical innovation. u Experience in navigating geopolitical risks, succession planning, diversity, accountability, crisis management, public policy, and safety culture. u Valuable knowledge of key governance matters gained as a long-tenured military leader and a director of GM and another large global public company. |
|
13 |
ITEM NO. 1 ELECTION OF DIRECTORS
James J. Mulva | Patricia F. Russo | |
Retired Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, ConocoPhillips | Chairman, Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company | |
71 years old | 65 years old | |
Director since: 2012 | Director since: 2009 | |
Committees
Executive, Executive Compensation, Finance (Chair), Risk
Current Public Company Directorships
General Electric Company and Baker Hughes, a GE company
Prior Public Company Directorships
Statoil ASA (2013 to 2015)
Prior Experience Mr. Mulva served as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of ConocoPhillips from 2004 until his retirement in 2012. He was Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer of ConocoPhillips from 2004 to 2008 and President and Chief Executive Officer of ConocoPhillips from 2002 to 2004.
Reasons for Nomination u Extensive senior leadership experience gained as the CEO of ConocoPhillips, including experience in finance and international business. u Significant strategic business experience, including with respect to mergers and acquisitions, business restructurings, joint ventures, and the successful navigation of the highly competitive energy industry. u Valuable insight into GMs manufacturing and safety strategies gained through experience in global manufacturing at ConocoPhillips with a focus on risk management. u Valuable knowledge of key governance matters gained as the CEO of ConocoPhillips and a director of GM and other large global public companies. |
Committees
Executive, Executive Compensation, Finance, Governance and Corporate Responsibility (Chair)
Current Public Company Directorships
Arconic Inc. (formerly Alcoa) (Interim-Chairman April 2017 to October 2017 and Lead Director May 2015 to April 2017), Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company (Chairman), KKR Management LLC (the managing partner of KKR & Co. L.P.), and Merck & Co. Inc.
Prior Public Company Directorships
Hewlett-Packard Company (2011 to 2015) (Lead Director 2014 to 2015)
Prior Experience Ms. Russo served as Lead Director of the Hewlett-Packard Company Board of Directors from 2014 to 2015. She was Lead Director of the GM Board of Directors from March 2010 to January 2014. She also served as Chief Executive Officer of Alcatel-Lucent S.A. (Alcatel-Lucent) from 2006 to 2008; Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Lucent Technologies, Inc. (Lucent) from 2003 to 2006; and President and Chief Executive Officer of Lucent from 2002 to 2006.
Reasons for Nomination u Extensive senior leadership gained as the CEO of Alcatel-Lucent and Lucent, including experience in corporate strategy, finance, sales and marketing, technology, and leadership development. u Significant strategic business experience gained through managing critical technology disruptions and successfully leading Lucent through a severe industry downturn. u Valuable insight into GMs evaluation and execution of strategic transactions gained through experience overseeing Hewlett-Packard Companys split into two companies, the Alcoa-Arconic split, and managing the Alcatel-Lucent merger. u Valuable knowledge of key governance matters, including executive compensation, gained as the CEO of Alcatel-Lucent and Lucent and a director of GM and other large global public companies. |
14 |
|
ITEM NO. 1 ELECTION OF DIRECTORS
Thomas M. Schoewe | Carol M. Stephenson, O.C. | |
Retired Executive Vice President & Chief Financial Officer, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. |
Retired Dean, Ivey Business School, The University of Western Ontario | |
65 years old | 67 years old | |
Director since: 2011 | Director since: 2009 | |
Committees
Audit (Chair), Cybersecurity, Executive, Finance, Risk
Current Public Company Directorships
KKR Management LLC and Northrop Grumman Corporation
Prior Public Company Directorship
PulteGroup, Inc. (2009 to 2012)
Prior Experience Mr. Schoewe served as Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (Wal-Mart) from 2000 to 2011. Prior to joining Wal-Mart, he was Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Black & Decker Corporation (Black & Decker) from 1996 to 1999; Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Black & Decker from 1993 to 1996; Vice President of Finance of Black & Decker from 1989 to 1993; and Vice President of Business Planning and Analysis of Black & Decker from 1986 to 1989.
Reasons for Nomination: u Extensive financial expertise as the CFO of Wal-Mart and Black & Decker. u Significant senior leadership experience gained in various leadership positions, including experience in financial reporting, accounting and controls, business planning and analysis, and risk management. u Valuable insight into GMs IT function, technology systems and processes, and cybersecurity framework gained through experience leading large-scale, transformational IT implementations at Wal-Mart and Black & Decker. u Valuable knowledge of key governance matters gained as a director of GM and at other large global public companies. |
Committees
Executive, Executive Compensation (Chair), Governance and Corporate Responsibility
Current Public Company Directorships
Intact Financial Corporation (formerly ING Canada) and Maple Leaf Foods Inc.
Prior Public Company Directorships
Ballard Power Systems, Inc. (2012 to 2017) and Manitoba Telecom Services (2008 to 2016)
Prior Experience Ms. Stephenson served as Dean of the Ivey Business School at the University of Western Ontario from 2003 until her retirement in 2013. Prior to joining the Ivey Business School, she was President and Chief Executive Officer of Lucent Technologies Canada from 1999 to 2003. She was also a member of the Advisory Board of General Motors of Canada, Limited, a GM subsidiary, from 2005 to 2009 and appointed an officer of the Order of Canada in 2009.
Reasons for Nomination u Significant senior leadership experience gained as Dean of the Ivey Business School and in leadership positions in the telecommunications industry. u Valuable insight into GMs strategy to strengthen our core business and transform the future of personal mobility gained through expertise in marketing, operations, strategic planning, technology development, and financial management. u Extensive expertise in North American trade issues and the Canadian business environment gained as a director at several leading Canadian companies. u Valuable knowledge of key governance matters, including executive compensation, gained as a director of GM and at other large global public companies. |
|
15 |
ITEM NO. 1 ELECTION OF DIRECTORS
|
||
Devin N. Wenig | ||
President & Chief Executive Officer, eBay Inc. |
||
51 years old | ||
Director since: 2018 | ||
Committees
Committee memberships to be determined at the Boards June 2018 meeting.
Current Public Company Directorships
eBay Inc.
Prior Experience In July 2015, Mr. Wenig was appointed as President and Chief Executive Officer of eBay. Prior to that time, he served as President of eBays Marketplaces business from 2011 to July 2015. Prior to joining eBay, Mr. Wenig was Chief Executive Officer of Thomson Reuters Corporations (Thomson Reuters) largest division, Thomson Reuters Markets, from 2008 to 2011; Chief Operating Officer of Reuters Group plc (Reuters) from 2006 to 2008; and President of Reuters Business divisions from 2003 to 2006.
Reasons for Nomination u Extensive senior leadership experience gained as the CEO of eBay, including experience in technology, global operations, and strategic planning. u Critical technology insight into GMs strategies related to the future of mobility, autonomous vehicles, vehicle connectivity, and data monetization gained through various roles at eBay. u Valuable insight into GMs strategy to enhance the customer experience and earn customers for life gained through various consumer-facing leadership roles at eBay, Thomson Reuters, and Reuters. u Valuable knowledge of key governance matters gained as the CEO of eBay and a director of other large global public companies. |
16 |
|
ITEM NO. 1 ELECTION OF DIRECTORS
Non-Employee Director Compensation
Our non-employee directors receive cash compensation as well as equity compensation in the form of GM Deferred Share Units (DSUs) for their Board service. Compensation for our non-employee directors is set by the Board at the recommendation of the Governance Committee.
u | Guiding Principles |
u | Fairly compensate directors for their responsibilities and time commitments. |
u | Attract and retain highly qualified directors by offering a compensation program consistent with those at companies of similar size, scope, and complexity. |
u | Align the interests of directors with our shareholders by providing a significant portion of compensation in equity and requiring directors to continue to own our common stock (or common stock equivalents). |
u | Provide compensation that is simple and transparent to shareholders. |
u | Annual Review Process |
The Governance Committee, which consists solely of independent directors, annually assesses the form and amount of non-employee director compensation and recommends changes, if appropriate, to the Board based upon competitive market practices. GMs Legal Staff also supports the Committee in determining director compensation and designing the related benefit programs. In addition, if the Governance Committee determines it is necessary, it has the authority to engage the services of outside consultants, experts, and others to assist in designing and setting director compensation. As part of its annual review, the Committee conducts extensive benchmarking by reviewing director compensation data for the executive compensation peer group described in Executive CompensationCompensation OverviewPeer Group for Compensation Comparisons on page 41. Following its review of GMs director compensation in December 2017, the Governance Committee recommended that the Board maintain the same structure and level of compensation and stock ownership requirements for 2018 as were in place in 2017.
u | Director Stock Ownership and Holding Requirements |
u | Each non-employee director is required to own our common stock or DSUs with a market value of at least $500,000. |
u | Each director has up to five years from the date he or she is first elected to the Board to meet this ownership requirement. |
u | Non-employee directors are prohibited from selling any GM securities or derivatives of GM securities, such as DSUs, while they are members of the Board. |
u | Ownership guidelines are reviewed each year to confirm they continue to be effective in aligning the interests of the Board and our shareholders. |
u | All of our directors are in compliance with our stock retention requirements. Mr. Wenig is within his five-year compliance period and is expected to meet the ownership requirement by the end of such period. All other directors have met or exceeded the ownership requirement. |
u | Annual Compensation |
During 2017, compensation for non-employee directors consisted of the elements described in the table below. We do not pay any other retainers or meeting fees. The Independent Lead Director and Committee Chairs receive additional compensation due to the increased workload and additional responsibilities associated with these positions. In particular, Mr. Solsos compensation as Independent Lead Director reflects the additional time commitment for this role, which includes, among other responsibilities, attending all Board Committee meetings, meeting with the Companys investors, and attending additional meetings with the Companys senior management, including the CEO. For additional information about the roles and responsibilities of our Independent Lead Director, see Corporate GovernanceBoard Leadership Structure on page 21.
Compensation Element
|
2017
|
|||
Board Retainer
|
$
|
285,000
|
| |
Independent Lead Director Fee
|
$
|
100,000
|
| |
Audit Committee Chair Fee
|
|
$30,000
|
| |
All Other Committee Chair Fees (excluding the Executive Committee)
|
|
$20,000
|
|
|
17 |
ITEM NO. 1 ELECTION OF DIRECTORS
Non-employee directors are required to defer 50% of their annual Board retainer ($142,500) into DSUs under the General Motors Company Deferred Compensation Plan for Non-Employee Directors (the Director Compensation Plan). Directors may elect to defer all or half of their remaining Board retainer or amounts payable (if any) for serving as Committee Chair or Independent Lead Director into additional DSUs. The fees for a director who joins or leaves the Board or assumes additional responsibilities during the year are prorated for his or her period of service.
u | How Deferred Share Units Work |
Each DSU is equal in value to a share of GM common stock and is fully vested upon grant, but does not have voting rights. DSUs will not be available for disposition until after the director leaves the Board. After leaving the Board, the director will receive a cash payment or payments based on the number of DSUs in the directors account, valued at the average daily closing market price for the quarter immediately preceding payment. Directors will be paid in a lump sum or in annual installments for up to five years based on their deferral elections. All DSUs granted are rounded up to the nearest whole unit. Any portion of the retainer that is deferred into DSUs may also earn dividend equivalents, which are credited at the end of each calendar year to each directors account in the form of additional DSUs. DSUs granted are determined as follows:
u | Other Compensation |
As outlined below, we provide certain additional benefits to non-employee directors.
Type | Purpose | |
u Company Vehicles |
We provide directors with the use of company vehicles to provide feedback on our products as well as enhance the public image of our vehicles. Retired directors also receive the use of a company vehicle for a period of time. Participants are charged with imputed income based on the lease value of the vehicles and are responsible for associated taxes. | |
u Personal Accident Insurance |
We provide PAI coverage in the event of accidental death or dismemberment. Directors are responsible for associated taxes on the imputed income from the coverage. |
(1) | Ms. Barra, our sole employee director, does not receive additional compensation for her Board service other than the PAI benefit described above, the value of which is reported for Ms. Barra in the Summary Compensation Table on page 57. |
Non-employee directors are not eligible to participate in any of the savings or retirement programs for our employees. Other than as described in this section, there are no separate benefit plans for directors.
18 |
|
Amount of compensation required or elected to be deferred each calendar year under the Director Compensation Plan ÷ Average daily closing market price of our common stock for that calendar year = DSUs Granted
ITEM NO. 1 ELECTION OF DIRECTORS
u | 2017 Non-Employee Director Compensation Table |
This table shows the compensation that each non-employee director received for his or her 2017 Board and Committee service.
Director
|
Fees Earned or Paid in Cash(1) ($)
|
Stock Awards(2) ($)
|
All Other Compensation(3) ($)
|
Total ($)
|
||||||||||||
Joseph J. Ashton(4)
|
|
142,500
|
|
|
156,336
|
|
|
34,698
|
|
|
333,534
|
| ||||
Linda R. Gooden(5)
|
|
145,833
|
|
|
155,311
|
|
|
22,448
|
|
|
323,592
|
| ||||
Joseph Jimenez
|
|
142,500
|
|
|
155,311
|
|
|
24,282
|
|
|
322,093
|
| ||||
Jane L. Mendillo
|
|
142,500
|
|
|
155,311
|
|
|
11,323
|
|
|
309,134
|
| ||||
Michael G. Mullen
|
|
162,500
|
|
|
155,311
|
|
|
23,428
|
|
|
341,239
|
| ||||
James J. Mulva
|
|
162,500
|
|
|
155,311
|
|
|
36,490
|
|
|
354,301
|
| ||||
Patricia F. Russo
|
|
162,500
|
|
|
155,311
|
|
|
19,886
|
|
|
337,697
|
| ||||
Thomas M. Schoewe
|
|
172,500
|
|
|
155,311
|
|
|
30,448
|
|
|
358,259
|
| ||||
Theodore M. Solso
|
|
242,500
|
|
|
155,311
|
|
|
15,490
|
|
|
413,301
|
| ||||
Carol M. Stephenson
|
|
162,500
|
|
|
155,311
|
|
|
12,782
|
|
|
330,593
|
|
(1) | This column reflects director compensation eligible to be paid in cash, which consists of 50 percent of the annual Board retainer ($142,500) and any applicable Committee Chair or Independent Lead Director fees. Each of the following directors elected to receive DSUs in lieu of such amounts eligible to be paid in cash in the following amounts: Mr. Ashton $71,250; Ms. Gooden $3,333; Mr. Jimenez $142,500; Ms. Mendillo $142,500; Mr. Mullen $20,000; Mr. Mulva $162,500; Ms. Russo $20,000; Mr. Solso $242,500; and Ms. Stephenson $81,250. |
(2) | Reflects aggregate grant date fair value of DSUs granted in 2017, which does not include any cash fees that directors voluntarily elected to receive as DSUs. Grant date fair value is calculated by multiplying the number of DSUs granted by the closing price of GM common stock on December 29, 2017, which was $40.99. The holders of DSUs also receive dividend equivalents, which are reinvested in additional DSUs based on the market price of the common stock on the date the dividends are paid. |
(3) | The following table provides more information on the type and amount of benefits included in the All Other Compensation column. |
Director
|
Company Vehicle Program (a)
|
Other (b)
|
Total
|
Director
|
Company Vehicle Program (a)
|
Other (b)
|
Total
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Mr. Ashton
|
|
$34,458
|
|
|
$240
|
|
|
$34,698
|
|
Mr. Mulva
|
|
$36,250
|
|
|
$240
|
|
|
$36,490
|
| |||||||||||
Ms. Gooden
|
|
$22,208
|
|
|
$240
|
|
|
$22,448
|
|
Ms. Russo
|
|
$19,646
|
|
|
$240
|
|
|
$19,886
|
| |||||||||||
Mr. Jimenez
|
|
$24,042
|
|
|
$240
|
|
|
$24,282
|
|
Mr. Schoewe
|
|
$30,208
|
|
|
$240
|
|
|
$30,448
|
| |||||||||||
Ms. Mendillo
|
|
$11,083
|
|
|
$240
|
|
|
$11,323
|
|
Mr. Solso
|
|
$15,250
|
|
|
$240
|
|
|
$15,490
|
| |||||||||||
Mr. Mullen
|
|
$23,188
|
|
|
$240
|
|
|
$23,428
|
|
Ms. Stephenson
|
|
$12,542
|
|
|
$240
|
|
|
$12,782
|
|
(a) | Company vehicle program includes the estimated annual lease value of the Company vehicles driven by directors. We include the annual lease value because it is more reflective of the value of the company vehicle perquisite than the Companys incremental costs, which are generally significantly lower because the Company manufactures and ordinarily disposes of Company vehicles for a profit, resulting in minimal incremental costs, if any. Taxes related to imputed income are the responsibility of each director. |
(b) | Reflects cost of premiums for providing personal accident insurance (annual premium cost of $240 is prorated, as applicable, for period of service). In addition, Mr. Solso received tickets to attend a special event; the tickets had no incremental cost to the Company. |
(4) | Mr. Ashton resigned from the Board effective December 8, 2017. |
(5) | Ms. Gooden was appointed Chair of the Cybersecurity Committee on November 20, 2017. |
|
19 |
CORPORATE GOVERNANCE
Your Board has the flexibility to decide when the positions of Chairman and CEO should be combined or separated and whether an executive or an independent director should be Chairman. This approach is designed to allow the Board to choose the leadership structure that will best serve the interests of our shareholders at any particular time. In January 2016, the Board recombined the positions of Chairman and CEO under the leadership of Ms. Barra and designated Mr. Solso as Independent Lead Director. For 2018, our independent directors unanimously voted to appoint Mr. Solso as the Independent Lead Director for the third consecutive year. The Boards key duties include oversight of strategy, risk management, and legal and regulatory compliance as well as CEO succession planning. In each of these areas, the Board determined that a combined role of Chairman and CEO, with the presence of a strong Independent Lead Director and governance best practices, is the optimal Board leadership structure for GM at this time. Mr. Solsos perspective on your Boards leadership structure is provided on the following page.
|
21 |
CORPORATE GOVERNANCE
A Message from the Independent Lead Director on Your Boards Leadership Structure
As the Independent Lead Director, I regularly engage with GMs investors and other key stakeholders on a variety of issues, including GMs corporate governance structure and practices and, importantly, your Boards leadership structure. I want to share with you the same message I deliver during these engagements.
Mary Barra Is the Right Person to Lead Your Board
Your Board carefully considers the appropriate leadership structure for GM and its shareholders on an annual basis and determines whether to combine or split the roles of Chairman and CEO. Your Board believes that Ms. Barras service as both Chairman and CEO has provided, and continues to provide, a clear and unified strategic vision for GM during this time of unprecedented industry change. As the individual with primary responsibility for managing the Company, Ms. Barras in-depth knowledge of our business and understanding of GMs day-to-day operations brings focused leadership to your Board. She has been a key leader as we have reset our culture of safety and relentlessly focused on putting the customer at the center of everything we do. As Chairman, she facilitates your Boards continued strong oversight of compliance and enterprise risk management programs. For example, under her leadership, in 2017 the Board established a new Cybersecurity Committee to enhance the Boards oversight of GMs evolving cybersecurity risks.
Your Board Is Independent and Holds Management Accountable
With 10 of 11 directors being independent, your Board holds management accountable. We have the right mix of skills, qualifications, and experiences to oversee, guide, and challenge the leadership team. We are engaged in shaping and overseeing GMs strategy. Strategy is a part of every Board meeting, and every year your Board holds a multiday session devoted exclusively to GMs strategic plan. During these discussions, Board members engage in active debate and dialogue, challenge and validate management assumptions, and shape various aspects of managements strategy and execution.
My Role as the Independent Lead Director
I strive to complement Ms. Barras role as Chairman by providing strong independent leadership in my role as the Independent Lead Director, with the following key duties and responsibilities:
As always, I am proud to work closely with our Chairman and CEO and my fellow independent directors as we drive long-term shareholder value. On behalf of the entire Board, thank you for your continued support.
|
Theodore M. Solso Independent Lead Director
|
22 |
|
CORPORATE GOVERNANCE
Independent directors have an opportunity to meet in executive session without management present as part of each regularly scheduled Board meeting. Executive sessions are chaired by the Independent Lead Director, Mr. Solso.
During executive sessions, the independent directors may review CEO performance, compensation, and succession planning; strategy; risk; future Board agendas and flow of information to directors; corporate governance matters; and any other matters of importance to the Company raised during a meeting or otherwise presented by the independent directors.
The non-management directors of the Board met in executive session six times in 2017, including one time with only independent directors present.
Your Board of Directors has seven standing Committees: Audit, Cybersecurity, Executive Compensation, Finance, Governance, Risk, and Executive. The key responsibilities, recent activities, and focus areas of each Committee are set forth below, together with their current membership and the number of meetings held in 2017. Each Committee Chair meets regularly with management during the year to discuss Committee business, shape agendas, and facilitate efficient meetings. The Independent Lead Director, Mr. Solso, attends all Committee meetings to serve as a resource and identify topics requiring the full Boards attention. The Board has determined that each member of the Audit, Compensation, Governance, Cybersecurity, Finance, and Risk Committees is independent according to NYSE listing standards and our Corporate Governance Guidelines.
In November 2017, the Board formed the Cybersecurity Committee, at which time the Risk Committee and Audit Committee charters were revised to reflect the transfer of cybersecurity oversight responsibilities. For additional information about our new Cybersecurity Committee, see Corporate GovernanceBoard and Committee Oversight of Risk on page 27.
Find more online.
Each Committee has a charter governing its activities. Committee charters are available on our website at: gm.com/investors/corporate-governance.
|
|
23 |
CORPORATE GOVERNANCE
|
|
|||||||
Thomas M. Schoewe, Chair
|
Members: Thomas M. Schoewe (Chair), Linda R. Gooden, Jane L. Mendillo, and Michael G. Mullen
Meetings held in 2017: 7 |
Linda R. Gooden, Chair
|
Members: Linda R. Gooden (Chair), Michael G. Mullen, and Thomas M. Schoewe
Meetings held in 2017: 2 | |||||
Key Responsibilities u Oversees the quality and integrity of our financial statements, related disclosures, and internal controls; u Reviews and discusses with management and the independent auditors the Companys earnings releases and quarterly and annual reports on Forms 10-Q and 10-K prior to filing with the SEC; u Reviews the Companys critical accounting policies, financial reporting and accounting standards and principles, and key accounting decisions and judgments affecting the Companys financial statements; u Reviews the scope and effectiveness of the Companys compliance and ethics programs; u Oversees the retention, qualifications, and performance of the independent auditor; u Preapproves all audit and permitted non-audit services provided by the independent auditor; u Regularly meets in private sessions with the General Counsel, Chief Compliance Officer, General Auditor and independent auditor; u Reviews the scope, effectiveness, and independence of the Companys internal audit function; and u Oversees the Companys compliance with legal, ethical, and regulatory requirements.
The Board has determined that all members of the Audit Committee meet heightened independence and qualification criteria and are financially literate in accordance with the NYSE listing standards and that Ms. Gooden, Ms. Mendillo, and Mr. Schoewe are each qualified as an audit committee financial expert as defined by the SEC.
For additional information about the Audit Committee and its 2017 activities, see its report included in this Proxy Statement beginning on page 70. |
Key Responsibilities u Oversees the effectiveness of the Companys cybersecurity programs and its practices for identifying, assessing, and mitigating cybersecurity risks; u Reviews the Companys controls to prevent, detect, and respond to cyberattacks and breaches involving GMs electronic information, intellectual property, sensitive data, connected products, and the connected ecosystem; u Oversees managements implementation of cybersecurity programs and risk policies and procedures and managements actions to safeguard their effectiveness; and u Evaluates the Companys cyber crisis preparedness, incident response plans, and disaster recovery capabilities.
|
24 |
|
Recent Activities and Key Focus Areas Conducted competitive request for proposal process to select the Companys new independent auditor, Ernst & Young LLP Examined the impact of the enactment of U.S. tax reform legislation Prepared for adoption of new revenue recognition standard Reviewed internal controls over financial reporting to maintain world-class control environment Recent Activities and Key Focus Areas Evaluated GMs key cybersecurity risks and enterprise and product cybersecurity programs Approved ransomware policy and countermeasures Oversaw managements optimization of GMs cybersecurity function
CORPORATE GOVERNANCE
Carol M. Stephenson, Chair
|
Members: Carol M. Stephenson (Chair), Joseph Jimenez, James J. Mulva, and Patricia F. Russo
Meetings held in 2017: 6 |
|
James J. Mulva, Chair
|
Members: James J. Mulva (Chair), Jane L. Mendillo, Patricia F. Russo, and Thomas M. Schoewe
Meetings held in 2017: 4 | ||||
Key Responsibilities u Oversees the Companys executive compensation policies, practices, and programs; u Reviews and approves corporate goals and objectives, evaluates performance (along with the full Board), and determines compensation levels for the Chairman and CEO; u Reviews and approves compensation of NEOs, executive officers, and other senior leaders under its purview; u Oversees compensation policies and practices so that the plans do not encourage unnecessary or excessive risks; and u Oversees the Companys policies and practices that promote diversity and inclusion.
The Board has determined that all members of the Executive Compensation Committee meet heightened independence and qualification criteria in accordance with NYSE listing standards and SEC rules.
|
Key Responsibilities u Assists the Board in its oversight of financial policies, strategies, and capital structure; u Reviews the Companys cash management as well as proposed capital plans, capital expenditures, dividend actions, stock splits and repurchases, issuances of debt or equity securities, and credit facility and other borrowings; u Reviews any significant financial exposures and contingent liabilities of the Company, including foreign exchange, interest rate, and commodities exposures, and the use of derivatives to hedge those exposures; and u Reviews the regulatory compliance, administration, financing, investment performance, risk and liability profile, and funding of the Companys U.S. pension obligations.
|
|
25 |
Recent Activities and Key Focus Areas Modified GMs long-term and short-term incentive compensation plans to incorporate shareholder feedback and current best practices Enhanced focus on sustainability in compensation decisions following shareholder feedback Shareholder engagement designed to solicit continued input on GMs compensation structure Recent Activities and Key Focus Areas Continued to oversee GMs Capital Allocation Strategy, including managements decisions to exit GM Europe as well as franchises in South Africa and East Africa and to discontinue retail sales in India Adopted enhanced cash management policies to optimize utilization of GMs liquidity Monitored continued efforts to deliver world-class cost performance Oversaw GM Financials continued execution of its full captive strategy
CORPORATE GOVERNANCE
Patricia F. Russo, Chair
|
Members: Patricia F. Russo (Chair), Joseph Jimenez, and Carol M. Stephenson
Meetings held in 2017: 6 |
|
Adm. Michael G. Mullen, Chair
|
Members: Michael G. Mullen (Chair), Linda R. Gooden, James J. Mulva, and Thomas M. Schoewe
Meetings held in 2017: 4 | ||||
Key Responsibilities u Reviews the Companys corporate governance framework, including all significant governance policies and procedures; u Oversees Company policies and strategies related to corporate responsibility, sustainability, and political contributions; u Reviews the appropriate composition of the Board and recommends director nominees; u Oversees the self-evaluation process of the Board and Committees; u Recommends compensation of non-employee directors to the Board; and u Reviews and approves related party transactions and any potential Board conflicts of interest, as applicable.
|
Key Responsibilities u Assists the Board in its oversight of the Companys risk management framework and practices; u Reviews the Companys risk culture, including open risk discussions and the integration of risk management into the Companys behaviors, decision making, and processes; u Reviews managements evaluation of strategic and operating risks, including risk concentrations, mitigating measures and the types and levels of risk that are acceptable in the pursuit and protection of shareholder value; u Reviews the impact of the Companys programs and practices regarding vehicle and workplace safety; and u Reviews risks related to the Companys public policy positions in the United States and internationally.
|
EXECUTIVE
|
Your Board has an Executive Committee composed of the Chairman and CEO, the Independent Lead Director, and the Chairs of our other standing Committees. The Executive Committee is chaired by Ms. Barra and empowered to act for the full Board in intervals between Board meetings, with the exception of certain matters that the Board has not delegated. The Executive Committee meets as necessary, and all actions by the Executive Committee are reported and ratified at the next succeeding Board meeting. The Executive Committee did not meet in 2017.
|
26 |
|
Recent Activities and Key Focus Areas Continued board succession planning with recruitment of Devin N. Wenig, who brings key technology and consumer-facing expertise to complement the Boards current mix of skills and capabilities, which will help the Company compete in a rapidly changing industry Managed Director-Shareholder engagement program that facilitated important feedback to the Board Oversaw ESG strategy to improve GM third-party rankings and performance Reviewed U.S. corporate political contributions as well as GM PAC contributions and expenditures. Recent Activities and Key Focus Areas Reinforced enterprise-wide objective of best-in-class workplace safety Conducted review of key strategic and cross-functional risks, including vehicle safety; emissions and fuel economy compliance; global product portfolio; product quality; and workplace culture Evaluated key public policy, geopolitical, and region-specific risks and reviewed mitigating actions taken by management to protect shareholder value Reviewed results of the annual enterprise risk assessment, including determination of enterprise risk focus for 2018
CORPORATE GOVERNANCE
The Board and each Board Committee can select and retain the services of outside advisors at the Companys expense.
Board and Committee Meetings and Attendance
In 2017, your Board held a total of 10 meetings, and average director attendance at Board and Committee meetings was 97%. Each director standing for re-election attended at least 90% of the total meetings of the Board and Committees on which he or she served in 2017. Directors are expected to attend our Annual Meeting of shareholders, which is held in conjunction with a regularly scheduled Board meeting. All directors in office at such time attended the 2017 Annual Meeting.
Board and Committee Oversight of Risk
Your Board has the overall responsibility for risk oversight, with a focus on the most significant risks facing the Company. Effective risk management is the responsibility of the CEO and other members of management, specifically the Senior Leadership Team. As part of the risk management process, each of the Companys business units and functions is responsible for identifying risks that could affect the achievement of business goals and strategies, assessing the likelihood and potential impact of significant risks, and prioritizing the risks and actions to be taken to mitigate such risks, as appropriate.
Your Board implements its risk oversight function both as a whole and through delegation to Board Committees, particularly the Risk Committee. The Board receives regular reports from management on particular risks within the Company, through review of the Companys strategic plan and through regular communication with its Committees. Management provides comprehensive reports to the Risk Committee on the key strategic, operating, vehicle, and workplace safety, financial, and compliance risks facing the Company, including managements response to managing and mitigating such risks, as appropriate. The Companys Chief Compliance Officer also regularly reports to the Audit Committee.
The Chair of the Risk Committee coordinates with the Chairs of the other Board Committees in their review of the Company risks that have been delegated to these Committees to support them in coordinating the relationship between risk management policies and practices and their respective oversight accountabilities. Each of the other Board Committees, which meet regularly and report back to the Board, is responsible for oversight of risk management practices for categories of risks relevant to its functions.
Your Board believes that its structure for risk oversight provides for open communication between management and the Board and its Committees, which effectively supports managements enterprise risk management programs. In addition, strong independent directors chair the Committees involved in risk oversight, and all directors are involved in the risk assessment and ongoing risk reviews.
|
27 |
CORPORATE GOVERNANCE
Succession Planning and Leadership Development
Board and Committee Evaluations
The Board and each Committee conducts an annual self-evaluation to assess effectiveness and consider opportunities for improvement. As part of the evaluation process, each director completes a written questionnaire and is also interviewed by the Chairman and, if requested or needed, the Independent Lead Director. The results of the written questionnaires are compiled anonymously by the Corporate Secretary in the form of summaries for the full Board and each Committee. The feedback received from the questionnaires and interviews is reviewed and discussed by the Governance Committee (as it relates to both the Board and all Committees) and each other Committee (as it relates to such Committee). Following review and discussion by the Committees, the Chairman and the Chair of the Governance Committee summarize the results of the evaluations and report to the full Board for discussion and any action items. In addition, the Chairman and, if applicable, the Independent Lead Director, provide feedback from the individual director interviews to the full Board.
Matters considered in evaluations include the following:
u The effectiveness of the Boards leadership and Committee structure;
u Board and Committee skills, composition, and diversity and Board succession planning;
u Board and Committee culture and dynamics, including the effectiveness of discussion and debate at Board and Committee meetings;
|
u The quality of Board and Committee agendas and the appropriate Board and Committee priorities;
u Dynamics between the Board and management, including the quality of management presentations and information provided to the Board and Committees; and
u The contributions and performance of individual directors, including the Chairman, Independent Lead Director, and Committee Chairs.
|
OUR NEW CYBERSECURITY COMMITTEE Your Board recognizes that cybersecurity is critical to GMs operations particularly as management continues to execute on its future mobility strategies, such as self-driving vehicles and connected-vehicle technology. GM must ensure that customer and other sensitive data is secure and take proactive steps to protect its products and intellectual property against cyberattacks. In 2017, your Board created a standalone Cybersecurity Committee to enhance its oversight of these cyber risks. Your Board tasked this new Committee with several key risk oversight responsibilities related to the Companys cybersecurity programs, including oversight of the: practices, procedures, and controls management uses to identify, assess, and manage its key cybersecurity programs and risks; protection of the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of sensitive information, intellectual property, and GM customer data; anDd security of GM products. Your Board believes the Cybersecurity Committee will be a critical asset as cybersecurity becomes increasingly important to GM.
28 |
|
CORPORATE GOVERNANCE
Director Orientation and Continuing Education
Director Service on Other Public Company Boards
Compensation Committee Interlocks and Insider Participation
During 2017, and as of the date of this Proxy Statement, none of the members of the Compensation Committee was or is an officer or employee of the Company, and no executive officer of the Company served or serves on the compensation committee or board of any company that employed or employs any member of the Companys Compensation Committee or Board of Directors.
|
29 |
CORPORATE GOVERNANCE
A priority for the Board is to meet with and hear from shareholders. This dialogue helps the Board and the senior management team gain feedback on a variety of topics, including strategic and financial performance, operations, products, executive compensation, Board composition, and leadership structure as well as important environmental and social issues. The constructive insights, experiences, and ideas exchanged during these engagements enable your Board to further evaluate and assess key initiatives from different perspectives and viewpoints.
DIRECTOR-SHAREHOLDER ENGAGEMENT POLICY (adopted in 2016)
u Frequent and
u Shareholders and analysts invited to Board meetings on an annual basis
During 2017, members of the Board, including our Independent Lead Director, met in-person with shareholders representing approximately 25% of shares outstanding.
|
During 2017, one or more members of management were involved in more than 75 in-person and telephonic meetings on these topics with investors representing more than 45% of shares outstanding. The common themes we heard in 2017 that led to boardroom discussion and action included the following:
| |||||
Message |
Actions | |||||
Received positive feedback regarding the quality and diversity of the Board. |
See pages 79 for additional information on why we have the right Board at the right time for GM. | |||||
Encouraged to enhance our Audit Committee report in the Proxy Statement. |
See page 70 for the 2017 audit committee report. | |||||
Encouraged to enhance transparency about the Boards role in overseeing cybersecurity. |
See pages 2728 for insights on the Boards new Cybersecurity Committee. | |||||
Encouraged to include safety and ESG/ sustainability metrics in executive compensation decisions. |
See page 6 for insights into sustainability commitments and performance and pages 4851 for achievements by our key executives. | |||||
Find more online.
Instructions on contacting our Board of Directors is available on our website at: gm.com/investors/corporate-governance.
|
Your Board is committed to governance structures and practices that increase shareholder value and protect important shareholder rights. Our Governance Committee regularly reviews these structures and practices, which include the following:
30 |
|
CORPORATE GOVERNANCE
Certain Relationships and Related Party Transactions
Our code of business conduct and ethics, Winning with Integrity, requires all of our employees and directors to avoid any activity that is in conflict with our business interests. In addition, your Board has adopted a written policy regarding the review and approval or ratification of related party transactions. Under the Related Party Transactions Policy, which is administered by our Governance Committee, directors and executive officers must report any potential related party transactions (including transactions involving immediate family members of directors and executive officers) to the General Counsel or Corporate Secretary to determine whether the transaction constitutes a related party transaction.
For purposes of our Related Party Transactions Policy, a related party transaction includes transactions in which our Company is a participant, the amount involved exceeds $120,000, and a related party has or will have a direct or an indirect material interest. Related parties of our Company consist of directors (including nominees for election as directors), executive officers, shareholders beneficially owning more than 5% of the Companys voting securities, and the immediate family members of these individuals.
Once a related party transaction has been identified, the Governance Committee will review all of the relevant facts and circumstances and approve or disapprove entry into the transaction.
Find more online.
Our Related Party Transactions Policy is available on our website at: gm.com/investors/corporate-governance.
|
u | Factors Used in Assessing Related Party Transactions |
Any member of the Governance Committee who has a potential interest in any related party transaction will recuse himself or herself and abstain from voting on the approval or ratification of the related party transaction, but may participate in all or a portion of the Governance Committees discussions of the related party transaction, if requested by the Chair of the Governance Committee. As required under SEC rules, we will disclose all related party transactions in our Proxy Statement.
The son of John Quattrone, our former Senior Vice President, Global Human Resources, is employed by the Company in a non-executive position and in 2017 received compensation of approximately $133,000 and customary Company benefits. His total compensation is similar to the total compensation provided to other employees of the same level with similar responsibilities. The terms of his employment with GM were approved by the Governance Committee pursuant to the Companys Related Party Transactions Policy.
On March 2, 2018, we repurchased 2,518,257 shares of our common stock from the UAW Retiree Medical Benefits Trust (the VEBA Trust), a greater than 5% beneficial owner of GMs common stock, at a cash price of $39.71 per share, for a total consideration of $100 million (the Repurchase). The price paid in the Repurchase represented a 1% discount over the closing price of our common stock on the day the Repurchase was announced. The Repurchase was made pursuant to our previously authorized stock repurchase program and was approved by the Board pursuant to the Companys Related Party Transactions Policy.
|
31 |
SECURITY OWNERSHIP INFORMATION
Security Ownership of Directors, Named Executive Officers, and Certain Other Beneficial Owners
The beneficial ownership as of April 1, 2018, of our common stock by each director, each NEO, and all directors and executive officers as a group is shown in the following tables, as well as ownership of DSUs and Deferred Salary Stock Units. Each of the individuals listed in the following tables owns less than 1% of the outstanding shares of our common stock; all directors and officers as a group own less than 1% of the outstanding shares. None of the shares shown in the following tables as beneficially owned by directors and executive officers is hedged or pledged as security for any obligation.
Non-Employee Directors
Director(1) |
Shares of Common Stock Beneficially Owned
|
Deferred Share Units(2)
|
||||||
Linda R. Gooden
|
|
1,000
|
|
|
11,994
|
| ||
Joseph Jimenez
|
|
32,330
|
|
|
21,248
|
| ||
Jane L. Mendillo
|
|
4,560
|
|
|
12,607
|
| ||
Michael G. Mullen
|
|
750
|
|
|
19,855
|
| ||
James J. Mulva
|
|
28,343
|
|
|
45,774
|
| ||
Patricia F. Russo
|
|
12,300
|
|
|
29,362
|
| ||
Thomas M. Schoewe
|
|
22,005
|
|
|
25,081
|
| ||
Theodore M. Solso
|
|
5,000
|
|
|
61,312
|
| ||
Carol M. Stephenson
|
|
800
|
|
|
51,093
|
| ||
Devin N. Wenig
|
| |
(1) | c/o General Motors Company, 300 Renaissance Center, Detroit, Michigan 48265. |
(2) | Represents the unit equivalents of our common stock under the Director Compensation Plan described on page 18. |
Named Executive Officers and All Directors and Executive Officers as a Group
Beneficial Ownership |
||||||||||||
Name(1) |
Shares of Common Stock Beneficially Owned
|
Right to
|
Total Number of Shares
|
|||||||||
Mary T. Barra
|
|
696,981
|
|
|
1,779,360
|
|
|
2,476,341
|
| |||
Charles K. Stevens, III
|
|
102,741
|
|
|
187,062 |
|
|
289,803
|
| |||
Daniel Ammann
|
|
259,340
|
|
|
668,306
|
|
|
927,646
|
| |||
Mark L. Reuss
|
|
203,934
|
|
|
67,771
|
|
|
271,705
|
| |||
Alan S. Batey
|
|
138,067
|
|
|
162,212
|
|
|
300,279
|
| |||
Karl-Thomas Neumann
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||
All Directors and Executive Officers as a Group (22 persons, including the foregoing)
|
|
1,856,101 |
|
|
3,600,787 |
|
|
5,456,888 |
|
(1) | c/o General Motors Company, 300 Renaissance Center, Detroit, Michigan 48265. |
(2) | Includes shares that the named individual or group has the right to acquire through the exercise of vested Stock Options and shares that the named individual or group has the right to acquire through the vesting of restricted stock units and Stock Options within 60 days of April 1, 2018. |
32 |
|
SECURITY OWNERSHIP INFORMATION
Certain Beneficial Owners
The beneficial ownership as of April 1, 2018, of our common stock by each person or group of persons who is known to be the beneficial owner of more than 5% of our outstanding shares is shown in the following table.
Name and Address of Beneficial Owner of Common Stock |
Number of Shares(1) |
Percent of Outstanding |
||||||
UAW Retiree Medical Benefits Trust, as advised by its fiduciary and investment advisor Brock Fiduciary Services LLC 200 Walker Street Detroit, MI 48207
|
|
100,150,000 |
|
|
7.1 |
% | ||
The Vanguard Group 100 Vanguard Blvd. Malvern, PA 19355
|
|
87,437,866 |
|
|
6.2 |
% | ||
BlackRock, Inc. 55 East 52nd Street New York, NY 10055
|
|
76,922,292 |
|
|
5.5 |
% |
(1) | Number of shares reported by each beneficial owner in filings with the SEC. The Company is permitted to rely on the information set forth in these filings and has no reason to believe that the information is incomplete or inaccurate or that the beneficial owner should have filed an amended report and did not. Each beneficial owner reported as follows: |
Entity/ Filing
|
Sole Voting Power
|
Shared Voting Power
|
Sole Dispositive Power
|
Shared Dispositive Power
|
||||||||||||
UAW Retiree Medical Benefits Trust(a) (Form 4, filed Mar. 5, 2018)
|
|
|
|
|
100,150,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
100,150,000 |
| ||||
The Vanguard Group (Sch. 13G, filed Feb. 9, 2018)
|
1,806,486 | 293,363 | 85,419,593 | 2,018,273 | ||||||||||||
BlackRock, Inc. (Sch. 13G, filed Feb. 8, 2018)
|
|
65,871,841 |
|
|
|
|
|
76,922,292 |
|
|
|
|
(a) | Pursuant to the Stockholders Agreement dated October 15, 2009, between the Company and the VEBA Trust, the VEBA Trust will vote its shares of our common stock on each matter presented to the shareholders at the Annual Meeting in the same proportionate manner as the holders of our common stock other than our directors and executive officers. The VEBA Trust will be subject to the terms of the Stockholders Agreement until it beneficially owns less than 2% of the shares of our common stock then issued and outstanding. |
Section 16(a) Beneficial Ownership Reporting Compliance
Federal securities laws require that our directors and executive officers and shareholders that own more than 10% of our common stock report to the SEC and the Company certain changes in ownership and ownership information within specified periods. Based solely on a review of the reports furnished to us or filed with the SEC and upon information furnished by these people, we believe that during 2017 all of our directors and officers timely filed all reports they were required to file under Section 16(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
|
33 |
This page intentionally left blank.
34 |
|
EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION
u | Our Company Performance |
In 2017, we continued progress toward our goal of making GM the most valued automotive company for our shareholders. The results below demonstrate how we are positioning GM as an industry leader both now and in the future:
Note: | EBIT-adjusted margin and EPS-diluted-adjusted are non-GAAP financial measures. Refer to Appendix A for a reconciliation of these non-GAAP measures to their closest comparable GAAP measure. |
u | Our Vehicle Launches |
We launched 25 vehicles across the globe in 2017, including some of the key vehicles below:
u | Our Named Executive Officers |
Mary T. Barra |
|
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer | ||
Charles K. Stevens, III |
|
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer | ||
Daniel Ammann |
|
President | ||
Mark L. Reuss |
|
Executive Vice President, Global Product Development, Purchasing and Supply Chain | ||
Alan S. Batey |
|
Executive Vice President and President, North America | ||
Karl-Thomas Neumann |
|
Former Executive Vice President and President, Europe |
36 |
|
$145.6B REVENUE $12.8B EBIT-ADJUSTED(1) All-Time Record $6.7B RETURNED TO SHAREHOLDERS $5.2B ADJUSTED AUTOMOTIVE FREE CASH FLOW(1) 28.2% ROIC-ADJUSTED(1) 22.5% TOTAL SHAREHOLDER RETURN(2) $6.62 EPS-DILUTED-ADJUSTED(1) All-Time Record 8.8% EBIT-ADJUSTED MARGINS All-Time Record We ended the year with 22.5% TSR. The Company continued to invest in the future and deliver on key financial measures while returning $6.7 billion to our shareholders.
EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION
We ended 2017 with the following key financial results:
Note: The financial information above relates to our continuing operations.
(1) | These are non-GAAP financial measures. Refer to Item 7, Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017 for a reconciliation of ROIC-adjusted to its closest comparable GAAP measure. Refer to Appendix A for a reconciliation of EBIT-adjusted, EBIT-adjusted margin, adjusted automotive free cash flow, and EPS-diluted-adjusted to their closest comparable GAAP measure. |
(2) | Assumes dividends are reinvested in common stock. |
u | Compensation Governance and Best Practices |
WHAT WE DO | ||
ü |
Provide short-term and long-term incentive plans with performance targets aligned to business goals | |
ü |
Conduct annual advisory vote for shareholders to approve executive compensation | |
ü |
Maintain a Compensation Committee composed entirely of independent directors | |
ü |
Require stock ownership for all senior leaders | |
ü |
Conduct rigorous shareholder engagement by management and directors, including our Executive Compensation Committee and our Lead Independent Director
| |
ü |
Include non-compete and non-solicitation terms in all grant agreements with senior leaders | |
ü |
Retain an independent executive compensation consultant to the Compensation Committee | |
ü |
Maintain a Securities Trading Policy requiring directors, executive officers, and all other senior leaders to trade only during established window periods after contacting the GM Legal Staff prior to any sales or purchases of common stock
| |
ü |
Require equity awards to have a double trigger (termination of employment and change in control) to initiate protection provisions of outstanding awards
| |
ü |
Complete incentive compensation risk reviews annually | |
ü |
Maintain a clawback policy to apply to actions that damage GMs reputation | |
| ||
WHAT WE DONT DO | ||
û |
Provide gross-up payments to cover personal income taxes or excise taxes pertaining to executive or severance benefits | |
û |
Allow directors or executives to engage in hedging or pledging of GM securities | |
û |
Reward executives for excessive, inappropriate, or unnecessary risk-taking | |
û |
Allow the repricing or backdating of equity awards |
|
37 |
Say-on-Pay Voting and Annual Meeting Review Say-on-Pay Voting Meet With Investors Review Feedback and Adjust Plans File Annual Proxy Statement
EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION
u | Shareholder Engagement Initiatives |
We view shareholder engagement as an important and continuous cycle. During 2017, members of the Board met in-person with shareholders representing approximately 25% of our outstanding common stock. In addition, during 2017, one or more members of management were involved in more than 75 in-person and telephonic meetings with investors representing more than 45% of shares outstanding. These discussions, say-on-pay voting results, and other factors are key drivers in assessing our compensation programs.
|
SHAREHOLDER SAY-ON-PAY The Compensation Committee seeks to align the Companys executive compensation program with the interests of the
Companys shareholders. The Compensation Committee considers the results of the annual Say-On-Pay vote, input from management, input from its independent
compensation consultant, and investor engagement initiatives when setting compensation for our executives. In 2017, 96.3% of our shareholders voted in favor of our compensation
|
|||
The Company values investor feedback and will continue to seek feedback through engagement initiatives to align our executive compensation programs with shareholder expectations. We made changes to our compensation plans that commenced at the start of 2017 to further align the interests of our senior leaders with those of our shareholders.
What We Heard
|
How We Responded
| |
Maintain pay for performance |
We continue to evolve our pay practices to support our pay-for-performance philosophy. For 2017, we added an individual performance measure into our STIP while continuing Company focus on EBIT-adjusted and Adjusted AFCF. In our LTIP we now measure both ROIC-adjusted and TSR performance relative to our OEM peers while replacing RSUs with Stock Options to further align the interests of our most senior leaders with those of our shareholders.
| |
Continue to invest in the future |
Our LTIP places a focus on investing in our future. By continuing to place a focus on ROIC and measuring performance relative to OEM peers, we are incentivizing our most senior leaders to make investments in the future of GM while delivering a return on investment that outperforms other OEMs.
| |
Consider ESG performance when making pay decisions |
The Company introduced our vision of a future with zero crashes, zero emissions, and zero congestion in 2017. Several key ESG results are discussed in the proxy statement summary on page 6 and in Executive CompensationCompensation OverviewOur Company Performance on page 36. In addition, we introduced an individual performance component weighted at 25% for our STIP. Please see pages 4853 where we discuss individual performance results, including results that had a positive impact on ESG measures.
| |
Look at performance relative to automotive industry peers |
Our PSUs measure both Relative ROIC-adjusted and Relative TSR against the Companys OEM peers to motivate our leaders to perform at the top of the industry regardless of business cycles.
| |
Keep compensation plans simple |
We simplified our compensation plans in 2017 to focus our most senior leaders on both key operational performance measures and individual results in the STIP. This change added a complete line of sight into compensation for each senior leader. We adjusted the LTIP to focus senior leaders on outperforming our peers and increasing stock price to create value for our shareholders.
|
38 |
|
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Actions We Took Company exited TARP Final year of granting Salary Stock Units, which were vested on date of grant to NEOs Actions We Took Introduced non-compete and non-solicitation terms into all LTIP awards for all Senior Leaders beginning with the Driving Stockholder Value grant Actions We Took STIP Increased focus on EBIT-Adjusted to drive profitable growth 40% EBIT-Adjusted 25% Adjusted AFCF 10% Global Market Share 25% Global Quality Actions We Took Introduced stock ownership requirements Introduced a performance-based compensation structure with both STIP and LTIP STIP Performance based on the following measures: 25% EBIT-Adjusted 25% Adjusted AFCF 25% Global Market Share 25% Global Quality LTIP Structure for NEOs includes 75% PSUs and 25% RSUs PSUs Performance-based vesting on 100% ROIC Adjusted with a Global Market Share modifier, PSUs vest at the end of the three year performance period RSUs Time-based vesting in equal tranches over three years Actions We Took STIP Increased focus on key financial measures and added an individual performance element to incorporate individual performance goals for each NEO 50% EBIT-Adjusted 25% Adjusted AFCF 25% Individual Performance LTIP Eliminated time-vested RSUs and replaced with Stock Options. NEOs will have a mix of 75% PSUs and 25% Stock Options Incorporated relative performance measures into PSUs Relative ROIC-Adjusted 50% of LTIP Relative TSR 25% of LTIP 2017 STIP 2017 LTI
EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION
u | Compensation Program Evolution |
Our compensation programs have continued to focus our leaders on the key areas that both drive the business forward and align to the short-term and long-term interests of our shareholders. The Compensation Committee regularly reviews and discusses plan performance at each Compensation Committee meeting. The Compensation Committee considers many factors when electing to make plan changes for future incentive plans, including results, market trends, and investor feedback. The table below shows how the compensation program has continued to evolve to align with shareholders interests.
|
39 |
Relative ROIC-Adjusted (50% of LTIP) Relative TSR (25% of LTIP)
EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION
The Company held engagements with investors and received feedback on changes to both the STIP and LTIP. The 2017 STIP continued a focus on key financial measures (75% of STIP) and individual performance (25% of STIP). The total payout for the STIP will be 0% to 200% of target based on actual performance against pre-established goals. The Compensation Committee determined individual performance using a rigorous assessment process measuring performance against pre-established operational and other measures.
The 2017 LTIP replaced time-based RSUs with Stock Options to further align our most senior leaders with our shareholders interest in stock price appreciation. In addition, the Company changed PSU performance measures from ROIC-adjusted with a Global Market Share modifier to Relative ROIC-adjusted (50% of total LTIP) and Relative TSR (25% of total LTIP) against OEMs in the Dow Jones Automobiles and Parts Titans 30 Index, listed below.
Dow Jones Automobiles & Parts Titans 30 Index OEM Peer Group
| ||||
Toyota Motor Company
|
Volkswagen AG | Suzuki Motor Corp. | ||
Daimler AG
|
Bayerische Motoren Werke AG | Fiat Chrysler Automobiles NV | ||
Ford Motor Company
|
Nissan Motor Co. Ltd | Tesla, Inc. | ||
Honda Motor Co. Ltd.
|
Renault SA | Mazda Motor Corp. | ||
General Motors Co.(1)
|
Hyundai Motor Co.
|
Kia Motors Corp. |
(1) | GMs performance will be determined on a continuous ranking for performance relative to OEM peers following the completion of the performance period. |
The percentile rank required for each performance level relative to OEM peers and associated payouts for PSUs are displayed below.
Focusing performance on key financial measures and individual operational performance measures in the short term, combined with performance in both Relative ROIC-adjusted and Relative TSR compared with our other OEM peers in the long term, provides direct alignment of our executive compensation programs with the interests of our shareholders and continues to focus our senior leaders on making the investments that will provide for profitable long-term growth.
40 |
|
EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION
u | Peer Group for Compensation Comparisons |
The Compensation Committee annually reviews the peer group for compensation comparisons and makes updates as needed to align with both the established criteria and Company strategy. We do not limit our peer group to our industry alone, because we believe compensation practices for NEOs at other large U.S.-based multinationals affect our ability to attract and retain diverse talent around the globe.
Company | Industry | Company | Industry | |||
3M Company
|
Industrial Conglomerates
|
Honeywell International Inc.
|
Aerospace and Defense
| |||
The Boeing Company
|
Aerospace and Defense
|
IBM Corporation
|
IT Consulting and Other Services | |||
Caterpillar Inc.
|
Construction Machinery and Heavy Trucks |
Intel Corporation
|
Semiconductors
| |||
Deere & Company
|
Agricultural and Farm Machinery |
Johnson & Johnson
|
Pharmaceuticals
| |||
The Dow Chemical Company(1)
|
Diversified Chemicals
|
Johnson Controls Inc.(1)(2)
|
Auto Parts and Equipment
| |||
Du Pont(1)
|
Diversified Chemicals | PepsiCo, Inc. | Soft Drinks and Food | |||
Ford Motor Company
|
Automobile Manufacturers
|
Pfizer Inc.
|
Pharmaceuticals
| |||
General Electric Company
|
Industrial Conglomerates
|
The Procter & Gamble Company |
Household Products
| |||
HP, Inc.
|
Technology Hardware, Storage, and Peripherals
|
United Technologies Corp.
|
Aerospace and Defense
|
(1) | Companies were involved in significant mergers, acquisitions, or divestitures. The Committee will evaluate each peer company for inclusion in the peer group for 2018 and beyond. |
(2) | The Committee removed Johnson Controls Inc. from the peer group during their 2017 annual review. |
u | How We Use Comparator Data to Assess Compensation |
We use executive compensation surveys composed of a broad array of industrial companies to benchmark relevant market data for executive positions. In addition, we benchmark pay practices and compensation levels against the proxy statement disclosures of our peer group and adjust this data to reflect GMs size and market expected compensation trends. Further, we review the competitive market position of each of our executives compared with the market data.
We review each element of compensation compared with the market and generally target each element of our total direct compensation (base salary, STIP, and LTIP) for the executive group on average to be at or near the market median. However, an individual element or an individuals total direct compensation may be positioned above or below the market median because of considerations such as his or her specific responsibilities, experience, and performance.
|
41 |
GM MANAGEMENT Makes recommendations regarding compensation structure Provides input on individual performance and results against key business goals Provides additional information as requested by the Committee COMMITTEE CONSULTANT Advises the Committee on competitive benchmarking on pay levels, practices, and governance trends Assists with peer group selection and analysis Reviews and advises on recommendations, plan design, and measures EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION COMMITTEE Approves plan design, metrics, and goals Approves overall incentive compensation funding levels Reviews and approves individual target and actual compensation for the most senior executives CEO 2017 COMPENSATION STRUCTURE AVERAGE NEO 2017 COMPENSATION STRUCTURE
EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION
u | How We Plan Compensation |
u | Performance-Based Compensation Structure |
Our NEOs are incentivized to focus on optimizing long-term financial returns for our shareholders through increasing profitability, increasing margins, putting the customer at the center of everything we do, growing the business, and driving innovation.
The performance-based structure for 2017 incorporates both short-term and long-term incentives established from financial and operational metrics for fiscal year 2017 and beyond. In addition to base salary and an annual STIP award, this structure, shown graphically below, includes an LTIP award made up of both PSUs and Stock Options to focus our executives on long-term Company performance. The Compensation Committee believes a majority of compensation should be in the form of equity to align the interests of executives with those of shareholders.
|
42 |
|
EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION
u | 2017 Compensation Structure |
Each NEOs 2017 compensation structure is market competitive with each pay element targeted at or near the market median. The compensation structure included the following pay elements:
| Base Salary NEOs are paid a market-competitive base salary that reflects each NEOs contribution, background, and performance as well as the knowledge and skills he or she brings to the role; |
| STIP The STIP is an annual cash incentive plan. The STIP rewards each NEO based on the achievement of annual Company financial goals and individual performance results. The potential payout ranges from 0% to 200% of target, based on actual Company performance and individual performance; |
| PSUs PSUs are equity awards designed to align each NEOs interests with the long-term interests of the Company and its shareholders. PSUs can be earned at a level from 0% to 200% of target, based on the actual Company performance against Relative ROIC-adjusted and Relative TSR over the three-year performance period beginning January 1, 2017; and |
| Stock Options Stock options are time-based equity awards vesting ratably over a three-year period. Stock options align the interests of our most senior executives with our shareholders interest in stock price appreciation and allow our leaders to share in the gains with shareholders. |
u | Perquisites and Other Compensation |
We provide perquisites and other compensation to our NEOs consistent with market practices. The following perquisites and other compensation were provided to NEOs in 2017:
| Personal Air Travel Ms. Barra is prohibited by Company policy from commercial air travel due to security reasons identified by an independent third-party security consultant. As a result, the Company pays the costs associated with the use of private aircraft for both business and personal use. Ms. Barra is permitted to be accompanied by guests for personal travel and incurs imputed income for all passengers, including herself, at the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (the IRS) Standard Industry Fair Level rates. Other NEOs may travel on private aircraft in certain circumstances with prior approval from the CEO or the Senior Vice President, Global Human Resources, and also incur imputed income for any personal travel. |
| Company Vehicle Programs NEOs are eligible to participate in the Executive Company Vehicle Program and are allowed to use evaluation vehicles for the purpose of providing feedback on Company products. In addition, NEOs are eligible to use driver services provided by the Company and in accordance with Company policies. |
|
43 |
EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION
| Security NEOs may receive security services, including home security systems and monitoring, for specific security-related reasons identified by independent third-party security consultants. |
| Financial Counseling NEOs are eligible to receive financial counseling, estate planning, and tax preparation services through an approved provider. |
| Executive Physicals NEOs are eligible to receive executive physicals with approved providers. |
u | 2017 Target Compensation |
Our target total direct compensation for each NEO in 2017 was as follows:
Annual Base Salary ($)
|
STIP (%)
|
STIP ($)
|
Target Total Cash Compensation ($)
|
LTIP
|
Target Total Compensation ($)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Name
|
PSUs(2) ($)
|
Stock ($)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mary T. Barra
|
|
2,100,000
|
|
|
200
|
%
|
|
4,200,000
|
|
|
6,300,000
|
|
|
9,750,000
|
|
|
3,250,000
|
|
|
19,300,000
|
| |||||||||||
Charles K. Stevens, III
|
|
1,100,000
|
|
|
125
|
%
|
|
1,375,000
|
|
|
2,475,000
|
|
|
2,793,750
|
|
|
931,250
|
|
|
6,200,000
|
| |||||||||||
Daniel Ammann
|
|
1,450,000
|
|
|
125
|
%
|
|
1,812,500
|
|
|
3,262,500
|
|
|
3,703,125
|
|
|
1,234,375
|
|
|
8,200,000
|
| |||||||||||
Mark L. Reuss
|
|
1,200,000
|
|
|
125
|
%
|
|
1,500,000
|
|
|
2,700,000
|
|
|
3,037,500
|
|
|
1,012,500
|
|
|
6,750,000
|
| |||||||||||
Alan S. Batey
|
|
1,025,000
|
|
|
125
|
%
|
|
1,281,300
|
|
|
2,306,300
|
|
|
2,020,275
|
|
|
673,425
|
|
|
5,000,000
|
| |||||||||||
Karl-Thomas Neumann(1)
|
|
1,050,000
|
|
|
125
|
%
|
|
1,312,500
|
|
|
2,362,500
|
|
|
1,781,250
|
|
|
593,750
|
|
|
4,737,500
|
|
(1) | The targeted Total Direct Compensation for Dr. Neumann reflects the base salary and STIP in U.S. dollars. Dr. Neumann received a salary of 811,864 and an annual STIP target of 1,014,830. |
(2) | The number of PSUs awarded is determined by using the target PSU value divided by the closing price on the date of grant. PSUs with performance tied to relative TSR are valued using a Monte Carlo analysis, and Summary Compensation Table amounts may be higher or lower than target. |
u | How We Set Performance Targets |
Annually, the Compensation Committee approves the performance measures for the STIP and LTIP. The Compensation Committee reviews recommendations from management, receives input from the Compensation Committee consultant, evaluates the annual budget and mid term business plan, and reviews prior-year performance to approve value-creating goals tied to long-term shareholder value.
u | 2017 STIP Performance Measures for NEOs |
The STIP aligns with our plans to create the worlds most valued automotive company and to increase shareholder value. The STIP rewards NEOs for performance linked to the Companys achievement of annual financial goals, operational performance goals, and individual performance results. The STIP is an annual cash incentive award intended to be deductible as performance-based compensation under U.S. Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 162(m) and is funded for each covered NEO once the Company achieves the threshold of positive EBIT-adjusted.
The Compensation Committee annually reviews and approves STIP goals to assess the difficulty in level of achievement and overall linkage to shareholders through the achievement of the business plan and strategic objectives. For the 2017 STIP, all targets were set at or above final 2016 performance. The Committee elected to adjust the weights to increase EBIT-adjusted to 50% and removed both global Market Share and Global Quality as overall measures. The Committee added individual performance with a weight of 25% as a measure to evaluate individual performance for each leader. Individual performance results and final individual compensation decisions are discussed beginning on page 48. Individual performance is assessed with an individual performance scorecard measuring results against pre-established goals that the Committee approves at the beginning of the year. Global market share and global quality are still focus items that the Committee considers when evaluating individual performance results.
44 |
|
EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION
Actual STIP awards, if any, are determined following the completion of the plan year to reflect the achievement against the performance measures displayed below. The table below describes each STIP performance measure, its weighting, its target, and the behaviors each measure drives:
STIP Measure
|
Weight
|
Target
|
Leadership Behaviors
| |||||||
EBIT-adjusted
|
|
50%
|
|
|
$12.7
|
|
Focus on operating profit and driving strong profitability
| |||
Adjusted AFCF (1)
|
|
25%
|
|
|
$ 6.3
|
|
Focus on driving strong cash flow to invest in the business
| |||
Individual Performance
|
|
25%
|
|
|
25 pts.
|
|
Focus on individual performance goals that impact business results
|
(1) | Adjusted AFCF for incentive purposes excludes payments related to certain recall-related expenses attributable to events occurring in 2014. |
The potential payouts for each company performance measure range from 0% to 200% of target, based on actual Company performance with the threshold performance level being 50% of each STIP measure. The STIP calculation for the 2017 performance period determined the result for each NEO:
u | 20172019 LTIP Performance Measures for NEOs |
Grants under the LTIP are intended to link the financial interests of NEOs with the long-term interests of shareholders. The structure for NEOs included 75% PSUs and 25% Stock Options. PSUs cliff-vest following the three-year performance period, and Stock Options vest ratably over three years.
The 20172019 PSUs are awarded based on performance against the following measures relative to our OEM peers: Relative ROIC-adjusted and Relative TSR over the three-year performance period. The PSU performance measures were chosen to promote both efficient use of capital and long-term growth to create value for the shareholders and an increased focus on stock price appreciation. The following table shows the PSU performance measures and the leadership behaviors that each drives to make GM the worlds most valued automotive company:
LTIP Measure
|
Weight
|
Target
|
Leadership Behaviors
| |||||
Relative ROIC-adjusted (1)
|
|
67%
|
|
60th Percentile
|
Focus on making sound investments that follow the disciplined capital approach of driving 20% or higher returns in world-class vehicles and leading technology
| |||
Relative TSR (1)
|
|
33%
|
|
50th Percentile
|
Focus on delivering shareholder returns that outperform our OEM peers
|
(1) | Relative performance is measured against the OEMs in the Dow Jones Automobiles and Parts Titans 30 Index on date of grant. OEMs for 20172019 PSUs are displayed on page 40. |
|
45 |
EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION
PSUs, if any, vest and are awarded and delivered following the completion of the three-year performance period, January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2019, and may be earned at a level between 0% and 200% of target based on actual Company results. When determining grant amounts, the Compensation Committee considers factors such as individual responsibilities, experience, and performance. In addition, the Compensation Committee will factor in relevant market compensation comparison data and seek the input from their independent compensation consultant. Final PSU awards are calculated as follows:
u | Summary of Outstanding Performance Awards Granted in Prior Years |
46 |
|
EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION
Performance Results and Compensation Decisions
u | 2017 Short-Term Incentive Plan |
The Company portion of the 2017 STIP award was calculated based on the Companys achievement of the following performance measures: EBIT-adjusted and Adjusted AFCF. In addition, each NEO has an individual performance portion of their STIP that measures performance against pre-established goals. Company performance including the individual results achieved the following results, as approved by the Compensation Committee. The results for EBIT-adjusted repeated GMs 2016 record performance:
STIP Measure
|
Weight
|
Threshold
|
Target
|
Maximum
|
Performance Results
|
Performance Payout
|
||||||||||||||||||
EBIT-adjusted ($B)
|
|
50%
|
|
|
$ 6.8
|
|
|
$ 12.7
|
|
|
$ 14.0
|
|
|
$ 12.8
|
|
|
54
|
%
| ||||||
Adjusted AFCF ($B) (1)
|
|
25%
|
|
|
$ 0.0
|
|
|
$ 6.3
|
|
|
$ 7.3
|
|
|
$ 5.6
|
|
|
24
|
%
| ||||||
Individual Performance
|
|
25%
|
|
|
0 pts.
|
|
|
25 pts.
|
|
|
50 pts.
|
|
|
25 40 pts.
|
|
|
25%40
|
%
| ||||||
Result |
|
103%118 |
% |
(1) | Adjusted AFCF for incentive purposes excludes payments related to certain recall-related expenses attributable to events occurring in 2014. |
u | 20152017 Long-Term Incentive Plan |
The 20152017 PSU awards vested on February 11, 2018, based on Company performance for the period January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2017 against pre-established performance targets for both ROIC-adjusted and the Global Market Share modifier. The following performance was approved by the Compensation Committee:
LTIP Measure
|
Weight
|
Threshold
|
Target
|
Maximum
|
Performance Results
|
Performance Payout
|
||||||||||||||||||
ROIC-adjusted
|
|
100%
|
|
|
16.0%
|
|
|
20.0%
|
|
|
24.0%
|
|
|
28.1
|
%(1)
|
|
200
|
%
| ||||||
Result |
|
200 |
%(2) |
(1) | Represents the average of ROIC-adjusted for 2015 to 2017. ROIC-adjusted for 2015 and 2016 was 27.2% and 28.9%, respectively. ROIC-adjusted for 2017 was 28.2%, as reported on a continuing operations basis. |
(2) | The modifier for Global Market Share reduces the payout 25 points if Global Market Share is below 11.3%. The payout is increased 25 points if Global Market Share is at or above 11.8% not to exceed plan maximum of 200%. The Company achieved 11.3% Global Market Share for the performance period, thus no modifier was applied. Global Market Share excludes the impact of the Companys decision to exit markets during the performance period. |
Focusing our leaders on ROIC-adjusted has resulted in significant performance improvements since calendar year 2012, when ROIC-adjusted was 16.0% at which time we set an enduring target of 20% based on commitment to shareholders. We ended calendar year 2017 with a ROIC-adjusted of 28.2%. The 20172019 PSUs focus leaders not only on delivering improved ROIC-adjusted results, but also on being the top automotive OEM for ROIC-adjusted results.
u | One-time 20152020 DSV Option Grant |
The DSV option grant was a one-time grant made on July 28, 2015 to senior leaders to secure non-compete and non-solicitation terms and to drive an increased focus on stock price appreciation. The DSV grant featured 40% time-based vesting and 60% performance-based vesting. The performance-based portion vests upon meeting or exceeding the median TSR relative to the OEM peer group in place on the date of grant. 20% of the DSV option grant vested based on relative TSR performance for the period July 28, 2015December 31, 2017 and 40% of the overall award remains outstanding with performance periods ending on December 31, 2018, and December 31, 2019.
DSV Measure
|
Performance Period
|
Vesting Date
|
Weight
|
Target TSR
|
Result
|
Vesting
|
||||||||||||||||||
Relative TSR |
|
July 28, 2015December 31, 2017 |
|
|
February 15, 2018 |
|
|
20 |
% |
|
50th Percentile |
|
|
87th Percentile |
|
|
100 |
% |
|
47 |
EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION
48 |
|
EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION
|
49 |
EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION
50 |
|
EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION
|
51 |
EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION