NQDCs – Funding and Forfeiture

In our last article, we discussed Non-Qualified Deferred Compensation (NQDC) plans as a tool to compensate key employees for achieving long-term goals. One component of such plans is the fact that they are frequently unfunded and legally considered an unsecured promise to pay.

Nonetheless, both plan sponsors and recipients often want a funding mechanism to set aside assets, manage cash flow, or hedge the liability. In addition, employers typically want conditions under which they can rescind the plan for cause, including failure to achieve the objectives the plan was designed to incentivize.

Funding Mechanisms

For cash-based plans, there are four common ways to fund the plans.

  • Pay as you go. Goal-based success is paid in cash as a bonus. This has the advantage of immediate expensing against profits. Amounts can still be based on progress toward longer-term goals, but there is little accumulation of a larger benefit toward a significant future payout.
  • Reserve accumulation. The company sets aside funds equivalent to the amount earned toward an eventual payout. This appears as an asset on the balance sheet and has no tax deductibility until paid. Although it may give the employee some mental assurance, this asset can still be attached by creditors and has no legal segregation from the company’s other holdings.
  • Rabbi Trust. This is an irrevocable trust specifically formed for the accumulation of NQDC benefits. The company cannot use the funds for another purpose, so the employee has an added level of confidence in the availability of future payment. However, the assets are not secured from creditors, and unwinding the trust in the event of the employee’s termination can be problematic.
  • Company Owned Life Insurance (COLI). The accumulated benefit provides tax-deferred growth, liquidity via cash values, and reimbursement via death benefits. The asset helps to offset the accumulating liability of the NQDC on the balance sheet. The plan may define a transfer of beneficiary upon qualification or pay out the bonus in cash and keep the policy in force for a future payout.

Vesting and Forfeiture

Vesting in a plan can be structured in various ways.The most common method is based on tenure: there is an ultimate goal, and the beneficiary is entitled to a percentage of the reward each year until the full value is reached.

It may be 10% vested each year for ten years, or vesting may follow an increasing scale (e.g., 5% in the first year, 10% in the second, 15% in the third). Some plans include “cliff vesting”: the employee has no claim on the award until, and unless, the full vesting period is completed. Vesting can also be tied to the percentage of goals met each year.

Of course, “the best-laid plans of mice and men often go awry.” Sometimes the employee doesn’t work out. Life events may intervene, and the employee may terminate voluntarily—or performance may falter and they are no longer a candidate for continued participation.

That is why the legal documentation of any NQDC is critical. Most agreements read much like a buy-sell contract among shareholders. The employer and the employee are making long-term commitments to each other, and their terms of separation are best addressed at the outset.

Note: This article and the previous one on plan structuring are intended as an overview for advisors to business owners. Non-Qualified Deferred Compensation is complex and should be designed with the guidance of legal and tax advisors.

Posted in Entrepreneurship, Exit Planning, Management | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

NQDCs – “Let Me Count the Ways”

Non-Qualified Deferred Compensation (NQDC) plans are a powerful tool for incentivizing and retaining key employees. They offer virtually unlimited flexibility in methodologies, objectives and rewards to suit a company’s strategies and goals.

What is “unqualified?”

Retirement couple budget, finance and investment planning, loan and paper bills for online banking at home. Senior man, woman and people reading tax money report, cash savings and admin document note.Quite simply, NQDCs are discriminatory. Some owners shy away from that term, but discrimination isn’t automatically illegal. Illegal discrimination in the workplace is when an employer or manager treats an employee unfairly due to their race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age (40 or older), disability, or genetic information. 

Non-qualified plans discriminate because they aren’t offered to everyone. The Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) sets standards for employee benefits. Retirement and health plans must be offered equally to all employees. It does not apply to incentive compensation. As long as the requirements for participation don’t include one of the factors in the paragraph above, it is perfectly legal to discriminate between employees.

There’s a catch, of course. ERISA also allows employers to set aside benefit costs as a pre-tax expense, thus reducing taxable profits. NQDCs have no such advantage. They can be expensed when paid, but the accrual of benefits earned under that plan is a liability rather than an expense.

Therefore, employees should be informed that these plans are unfunded. They are dependent on the company’s ability to pay them when they are due. We will discuss funding and payment in the next article.

What should be incentivized?

The term “deferred” indicates that NQDCs should be used to recognized performance over a period of time. Typical targets include growth in company value, improvements in cash flow or profitability, revenue growth, employee turnover, brand reputation, acquisitions, customer satisfaction and geographic expansion.

Goals can be mixed, prioritized or laddered. For example, vesting may be tied to the employee’s tenure, plus payout levels tied to profitability. Bonuses can accrue based on growth in revenue or profits, with the percentage of payout linked to new products or territorial initiatives.

Half of the awards may be tied to company goals, with the other half linked to individual or departmental objectives. A percentage of any award may be tied to EBITDA, with another percentage dependent on safety benchmarks and another tranche to leadership development.

NQDCs often include virtual equity measures, such as Stock Appreciation Rights (based on a percentage of the growth in value of the business) stock options or phantom stock.

In all cases the recipients of any awards should have a scorecard that plainly outlines their qualifying metrics and time frames.

Who should receive NQDCs?

The complexity of variables indicates that recipients should have several qualifications. First, they must be in a position to affect the outcomes desired. Their decisions should have a direct impact on the incentive calculation.

Second, they need day-to-day visibility into the components that make up the goals. Handing them numbers at the end of the month has little effect if the recipient doesn’t know which levers to pull to make those numbers happen.

Finally, the employees who receive NQDCs should be “keepers.” These plans are not suited for remedial behavioral modification. They are to reward those who are critical to the organization’s success. Ideally, the company wants them to continue performing their duties at a high level for the rest of their career.

Note: This article and the following one (on vesting and funding) are intended as an overview for advisors to business owners. Non-Qualified Deferred Compensation is complex and should be designed with the help of legal and tax advisors.

Posted in Building Value, Entrepreneurship, Exit Strategies, Leadership, Management, Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

How Much Does the Big Picture Really Matter to Your Business?

It’s hard to have a business conversation today without someone invoking “the Big Picture.” The 24-hour news cycle runs on urgency, outrage, and uncertainty—and it needs a constant supply to keep attention locked in. The result? Everything sounds like a crisis.

Wars. Tariffs. Sanctions. Inflation. Interest rates. Cyberattacks. Political standoffs. Supply chain disruptions.

If you own a business, you’ve probably asked yourself at least a few of these questions recently:

  • Will my raw material costs spike again?
  • Should I build inventory—or pull back?
  • Can I raise prices without losing customers?
  • Will my suppliers raise prices before I do?
  • Are my customers going to look for alternatives?

At times, it can make you nostalgic for when “ordinary” challenges—like hiring, retention, and customer satisfaction—were the biggest things on your plate.

When the Big Picture Does Matter

Sometimes, big external forces genuinely matter a lot.

If you’re a tomato grower in Mexico shipping 100% of your crop to the U.S. and a sudden 17% tariff hits, that’s not background noise—that’s a direct hit to your business model.

But now zoom out.

If you’re a shopper in a grocery store and the price of a Roma tomato rises from $0.23 to $0.27, it barely registers.

If you own an Italian restaurant using 400 pounds of tomatoes a week, the cost increase—from $0.79 to $0.92 per pound—adds roughly $52 per week. That’s worth noting, maybe worth discussing with peers, but probably not enough to overhaul pricing or strategy.

Same issue. Very different impact—depending on where you sit.

When the Big Picture Is Mostly Noise

Even when something sounds massive, its real effect on your business is often smaller than it appears.

Take that same tomato tariff. If you’re a greenhouse grower in Arizona, you might welcome it. But let’s look at the numbers. If your gross margin is $0.05 per pound, and the tariff narrows the price gap by about one-tenth of a cent, does that actually change your competitive position?

Meanwhile, has the Mexican grower truly lost their structural advantages—lower labor costs, lower water costs? Or were those already offset by your automation, climate control, and proximity to market?

In many cases, the biggest impact of Big Picture issues isn’t financial—it’s psychological. They distract owners from the fundamentals, create urgency where none exists, and pull focus away from things that actually move the needle.

Then the news cycle moves on.

And you’re back to running your business—just with slightly different numbers in your spreadsheet.

The Questions That Actually Matter

The challenge isn’t ignoring the Big Picture. It’s knowing how much attention it deserves.

Before reacting to the latest headline, ask yourself:

  • How much will this really affect my business?
  • Have I actually run the numbers—or am I reacting emotionally?
  • Does this require a real change in what I do or how I operate?
  • If action is needed, does it need to happen now, or can it be addressed in my normal planning cycle?

Sometimes the honest answer is yes—and decisive action is warranted.

More often, the answer is no.

And when it’s no, you gain something valuable: clarity. You’re free to acknowledge the Big Picture without letting it hijack your time, energy, and decision-making.

Focus Is a Competitive Advantage

Television, social media, and headlines thrive on urgency. Your business thrives on focus.

The owners who come out ahead over time aren’t reacting to every tremor in the world. They’re filtering out the noise and keeping their attention where it belongs: on the few things that truly move their business forward.

The Big Picture will always be there.

The real question is whether it’s running you—or whether you’re running your business.

Posted in Building Value, Entrepreneurship, Leadership, Management, Marketing and Sales | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Celebrating Mr. Fezziwig

Since 2013 I’ve updated this piece about the underappreciated and forgotten boss of A Christmas Carol, Mr. Fezziwig. I hope that you enjoy it. Merry Christmas!

Last week was the 182nd anniversary of the publication of Charles Dickens’s A Christmas Carol (December 17, 1843). The immortal words of Ebenezer Scrooge are ingrained in the memory of the entire English-speaking world. I’d venture to guess that “Bah, Humbug!” can be correctly identified as to the source and speaker by over 99% of those reading this.

The novella, serialized in five parts, was not a commercial success. Unhappy with the sales of his previous novel (Martin Chuzzlewit– no wonder!), he refused his normal fee from the publisher in favor of royalties on the proceeds, which proved disappointing. Critical reception was favorable, although it didn’t catch on in America until much later. The New York Times first published a review in 1863, 20 years after its publication in England.

Like most of Dickens’ work, A Christmas Carol includes an indictment of the social inequalities of the Industrial Age; child labor, workhouses, and debtors’ prisons. It stands out, however, because of the lessons taught by its memorable ghosts, and the redemption of its main character in only 113 pages.

During the Protestant Reformation in England and Scotland, Christmas had become a period of penance and reflection. A Christmas Carol is credited by many for leading the return to a celebratory holiday, focused on appreciation and thanks for family and friends.

Modern Ebenezers

Modern filmmakers have returned to the straight-ahead plot and uplifting storyline (not to mention the recurring royalties available year after year) with a frequency that helps stamp the legend in our psyche. Movies were made in 1901, 1908, 1910 and 1913 but the first big hit was the 1938 Reginald Owen version (originally released as “Scrooge”) and the 1951 Alistair Sim classic. The character of Ebenezer has been tackled by actors ranging from George C. Scott to Michael Caine (with the Muppets). Patrick Stewart, Sterling Hayden, Kelsey Grammar, and Rich Little (in various celebrity impersonations) have all taken a shot, as have Mickey Mouse, Mr. Magoo, the Smurfs, Barbie, Dora the Explorer, and the Flintstones.

Let’s not forget the variants; Bill Murray in “Scrooged”, or Boris Karloff and Jim Carrey in their versions of “How the Grinch Stole Christmas.” In all, IMDB lists almost 200 filmed variants of the story.

Unfortunately, the characterization of Scrooge has become ingrained in the minds of many as a stereotype of all bosses who dare to focus on margins and profit. How many employees identify their bosses with Fezziwig (Scrooge’s former employer,) who took pride in making his employees a happy group, even though Scrooge dismissed It as “only a little thing?”

The Success of Mr. Fezziwig

FezziwigInstead of focusing on the things that allowed Fezziwig to spend lavishly on his employees (a motivated workforce, honesty, doing what’s right, profitability), we prefer to fantasize about a boss who expresses his sudden enlightenment by unexpectedly bestowing a dinner and an extra day off. Fezziwig is relegated to an afterthought, an overweight doting uncle with no visible reason for his success.

Most of us are far more Fezziwigs than Scrooges. Oddly, if we celebrated the season of giving by presenting our employees with a list of all the “little things” we’ve done for them during the year, we’d be considered self-serving, and more akin to Ebenezer. We bow to the popular myth, give even more at the holidays, and hope it has some carryover of appreciation into the New Year.

Just remind your employees when you are being Mr. Fezziwig for the rest of the year. A Christmas turkey for Tiny Tim isn’t as important as being a good boss on the other 364 days.

Posted in Leadership, Management, Thoughts and Opinions | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Business Ownership Isn’t What It Used to Be

If you’ve been a business owner for a long time, you’ve lived this shift firsthand.

Many Baby Boomer owners started out alone—just an idea, a customer, and a willingness to take a risk. Hiring that first employee was a milestone. Now, years later, some of those same businesses employ dozens or even hundreds of people.

And every one of those people comes with rights, protections, and obligations that ultimately land on you.

As a business grows, so does the owner’s exposure—to legal risk, regulatory risk, financial risk, and reputational risk. Ownership doesn’t just mean opportunity anymore; it means responsibility layered on responsibility.

Why Fewer People Choose Ownership Today

For someone starting a business now, the barriers look very different than they did 30 or 40 years ago.

Outside of purely digital or internet-based ventures, most new businesses face compliance rules, licensing hurdles, and capital requirements that simply didn’t exist when many established owners got their start. It’s no surprise that many capable people look at those risks and conclude that employment feels like the safer choice—for themselves and for their families.

Licensing alone tells the story. Today, well over a thousand professions require state-level licenses. Nearly one in three workers needs government permission or oversight to do their job—and when they don’t comply, the liability often falls on the business owner.

This includes professions ranging from doctors, lawyers, and engineers to barbers, cosmetologists, designers, trainers, and technicians. In 1950, only a small fraction of U.S. jobs required a license. Today, it’s approaching a third of the workforce.

For owners, that means more rules, more monitoring, and more risk—even when you’re doing everything right.

The Freedom Paradox

Here’s the paradox: America is still one of the best places in the world to own a business.

We score highly on things that matter—strong rule of law, access to credit, contract enforcement, and systems that allow businesses to fail, restructure, and start again. Those freedoms are real and valuable.

At the same time, many of the day-to-day realities of ownership are getting harder.

Taxes are complex. Exporting is cumbersome. Registering property, starting a business, connecting utilities, and dealing with regulated systems can feel slow, opaque, and frustrating. Not coincidentally, these are the areas most tightly controlled by government processes.

So while the system protects enterprise in theory, the practical burden of ownership keeps rising.

How Ownership Is Quietly Changing

One of the biggest shifts isn’t regulatory—it’s structural.

Private equity and institutional capital have stepped in to assume many of the risks of ownership. In doing so, they’ve converted large numbers of would-be entrepreneurs into highly compensated employees.

The leader of a private equity–owned company may have authority, incentives, and status—but they are still an employee, while the real risk is borne elsewhere.

This is a fundamental change in how entrepreneurship works in America, and many long-time owners don’t fully appreciate how different the landscape has become.

What This Means for You

If you’re a business owner—especially one thinking about the future—this context matters.

Ownership today carries more risk, more complexity, and more tradeoffs than it did when many businesses were built. That makes thoughtful planning more important, not less.

Understanding how the rules have changed, how capital has shifted, and how control is being redefined can help you make better decisions about growth, succession, and exit—on your terms.

The goal isn’t to romanticize the past or fear the future. It’s to recognize that ownership has evolved—and that navigating it well now requires clarity, education, and intentional choices.

Posted in Entrepreneurship, Leadership, Management, Thoughts and Opinions | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *