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 (Amendment No. )
Filed by 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 §240.14a-12 |
BOSTON PROPERTIES, INC.
(Name of Registrant as Specified in Its Charter)
(Name of Person(s) Filing Proxy Statement, if other than the Registrant)
Payment of Filing Fee (Check the appropriate box):
☒ | No fee required. |
☐ | Fee computed on table below per Exchange Act Rules 14a-6(i)(1) and 0-11. |
1) | Title of each class of securities to which transaction applies: |
2) | Aggregate number of securities to which transaction applies: |
3) | Per unit price or other underlying value of transaction computed pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 0-11 (set forth the amount on which the filing fee is calculated and state how it was determined): |
4) | Proposed maximum aggregate value of transaction: |
5) | Total fee paid: |
☐ | Fee paid previously with preliminary materials. |
☐ | Check box if any part of the fee is offset as provided by Exchange Act Rule 0-11(a)(2) and identify the filing for which the offsetting fee was paid previously. Identify the previous filing by registration statement number, or the Form or Schedule and the date of its filing. |
1) | Amount Previously Paid: |
2) | Form, Schedule or Registration Statement No.: |
3) | Filing Party: |
4) | Date Filed: |
April 7, 20173, 2020
Dear Fellow Stockholder:
You are cordially invitedOn behalf of the Board of Directors, I am delighted to invite you to attend the 2017 annual meeting2020 Annual Meeting of stockholdersStockholders of Boston Properties, Inc., or BXP. The annual meeting will be held on Tuesday,Wednesday, May 23, 201720, 2020 at 9:00 a.m., Eastern Time, at 599 Lexington Avenue, 16thMetropolitan Square, 655 15th Street, NW, 2nd Floor, New York, New York.Washington, DC 20005. However, as discussed in detail in the Notice of Meeting that follows this letter, depending on the status of theCOVID-19 pandemic, we may decide to hold the meeting “virtually.”
The proxy statement, withAs I write this letter, we are quickly approaching the accompanying formal notice50th anniversary of the meeting, describes the matters expected to be acted upon at the meeting. We urge you to review these materials carefully and to use this opportunity to take part in the affairsfounding of Boston Properties, by votingInc. and our 23rd year as a public company listed on the matters describedNYSE. In light of these milestones, I want to share with you some notable achievements in 2019, as well as highlight some key policy changes that we believe will enhance transparency and improve your understanding of Boston Properties’ affairs.
Boston Properties is certainly much larger and more complex today than at any time in its history, as we now operate in five regions on both U.S. coastlines and are developing premier buildings on a scale that is greater than ever before. Despite that growth, your Board is pleased to report that under the leadership of our CEO, Owen Thomas, and President, Doug Linde, the vision and strategy of our founders, Mort Zuckerman and the late Ed Linde, remain the foundation of what we do. That strategy has proven successful. An investment in BXP common stock on the date of our IPO has appreciated by more than 1,346% as of December 31, 2019, far surpassing the 456% return on an equal investment in the S&P 500 Index.
2019 Business Highlights
2019 was an excellent year for Boston Properties, particularly considering that it followed a very strong 2018. Our success is demonstrated by our financial results and other key accomplishments. While the accompanying proxy statement. Followingstatement details your management team’s significant accomplishments in 2019, I want to highlight some that stand out and provide context for the formal portiondiscussion of the meeting,compensation of our named executive officers, or “NEOs”:
26% Total Stockholder Return for 2019 | 11% Y-o-Y Growth in Diluted FFO per Share1 | 9% Y-o-Y Increase in Cash Dividend, 42% over Past Three Years | 7.6 Million Square Feet Leased | |||
6.7% Y-o-Y Growth in Same Property NOI (BXP’s Share)1 | 5.4% Y-o-Y Growth in Same Property NOI – Cash (BXP’s Share)1 | $3.1 Billion BXP’s Share of Estimated Total Investment in Active Development Pipeline | 76% Pre-Leased Development Pipeline (excluding residential) |
| 2020 Proxy Statement |
Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) Leadership
2019 was another strong year for BXP during which we will providemade substantial progress and maintained our position as an industry leader on environmental, social and governance issues.
› Environmental. Our sustainability strategy is to conduct our business in a brief reportmanner that contributes to positive economic, social and environmental outcomes for our customers, stockholders, employees and the communities we serve. Our experience demonstrates that through our activities, we can contribute to environmental solutions as a positive force while improving our financial performance and becoming a stronger, more purposeful organization in the process. We deliver efficient, healthy and productive workspaces while simultaneously mitigating operational costs and potential external impacts of energy, water, waste, and greenhouse gas emissions. We are also keenly focused on the operationsclimate resilience of our existing portfolio of assets, and we are preparing for long-term climate risks, such as extreme heat, severe storms and sea level rise, by considering climate change scenarios.
Your Board of Directors and CEO are committed to building a company culture in which the commitment to these tenets extends to every region in which we operate, every department and function, and every employee. As a result of these focused efforts, BXP won various industry and other awards in 2019, and we are recognized as a global industry leader in sustainability. Your Board is especially proud of these accomplishments because they are a direct result of our sustained commitment throughout the enterprise over several years. A list of these various awards is on page 5 of the accompanying proxy statement.
› Social. Boston Properties has an established reputation for excellence and integrity, and these core values are inherent in our culture; defining our strategy, achieving our business goals, and contributing to our overall success. Our teams are highly engaged with their local communities in determining how our projects can enhance neighborhoods, improve public amenities and provide high-quality space for working and living in order to positively impact the regions in which we operate. BXP and its employees also make a social impact through charitable giving and volunteerism.
Similarly, BXP is committed to providing an environment for its employees that fosters talent, energy and well-being. We seek an inclusive and diverse workforce that represents the communities we serve, and we design our programs to meet the needs of our workforce and support our employees and their families. The success of our efforts is demonstrated by the long tenure of our employees, nearly 40% of whom have worked at BXP for more than ten years.
› Governance. Your Board of Directors currently consists of eleven individuals with diverse backgrounds who are dedicated to serving the best interests of our stockholders. The accompanying proxy statement contains very detailed information on the composition of our Board and its responsibilities, including a snapshot of our policies on page 1 of the Proxy Summary.
Investor Outreach & Changes in Compensation Policies
At our 2019 annual meeting, our stockholders approved the“Say-on-Pay” resolution to ratify the compensation we paid to our named executive officers. Although the core philosophy and design of our compensation program remained materially consistent with prior years, Institutional Shareholder Services recommended that its clients vote against our 2019Say-on-Pay resolution and the percentage of votes cast in favor of theSay-on-Pay resolution decreased from approximately 91% in 2018 to approximately 67% in 2019.
The results of the vote reflected approval of our executive compensation program as a whole, but the level of support was less than we expected and less than we desire. As a result, your independent directors, led by the Chair of the Compensation Committee and me, engaged directly with ten of our largest institutional investors representing ownership of more than 40% of the outstanding shares of BXP common stock to solicit feedback on our executive compensation program and our directorscorporate governance policies generally and management teamto better understand their individual concerns.
In addition to the feedback from investors, the Compensation Committee evaluated the advice received from its new independent consultant, Frederic W. Cook & Co., Inc. on the reasonableness of the Company’s executive compensation levels in comparison with those of other similarly situated companies and recommendations for the components and amounts of compensation paid to our top executive officers.
| 2020 Proxy Statement |
The “Compensation Discussion and Analysis” section of the accompanying proxy statement includes a discussion of the feedback we received from investors, as well as the advice received from FW Cook. Each contributed to the Compensation Committee taking policy actions, and I want to highlight the following key changes:
› New Annual Cash Bonus Program – The Compensation Committee established a new 2020 Annual Incentive Plan. Under this plan, beginning in 2020, annual cash bonuses paid to our executive officers will be availabledirectly linked to answer appropriate questions from stockholders.their performance against goals in three, equally-weighted categories:
Your vote is important. Your proxy or voting instruction card
FFO per Share
Leasing
Business/Individual Goals
Some of our investors expressed a desire for more objectivity and structure in BXP’s annual cash bonus program, including specific weightings ascribed to each measure and transparent disclosure of goals and results. The new bonus plan addresses investors’ feedback on the discretionary nature of BXP’s traditional bonus program, reduces the number of performance goals and includes specific weightings for each measure.
› Target and Maximum Cash Bonus Opportunities – Beginning in 2020, all executive officers have target and maximum annual cash bonus opportunities. Amounts actually earned may range from zero (0) to 150% of target, depending on performance versus theirpre-established goals in each category. The Compensation Committee incorporated the target and maximum bonus opportunities in the new bonus plan in response to investors expressing a preference for a clearly defined ranges of bonus opportunities.
› Allocation to Performance-based Equity Awards – The Compensation Committee increased the percentage of equity awards that are granted to our CEO in the form of performance-based equity awards from 50% to 55%, so the allocation between performance-based and time-based equity awards is now55%-45%. (The allocation for all other NEOs remains50%-50%.) In addition, the Compensation Committee increased the allocation of total compensation to long-term equity compensation and decreased the allocation to short-term cash compensation to increase alignment with stockholders and focus on long-term performance. As a result, performance-based equity awards for all NEOs represent a greater percentage of total direct compensation than they did in 2018.
We trust that you will view these changes as a demonstration of the commitment of Boston Properties’ Board to engage with you and to proactively respond to your concerns.
*****
The accompanying proxy statement contains a great deal of other important information regardingabout Boston Properties, and we hope you will take the several waystime to vote your shares. We encourageread it. Whether or not you to vote as soon as possible, even if you planare able to attend the meeting. You may vote over the internet, by telephone or by mail.
Thankannual meeting, we welcome your participation in our affairs and thank you for your continued support of Boston Properties.support.
Sincerely,
Owen D. Thomas
Chief Executive Officer
1 | For disclosures required by Regulation G, refer to (1) pages 95 through 97 of our 2019 Annual Report on Form10-K for FFO and diluted FFO per share and (2) Appendix A to the accompanying proxy statement for BXP’s Share of Same Property NOI and NOI – Cash. |
|
|
Notice of 2017 Annual Meeting of Stockholders
NOTICE OF 2020 ANNUAL
MEETING OF STOCKHOLDERS
DATE AND TIME | Wednesday, May 20, 2020, at 9:00 a.m., Eastern Time | |||
LOCATION | ||||
RECORD DATE | March |
*Depending on the status of health concerns about the coronavirus, orCOVID-19, we may decide to hold the annual meeting by live audio webcast instead of holding the annual meeting in person at Metropolitan Square. The Company will publicly announce a decision to hold the annual meeting, at the same date and time, solely by audio webcast in a press release available athttp://investors.bxp.com/press-releases as soon as practicable before the annual meeting. In the event the annual meeting is not held at Metropolitan Square, you or your proxyholder may participate, vote and examine our stockholder list by visitingwww.virtualshareholdermeeting.com/BXP2020 and using your16-digit control number.
Since becoming a public company in 1997, we have always held our annual meetings in person, and it remains our intention to do so under normal circumstances.
ITEMS OF BUSINESS
1. | ||||
To elect the eleven (11) nominees for director named in the proxy statement, each to serve for aone-year term and until their respective successors are duly elected and qualified. |
2. | To hold anon-binding, advisory vote on named executive officer compensation. |
3. | ||||
To ratify the Audit Committee’s appointment of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP as our independent registered public accounting firm for the fiscal year ending December 31, |
4. | ||||
To consider and act upon any other matters that are properly brought by or at the direction of the Board of Directors before the annual meeting and at any adjournments or postponements thereof. | ||||
| ||||
PROXY VOTING
Whether or not you plan to attend the meeting and vote your shares of common stock in person, we urge you to vote your shares as instructed in the proxy statement. If you received a copy of the proxy card by mail, you may sign, date and mail the proxy card in the postage-paid envelope provided.
If your shares of common stock are held by a broker, bank or other nominee, please follow the instructions you receive from your broker, bank or other nominee to have your shares of common stock voted.
Any proxy may be revoked at any time prior to its exercise at the annual meeting.
By Order of the Board of Directors,
Frank D. Burt, ESQ.
Secretary
April 3, 2020
Important Notice Regarding the Availability of Proxy Materials for the Stockholders Meeting to be Held on May 23, 2017.20, 2020.The proxy statement and our 20162019 annual report to stockholders are available at www.edocumentview.com/bxp.atwww.proxyvote.com.
By Order of the Board of Directors
FRANK D. BURT, ESQ.
Secretary
April 7, 2017
| 2020 Proxy Statement |
| 2020 Proxy Statement |
› | PROXY SUMMARY |
This summary highlights information contained elsewhere in the proxy statement. This summary does not contain all of the information that you should consider, and you should read the entire proxy statement carefully before voting.
2020 ANNUAL MEETING INFORMATION
Date and Time | Location | Record Date | ||
Wednesday, May 20, 2020 9:00 a.m., Eastern Time | Metropolitan Square 655 15th Street, NW, 2nd Floor Washington, DC 20005 | March 25, 2020 |
VOTING MATTERS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Voting Matter | Board’s Voting Recommendation | Page Reference for more Information | ||||
Proposal 1 | Election of Eleven (11) Directors | ✓ FOR each nominee | 7 | |||
Proposal 2 | Non-binding, Advisory Vote on Named Executive | ✓ FOR | 83 | |||
Officer Compensation | ||||||
Proposal 3 | Ratification of Appointment of Independent | ✓ FOR | 84 | |||
Registered Public Accounting Firm |
GOVERNANCE AND COMPENSATION POLICIES AND KEY DATA
Board Leadership | Stockholder Rights | |
• Mr. Klein serves as our independent, non-executive Chairman of the Board | • Incorporated in Delaware; the Maryland Unsolicited Takeovers Act does not apply to us • Proxy Access By-law right • Annual election of all directors • Majority voting standard in uncontested director elections • Stockholder right to amend By-laws • No Stockholder Rights Plan (or “poison pill”) • Disclosure of Policy on Company Political Spending | |
Director Composition and Independence | ||
• Eleven (11) directors • Four directors are women and one director is African-American • 82% independent | ||
Director Qualifications and Policies | Compensation | |
• Retirement age: 75-year maximum age limit at time of nomination • Regular executive sessions of independent directors • All directors and officers are subject to a Code of Business Conduct and Ethics • All directors attended 75% or more of Board and committee meetings in 2019 • Annual self-evaluation for the Board and each committee, and bi-annual interviews of individual directors by our Chairman of the Board; process overseen by our Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee | • Stock ownership requirements for executives (for CEO, 6x base salary) • Stock ownership requirements for directors (5x annual retainer) • Anti-hedging, anti-pledging and anti-short-sale policies • “Double-Trigger” vesting for time-based equity awards • Compensation Clawback Policy • Policy against tax gross-up provisions | |
| 2020 Proxy Statement | 1 |
|
| |||||||||
› | ||||||||||
|
| |||||||||
GOVERNANCE AND COMPENSATION POLICIES
Below presents a snapshot of certain key governance and compensation policies.
EXPIRATION OF SHAREHOLDER RIGHTS PLAN
Boston Properties, Inc. has had a shareholder rights plan in effect since June 16, 1997. However, the Board of Directors has determined to allow the shareholder rights plan to expire in accordance with its terms as of the close of business on June 29, 2017.
BOARD NOMINEES
Following the recommendation of the Nominating and Corporate Governance (“NCG”) Committee, our Board of Directors has nominated the following eleven (11) candidates for election as directors at the 20172020 annual meeting of stockholders.
Committee Membership | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Name and Principal Occupation | Age | Independent | Director Since | Audit | Compensation | Nominating and Corporate Governance | Investment | |||||||||||||||||||||
Bruce W. Duncan(1) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chairman and former Chief Executive Officer of First Industrial Realty Trust, Inc. | 65 | ✓ | 2016 | ● | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Karen E. Dykstra(1) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Former Chief Financial and Administrative Officer of AOL, Inc. | 58 | ✓ | 2016 | ● | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Carol B. Einiger | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Senior Advisor, Roundtable Investment Partners LLC | 67 | ✓ | 2004 | Chair | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr. Jacob A. Frenkel | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chairman of JPMorgan Chase International | 74 | ✓ | 2010 | Chair | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Joel I. Klein(2) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chief Policy and Strategy Officer of Oscar Insurance Corporation | 70 | ✓ | 2013 | ● | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Douglas T. Linde | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
President of Boston Properties, Inc. | 53 | 2010 | ● | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Matthew J. Lustig | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Head of North America Investment Banking and Head of Real Estate & Lodging at Lazard Fréres & Co. | 56 | ✓ | 2011 | ● | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alan J. Patricof(1) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Managing Director of Greycroft LLC | 82 | ✓ | 1997 | ● | ● | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Owen D. Thomas | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chief Executive Officer of Boston Properties, Inc. | 55 | 2013 | ● | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Martin Turchin | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Non-executive Vice Chairman of CBRE Group, Inc. | 75 | ✓ | 1997 | ● | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
David A. Twardock(1) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Former President of Prudential Mortgage Capital Company, LLC | 59 | ✓ | 2003 | Chair | ● |
Name | Principal Occupation | Age(1) | Director Since | Independent | Current Committee Memberships | |||||
Joel I. Klein Chairman of the Board | Chief Policy and Strategy Officer of Oscar Health Corporation | 73 | 2013 | Yes | (2) | |||||
Kelly A. Ayotte | Former United States Senator for the State of New Hampshire | 51 | 2018 | Yes | Compensation; NCG | |||||
Bruce W. Duncan(3) | Chairman and former Chief Executive Officer of First Industrial Realty Trust, Inc. | 68 | 2016 | Yes | Compensation (Chair); NCG | |||||
Karen E. Dykstra(3) | Former Chief Financial and Administrative Officer of AOL, Inc. | 61 | 2016 | Yes | Audit | |||||
Carol B. Einiger | President of Post Rock Advisors, LLC | 70 | 2004 | Yes | Compensation | |||||
Diane J. Hoskins | Chair andCo-Chief Executive Officer of M. Arthur Gensler Jr. & Associates, Inc. | 62 | 2019 | Yes | NCG | |||||
Douglas T. Linde | President of Boston Properties, Inc. | 56 | 2010 | No | ||||||
Matthew J. Lustig | Chairman of North America Investment Banking and Head of Real Estate & Lodging at Lazard Fréres & Co. | 59 | 2011 | Yes | NCG (Chair) | |||||
Owen D. Thomas | Chief Executive Officer of Boston Properties, Inc. | 58 | 2013 | No | ||||||
David A. Twardock(3) | Former President of Prudential Mortgage Capital Company, LLC | 63 | 2003 | Yes | Audit (Chair); Compensation | |||||
William H. Walton, III | Managing Member &Co-Founder of Rockpoint Group, LLC | 68 | 2019 | Yes | Audit |
(1) | Age as of May 20, 2020, the date of the annual meeting. |
(2) | Mr. Klein serves as our independent,non-executive Chairman of the Board and as anex officio member of each of the Audit, Compensation and NCG Committees. |
(3) | Our Board of Directors determined that each of Ms. Dykstra and |
2 | | 2020 Proxy Statement |
› | PROXY SUMMARY |
SNAPSHOT OF 2020 BOARD COMPOSITION
NOMINEES
Presented below is a snapshot of the expected composition of our Board of Directors immediately following the 20172020 annual meeting, assuming the election of the eleven (11) nominees named in the proxy statement. Our Board of Directors believes that, collectively, the nominees exhibit an effective mix of qualifications, experience and diversity. For comparison purposes, we have also presented comparable metrics for the constituents of the S&P 500 Index, of which Boston Properties is a member. (DataData for the S&P 500 Index is based on theSpencer Stuart Board Index 2016.)2019.
The following summarizes the qualifications and experience of the eleven (11) nominees for election as directors. For additional information, see “Proposal 1: Election of Directors – Nominees for Election” beginning on page 9 of the proxy statement.
| 2020 Proxy Statement | 3 |
PROXY SUMMARY | ||||
SUSTAINABILITY
The BXP sustainability strategy is to conduct our business — the development and operation of new and existing buildings — in a manner that contributes to positive economic, social and environmental outcomes for our customers, shareholders, employees and the communities we serve. Our investment philosophy is shaped by our core strategy of long-term ownership and our commitment to our communities and the centers of commerce and civic life that make them thrive. We are focused on developing and maintaining healthy, high-performance buildings, while simultaneously mitigating operational costs and the potential external impacts of energy, water, waste, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. To that end, we have publicly adopted long-term energy, emissions, water and waste goals that establish aggressive reduction targets and have been aligned with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. BXP is a corporate member of the U.S. Green Building Council® (“USGBC”) and has a long history of owning, developing and operating properties that are certified under USGBC’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design™ (“LEED®”) rating system. In addition, we have been an active participant in the green bond market since 2018, which provides access to sustainability-focused investors interested in the positive environmental externalities of our business activities. BXP and its employees also make a social impact through charitable giving, volunteerism, public-realm investments and diversity and inclusion. Through these efforts, we demonstrate that operating and developing commercial real estate can be conducted with a conscious regard for the environment and society while mutually benefiting our stakeholders.
› INDUSTRY LEADERSHIP
We are recognized as an industry leader in sustainability as demonstrated by the following awards and achievements.
Achievements
| 2020 Proxy Statement |
PROXY SUMMARY |
Awards and Ratings
› GREEN FINANCE
In 2018 and 2019, BXP marketed and issued an aggregate of $1.85 billion of green bonds in two separate bond offerings and subsequently provided impact reporting for the first offering in 2019. Green bonds restrict the use of proceeds to eligible green projects. Eligible Green Projects are defined as: (1) building developments or redevelopments; (2) renovations in existing buildings; and (3) tenant improvement projects, in each case, that have received, or are expected to receive, in the three years prior to the issuance of the notes or during the term of the notes, a LEED Silver, Gold or Platinum certification (or environmentally equivalent successor standards). The definition of Eligible Green Projects includes the Salesforce Tower development project, which has received LEED Platinum certification, and was the project associated with BXP’s inaugural green bond offering.
| 5 |
PROXY SUMMARY |
› CLIMATE RESILIENCE
We are focused on climate preparedness and resiliency in advancement of our sustainability strategy. As a long-term owner and active manager of real estate assets in operation and under development, we strive to obtain adaptive capacity by continuing to proactively implement measures and planning and decision-making processes to protect our investments by improving resilience. We are preparing for long-term climate risk by considering climate change scenarios and will continue to assess climate change vulnerabilities resulting from potential future climate scenarios and sea level rise. Event-driven (acute) and longer-term (chronic) physical risks that may result from climate change could have a material adverse effect on our properties, operations and business. Management’s role in assessing and managing these climate-related risks and initiatives is spread across multiple teams across our organization, including our executive leadership and our Sustainability, Risk Management, Development, Construction and Property Management departments. Climate resilience measures include training and implementation of emergency response plans and the engagement of our executives and our Board of Directors on climate change and other environmental, social and governance (“ESG”) aspects.
› PUBLIC SUSTAINABILITY GOALS AND PROGRESS
Our sustainability goals establish reduction targets for energy, greenhouse gas emissions, water consumption and waste. In 2016, we achieved our first round of energy, emissions and water targets three years early. By resetting company-wide goals, we raise stakeholder awareness and make best efforts to drive continuous year-over-year,like-for-like key performance indicator improvement. We have adopted goals with the following specific time frames, metrics and targets below a 2008 baseline:(1)
(1) | Full 2019 calendar year energy and water data assured by a third party is not yet available. 2018 is the most recent year for which complete energy and water data is available and assured by a third party. |
We are committed to transparent reporting of ESG sustainability indicators. Boston Properties publishes an annual sustainability report that is aligned with the Global Reporting Initiative (“GRI”) reporting framework. More detailed sustainability information, including our strategy, key performance indicators, annuallike-for-like comparisons, achievements and historical sustainability reports are available on our website athttp://www.bxp.com under the heading “Sustainability.” Except for the documents specifically incorporated by reference into our Annual Report on Form10-K, information contained on our website or that can be accessed through our website is not incorporated by reference into our Annual Report on Form10-K.
| 2020 Proxy Statement |
This proxy statement is being made available to stockholders of Boston Properties, Inc. (“we,” “us,” “our,” “Boston Properties” or the “Company”) on or about April 7, 20173, 2020 via the Internet or by delivering printed copies by mail, and is furnished in connection with the solicitation of proxies by the Board of Directors of Boston Properties, Inc. (our “Board” or our “Board of Directors”) for use at our 20172020 annual meeting of stockholders to be held on Tuesday,Wednesday, May 23, 201720, 2020 at 9:00 a.m., Eastern Time, at 599 Lexington Avenue, 16thMetropolitan Square, 655 15th Street, NW, 2nd Floor, New York, New York,Washington, DC 20005, and at any adjournments or postponements thereof.
Depending on the status of health concerns about the coronavirus, orCORPORATE GOVERNANCE PRINCIPLES AND BOARD MATTERSCOVID-19, we may decide to hold the annual meeting by live audio webcast instead of holding the meeting in person at Metropolitan Square. The Company will publicly announce a decision to hold the annual meeting, at the same date and time, solely by audio webcast in a press release available athttp://investors.bxp.com/press-releases as soon as practicable before the annual meeting. In the event the annual meeting is not held at Metropolitan Square, you or your proxyholder may participate, vote and examine our stockholder list by visitingwww.virtualshareholdermeeting.com/BXP2020 and using your16-digit control number.
Since becoming a public company in 1997, we have always held our annual meeting in person, and it remains our intention to do so under normal circumstances.
ELECTION OF DIRECTORS
Composition of the Board of Directors
Boston Properties is currently governed by an eleven-member Board of Directors. The current members of our Board of Directors are Kelly A. Ayotte, Bruce W. Duncan, Karen E. Dykstra, Carol B. Einiger, Dr. Jacob A. Frenkel,Diane J. Hoskins, Joel I. Klein, Douglas T. Linde, Matthew J. Lustig, Alan J. Patricof, Owen D. Thomas, Martin Turchin and David A. Twardock.Twardock and William H. Walton, III. At the 20172020 annual meeting of stockholders, directors will be elected to hold office for aone-year term expiring at the 20182021 annual meeting of stockholders orstockholders. Directors shall hold office until his or her successor istheir successors are duly elected and qualified, or until his or hertheir earlier resignation or removal. Any director appointed to our Board of Directors to fill a vacancy will hold office for a term expiring at the next annual meeting of stockholders following such appointment.
Meetings
Our Board of Directors met seven times during 2016. Each incumbent director attended at least 75%Following the recommendation of the aggregate of (1) the total number of meetings ofNCG Committee, our Board of Directors in 2016 held during the periodnominated all directors currently serving for which he or she has been a director and (2) the total number of meetings in 2016 of all committees of our Board of Directors on which the director served during the periods that he or she served. Directors are expected to attend annual meetings of our stockholders in person unless doing so is impracticable due to unavoidable conflicts. Nine of the eleven directors then serving attended the 2016 annual meeting of stockholders. One director did not attend the 2016 annual meeting of stockholders because he was not standing for reelection and one director was unable to attend due to an unavoidable scheduling conflict.
Directors who qualify as“non-management”re-election. within the meaning of the NYSE rules meet on a regular basis in executive sessions without management participation. The executive sessions occur after each regularly scheduled meeting of the entire Board and at such other times that thenon-management directors deem appropriate, and they are chaired by our lead independent director. Each director has the right to call an executive session. Currently, all of ournon-management directors are independent.
Director Succession Planning
Led by our Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee (the “NCG Committee”), our Board of Directors remains focused on ensuring a smooth transition if and when directors decide to retire or otherwise leave our Board and ensuring that the composition of our Board is systematically refreshed so that, taken as a whole, the Board has the desired mix of skills, experience, reputation and diversity relevant to our strategic direction and operating environment, as well as the knowledge, ability and
BOSTON PROPERTIES, INC. |2017 Proxy Statement 1
CORPORATE GOVERNANCE PRINCIPLES AND BOARD MATTERS
independence to continue to deliver a high standard of governance expected by investors. Among other aspects of the process, our Board of Directors:
Our Board of Directors recognizes the importance of continuity andminimum qualifications that refreshment should notmust be effectuated all at once. Inpossessed by a director candidate in order to be nominated for a position on our proxy statement for our 2016 annual meeting of stockholders, we stated that ourBoard. Our Board of Directors anticipates that, changes to its composition would likely occur gradually over several years. Consistent with this statement, in 2016 our Boardif elected, the nominees will serve as directors. However, if any person nominated and our stockholders elected two new directors (Ms. Karen E. Dykstra and Mr. Bruce W. Duncan); for 2017, our Board determined that it is advisable to nominate all eleven (11) incumbent directors for election.
Leadership Structure
Since the 2016 annual meeting of stockholders, at which time Mortimer B. Zuckerman ceased serving as a director and our Board conferred upon him the honorary title of Chairman Emeritus, our Board of Directors has operated without a Chairman of the Board. Currently, Mr. Thomas serves as Chief Executive Officer and Mr. Klein serves as our lead independent director, as described in more detail below under “– Board Leadership – Lead Independent Director.” Our Board of Directors determined that this structure is appropriate because it (1) allows for the efficient and effective handling of the responsibilities of our Board of Directors with a key leading role played by our Chief Executive Officer, who is most directly responsible for developing and executing our strategic direction, and (2) helps ensure strong independent oversight by our Board of Directors throughis unable to serve or for good cause will not serve, the role played by our lead independent director.
Our Boardproxies will be voted for the election of Directors encourages strong communication among all of our independent directors and the Chief Executive Officer and believes that it is able to effectively provide independent oversight of our business and affairs, including risks facing the Company, through our lead independent director, the independent committees ofsuch other person as our Board of Directors may recommend.
VOTE REQUIRED AND MAJORITY VOTING STANDARD
OurBy-laws provide for a majority voting standard. This means that, in an uncontested election, nominees for director are elected if the overall composition ofvotes cast for such nominee’s election exceed the votes cast against such nominee’s election. The majority voting standard would not apply in contested elections, which, generally, will include any situation in which Boston Properties receives a notice that a stockholder has nominated a person for election to our Board of Directors and contributionsat a meeting of all of our independent directors and other corporate governance processes in place.
Unless and until our Board of Directors elects a Chairman ofstockholders that is not withdrawn on or before the Board, our lead independent director will preside at all meetings of our Board of Directors andtenth day before Boston Properties first mails its notice for such meeting to the other functional responsibilities of the Chairman of the Board will be divided between our lead independent director and the Chief Executive Officer.stockholders.
2 BOSTON PROPERTIES, INC. |2017 Proxy Statement
| 2020 Proxy Statement | 7 |
CORPORATE GOVERNANCE PRINCIPLES AND BOARD MATTERS
1› | PROPOSAL 1: ELECTION OF DIRECTORS |
Lead Independent Director
We have a lead independent director who is selected annually byThe majority voting standard will apply to the voteelection of a majority of our independent directors. Currently, Mr. Klein serves as our lead independent director and our independent directors have selected him to continue to serve as our lead independent director followingat the 20172020 annual meeting of stockholders. Our lead independentAccordingly, nominees for director has well-defined, substantive responsibilities that include, among others that maywill be assigned from time to time:
BOSTON PROPERTIES, INC. |2017 Proxy Statement 3
CORPORATE GOVERNANCE PRINCIPLES AND BOARD MATTERS
Our Board of Directors has the following four committees: (1) Audit, (2) Compensation, (3) Nominating andalso adopted a resignation policy, included in our Corporate Governance (“NCG”) and (4) Investment.Guidelines, under which a director who fails to receive the required number of votes forre-election will tender his or her resignation to our Board of Directors for its consideration. The Audit Committee, Compensation Committee and NCG Committee each operates pursuantwill then act on an expedited basis to a charter that was approveddetermine whether it is advisable to accept the director’s resignation and will submit the recommendation for prompt consideration by our Board of Directors and that is reviewed and reassessed at least annually. A copy of each of these charters is available on our website athttp://www.bostonproperties.com under the heading “Corporate Governance.”Directors. Our Board of Directors may from time to time establish other special or standing committees to facilitatewill act on the management of Boston Properties or to discharge specific duties delegated to the committee by the full Board of Directors.
The membership and the function of eachtendered resignation within 90 days following certification of the Audit Committee, Compensation Committee,stockholder vote and will promptly and publicly disclose its decision. The director whose resignation is under consideration will abstain from participating in any decision regarding his or her resignation. If the resignation is not accepted, the director will continue to serve until the next annual meeting of stockholders and until the director’s successor is duly elected and qualified or until the director’s earlier resignation or removal. The NCG Committee and Investment Committee, and the numberour Board of meetings each held during 2016 are described below.Directors may consider any factors they deem relevant in deciding whether to accept a director’s resignation.
| ||
|
|
4 BOSTON PROPERTIES, INC. |2017 Proxy Statement
CORPORATE GOVERNANCE PRINCIPLES AND BOARD MATTERS
8 | |||
| | 2020 Proxy Statement
|
|
BOSTON PROPERTIES, INC. |2017 Proxy Statement 5NOMINEES FOR ELECTION
CORPORATE GOVERNANCE PRINCIPLES AND BOARD MATTERS
| ||||||
| Qualifications:
Mr. Klein has worked for Professional Background:
•
•
•
•
• Various roles with the | Other Leadership Experience, Community Involvement and Education:
• Member of the Advisory Boards of the Zuckerman Mind Brain Behavior Institute and Columbia College • Received a BA magna cum laude from Columbia University and a JD magna cum laude from Harvard Law School. Mr. Klein has also received honorary degrees from ten colleges and universities | ||||
Director since: January 2013 Age:73 Independent Chairman of the Board Board Committees: •ex officio member of
Other Public Company Boards: • Current: News Corporation • Former (past 5 years): None |
| 2020 Proxy Statement | 9 |
1› | PROPOSAL 1: ELECTION OF DIRECTORS |
KELLY A. AYOTTE
Former U.S. Senator for the State of New Hampshire | Qualifications: Senator Ayotte has significant legal experience and experience in government and public affairs, as well as leadership and strategic planning skills. Professional Business Experience: • Represented New Hampshire in the United States Senate from 2011 to 2016; chaired the Armed Services Subcommittee on Readiness and the Commerce Subcommittee on Aviation Operations; and served on the Budget, Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Small Business and Entrepreneurship, and Aging Committees • New Hampshire’s first female Attorney General from 2004 to 2009 appointed by Republican Governor Craig Benson and reappointed twice by Democratic Governor John Lynch • Previously Deputy Attorney General, Chief of the Homicide Prosecution Unit and Legal Counsel to Governor Craig Benson • Former associate at the McLane Middleton law firm and law clerk to the New Hampshire Supreme Court • Director of The Blackstone Group, Inc., Caterpillar Inc. and News Corporation • Director of Blink Health LLC and BAE Systems, Inc., each a private company • Former director of Bloom Energy Corporation from 2017 to 2019 • Member of advisory boards of Microsoft Corporation, Chubb Insurance and Cirtronics Corporation | Other Leadership Experience, Community Involvement and Education: • Senior Advisor for Citizens for Responsible Energy Solutions • Member ofnon-profit boards of the One Campaign, the International Republican Institute, the McCain Institute, Swim with a Mission, Winning for Women and Veterans Count of New Hampshire • Member of the Aspen Institute’s Economic Strategy • Member of Board of Advisors for the Center on Military and Political Power at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies • Co-chair of the Center for Strategic and International Study’s Commission on Health Security • Co-chair of the Center for a New American Security’s Digital Freedom Forum • Graduated with honors from the Pennsylvania State University and received a JD from the Villanova University School of Law | ||||
|
Board Committees: • Compensation •
Other Public Company Boards: • Current: The • Former (past 5 years): Bloom Energy Corporation
|
6 BOSTON PROPERTIES, INC. |2017 Proxy Statement
10 | | 2020 Proxy Statement |
1› | PROPOSAL 1: ELECTION OF DIRECTORS |
CORPORATE GOVERNANCE PRINCIPLES AND BOARD MATTERS
BRUCE W. DUNCAN Chairman of the Board of Directors of First Industrial Realty Trust, Inc. | Qualifications: Mr. Duncan has more than 30 years of diverse real estate management and investment experience, including as a chief executive officer and a director of other publicly traded companies. Professional Business Experience: • Chairman of the Board of Directors of First Industrial Realty Trust, Inc. (“First Industrial”), an industrial real estate investment trust (“REIT”), since January 2016, and a director of First Industrial since January 2009; President and Chief Executive Officer of First Industrial from January 2009 until he stepped down as President in September 2016 and retired as Chief Executive Officer in November 2016 • Senior advisor to Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. (“KKR”), a global investment firm, since November 2018; previously senior advisor to KKR from July 2008 to January 2009 • Former Chairman of the Board of Directors of Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc. (“Starwood”), a leading worldwide hotel and leisure company, from May 2005 until its acquisition by Marriott International, Inc. in September 2016; director of Starwood from 1999 to September 2016; interim Chief Executive Officer of Starwood from April 2007 to September 2007 • Trustee of Starwood Hotels & Resorts, a REIT and former subsidiary of Starwood, from 1995 to 2006 • Director of Marriott International, Inc., the world’s largest hotel company, since September 2016, and T. Rowe Price Mutual Funds since September 2013 • Private investor from January 2006 to January 2009 • Various positions at Equity Residential, one of the largest publicly traded apartment REITs in the United States, from March 2002 to December 2005, including Chief Executive Officer and Trustee from May 2005 to December 2005, President, Chief Executive Officer and Trustee from January 2003 to May 2005, and President and Trustee from March 2002 to December 2002 • Former director of The Rouse Company, a diversified commercial real estate firm • Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of Cadillac Fairview Corporation, one of North America’s largest owners and developers of retail and office properties, from December 1995 to March 2000 | Other Leadership Experience, Community Involvement and Education: • Life Trustee of Rush University Medical Center in Chicago • Former member of the Advisory Board of Governors of the National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts (“Nareit”) and the Executive Committees of the Board of the Canadian Institute for Public Real Estate Companies (CIPREC) and the National Multi-Housing Council (NMHC) • Former trustee of the International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC) • Received a BA in Economics from Kenyon College and an MBA in Finance from the University of Chicago | ||||
Director since:May 2016 Age:68 Independent Board Committees: • Compensation (Chair) • NCG Other Public Company Boards: • Current: First Industrial Realty Trust, Inc., Marriott International, Inc. • Former (past 5 years): Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc. |
| 2020 Proxy Statement | 11 |
1› | PROPOSAL 1: ELECTION OF DIRECTORS |
KAREN E. DYKSTRA Former Chief Financial and Administrative Officer of AOL, Inc. | Qualifications: Ms. Dykstra has extensive strategic, management, financial, accounting and oversight experience, particularly with companies in the technology sector. Professional Business Experience: • Chief Financial and Administrative Officer of AOL, Inc., a global media technology company, from November 2013 to July 2015; Chief Financial Officer of AOL, Inc. from September 2012 to November 2013 • Partner of Plainfield Asset Management LLC (“Plainfield”) from January 2007 to December 2010 • Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Plainfield Direct Inc., Plainfield’s business development company, from May 2006 to 2010 and a director from 2007 to 2010 • Various positions with Automatic Data Processing, Inc. for over 25 years, including serving most recently as Chief Financial Officer from January 2003 to May 2006, and as Vice President – Finance, Corporate Controller • Director of Sirius Computer Solutions, a private company • Director of Gartner, Inc. since 2007 and VMware, Inc. since March 2016 • Former director of Crane Co. from 2004 to 2012 and AOL, Inc. from 2009 to 2012 | Education: • Received a BA in Accounting from Rider University and an MBA from Fairleigh Dickinson University | ||||
Director since:May 2016 Age:61 Independent Board Committees: • Audit Other Public Company Boards: • Current: Gartner, Inc., VMware, Inc. • Former (past 5 years): None |
12 | | 2020 Proxy Statement |
1› | PROPOSAL 1: ELECTION OF DIRECTORS |
CAROL B. EINIGER President of Post Rock Advisors, LLC | Qualifications: Ms. Einiger has more than 40 years of experience as an investment banker and investment advisor, during which time she has gained significant expertise in the operation of public and private debt and equity capital markets and the evaluation of investment opportunities. Professional Background: • President of Post Rock Advisors, LLC, a private investment firm, since July 2018; founder and President of Post Rock Advisors, LLC from 2005 to 2016 • Senior Advisor of Roundtable Investment Partners LLC, a registered investment advisory firm, from January 2017 to June 2018 • Chief Investment Officer of The Rockefeller University, where Ms. Einiger was responsible for the management of the University’s endowment, from 1996 to 2005 • Chief Financial Officer and then Acting President of the Edna McConnell Clark Foundation from 1992 to 1996 • Managing Director at Wasserstein Perella & Co. from 1989 to 1992 • Visiting Professor andExecutive-in-Residence at Columbia Business School from 1988 to 1989 • Various positions at The First Boston Corporation from 1973 to 1988, becoming Managing Director and Head of the Capital Markets Department • Various positions at Goldman, Sachs & Co. from 1971 to 1972 | Other Leadership Experience, Community Involvement and Education: • Director, member and former Chair of the Investment Committee ofUJA-Federation of New York • Member of the Investment Committee of the JPB Foundation and the Board of Overseers of Columbia Business School • Former member of the Boards of Trustees and Investment Committees of the University of Pennsylvania, the Lasker Foundation, the Horace Mann School • Former member of the Advisory Board of Blackstone Alternative Asset Management • Former Vice Chair of the Investment Committee of The Museum of Modern Art • Former Director of Credit Suisse First Boston (USA) and The New York Stem Cell Foundation • Recipient of numerous awards, including the Alumni Award of Merit of the University of Pennsylvania, the Columbia Business School Distinguished Alumna Award, the AJC National Human Relations Award, the Anti-Defamation League Woman of Achievement Award and the Catalyst Award for Corporate Leadership • Received a BA from the University of Pennsylvania and an MBA with honors from Columbia Business School | ||||
Director since:May 2004 Age:70 Independent Board Committees: • Compensation Other Public Company Boards: • Current: None • Former (past 5 years): None |
| 2020 Proxy Statement | 13 |
1› | PROPOSAL 1: ELECTION OF DIRECTORS |
DIANE J. HOSKINS Co-CEO and Chair of M. Arthur Gensler Jr. & Associates, Inc. | Qualifications: Ms. Hoskins has more than 30 years of architecture, design, real estate and business experience, including as a chief executive officer of a global brand. During this time, she has gained extensive leadership, strategic planning, and organizational development experience, as well as a deep understanding of markets and clients, including their current and future space needs and insight into how companies envision their work spaces of the future. Professional Background: • Co-CEO of M. Arthur Gensler Jr. & Associates, Inc. (“Gensler”), the world’s largest architecture, design, and planning firm since 2005, and Chair of the Gensler Board of Directors since 2018, where Ms. Hoskins has broad responsibility for managing Gensler, overseeing the company’s global platform and itsday-to-day operations, which spans over 6,000 employees networked across 48 offices in the Americas, Europe, Asia, and the Middle East • Various positions at Gensler since 1995, including Southeast Regional Managing Principal and Managing Director of the Washington, DC office • Founded the Gensler Research Institute to generate new knowledge and develop a deeper understanding of the connection between design, business, and the human experience • Senior Vice President of Epstein Architecture and Engineering from 1990 to 1994 • Development Analyst at Olympia & York from 1987 to 1990 • Architect Designer at Gensler from 1983 to 1985 • Architect at Skidmore Owings & Merrill from 1980 to 1983 | Other Leadership Experience, Community Involvement and Education: • Member of the World Economic Forum’s Global Future Council on Cities & Urbanization and the CEO Initiative by Fortune and Time • Fellow of the American Institute of Architects and member of several organizations, including the D.C. Board of Trade and the Economic Club of Washington, DC • Serves on the Visiting Committee of the School of Architecture at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and the Board of Advisors of the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) Anderson School of Management • Ms. Hoskins has been honored by several organizations for her work, including the Spirit of Life Award from City of Hope and the Outstanding Impact Award from the Council of Real Estate Women • Inducted into the Washington Business Hall of Fame in 2016, and, along with herCo-CEO, were ranked on the Business Insider’s 100 “Creators” list, a who’s who of the world’s 100 top creative visionaries • Ms. Hoskins is sought after by the media to share her expertise in many top tier media outlets, including The New York Times, Harvard Business Review, Fortune, Financial Times, Bloomberg TV, and global architecture and design trade publications • Frequent speaker at premier conferences, including the Bloomberg Business/CEO Summit, the Economist Human Potential Conference, and the Wall Street Journal Future of Cities Conference; was a featured panelist at the UN Climate Summit in the fall of 2019 • Graduated from MIT and holds an MBA from the Anderson Graduate School of Management at UCLA | ||||
Director since: May 2019 Age:62 Independent Board Committees: • NCG Other Public Company Boards: • Current: None • Former (past 5 years): None |
14 | | 2020 Proxy Statement |
1› | PROPOSAL 1: ELECTION OF DIRECTORS |
DOUGLAS T. LINDE President of Boston Properties, Inc. | Qualifications: Mr. Linde has more than 30 years of experience in the real estate industry, including as our President and former Chief Financial Officer, during which time he gained extensive knowledge of the real estate industry, capital markets and real estate finance, as well as substantial experience in transactional, operational and accounting matters. Professional Background: • President of Boston Properties, Inc. since May 2007 • Mr. Linde joined Boston Properties in January 1997 as Vice President of Acquisitions and New Business to help identify and execute acquisitions and to develop new business opportunities and served as Senior Vice President for Financial and Capital Markets from October 1998 to January 2005, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer from September 2000 to November 2007, and Executive Vice President from January 2005 to May 2007 • President of Capstone Investments, a Boston real estate investment company, from 1993 to 1997 • Project Manager and Assistant to the Chief Financial Officer of Wright Runstad and Company, a private real estate developer in Seattle, WA, from 1989 to 1993 • Began his career in the real estate industry with Salomon Brothers’ Real Estate Finance Group | Other Leadership Experience, Community Involvement and Education: • Trustee of the Beth Israel Lahey Health Board of Trustees • Director Emeritus of the Board of Directors of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (“BIDMC”) andco-chair of the BIDMC capital campaign • Member of the Real Estate Roundtable • Director of the Boston Municipal Research Bureau and Jobs for Massachusetts • Member of the Urban Studies and Planning Visiting Committee at MIT and the Wesleyan University Board of Trustees • Received a BA from Wesleyan University and an MBA from Harvard Business School | ||||
Director since:January 2010 Age:56 Other Public Company Boards: • Current: None • Former (past 5 years): None |
| 2020 Proxy Statement | 15 |
1› | PROPOSAL 1: ELECTION OF DIRECTORS |
MATTHEW J. LUSTIG Chairman of North America Investment Banking and Head of Real Estate and Lodging at Lazard Fréres & Co. | Qualifications: Mr. Lustig has worked for more than 35 years in the real estate industry, during which time he has gained extensive experience providing strategic and financial advice and transaction execution to clients including leading real estate companies, and investing in real estate companies and assets as a principal. Professional Background: • Chairman of North America Investment Banking at Lazard Frères & Co. (“Lazard”), the investment bank, since 2019 (previously Head of North America Investment Banking, from 2012 to 2019), with responsibility for the management of a range of Financial Advisory/Investment Banking businesses • Head of Real Estate & Lodging at Lazard, a position he has held for more than 20 years, serving clients and running its Real Estate and Lodging industry group. In recent years, Mr. Lustig has played an active role in more than $300 billion of advisory assignments and transactions involving leading real estate and lodging companies in the public and private markets • Former Chief Executive Officer of the real estate investment business of Lazard and its successors, where he oversaw multiple funds with over $2.5 billion of equity capital invested in REITs and real estate operating companies • Director of Ventas, Inc., a REIT with a portfolio of senior housing, research and innovation, and healthcare properties, since May 2011 • Former Chairman of Atria Senior Living Group, Inc., which was acquired by Ventas in May 2011 • Former director of several other public and private fund portfolio REITs and companies | Other Leadership Experience, Community Involvement and Education: • Member of the Real Estate Roundtable, the Urban Land Institute, the Pension Real Estate Association (former Board and Executive Committee member) and the Council on Foreign Relations • Member of the Real Estate centers at the business schools of Wharton/UPenn (Chairman of the Advisory Board) and Columbia University • Member of the Board of Advisors at the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University • Received a BSFS from Georgetown University | ||||
Director since:January 2011 Age:59 Independent Board Committees: • NCG (Chair) Other Public Company Boards: • Current: Ventas, Inc. • Former (past 5 years): None |
16 | | 2020 Proxy Statement |
1› | PROPOSAL 1: ELECTION OF DIRECTORS |
OWEN D. THOMAS Chief Executive Officer of Boston Properties, Inc. | Qualifications: Mr. Thomas is a recognized leader in the real estate industry with more than 33 years of executive leadership, strategic planning and management experience, as well as substantial experience in financial and capital markets. Professional Background: • Chief Executive Officer of Boston Properties, Inc. since April 2013 • Chairman of the Board of Directors of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (“LBHI”) from March 2012 until March 2013 and continues to serve as a member of the Board of Directors of LBHI • Various positions at Morgan Stanley from 1987 to 2011, including Chief Executive Officer of Morgan Stanley Asia Ltd., President of Morgan Stanley Investment Management, Head of Morgan Stanley Real Estate and Managing Director • Member of Morgan Stanley’s Management Committee from 2005 to 2011 | Other Leadership Experience, Community Involvement and Education: • Global Chairman of the Urban Land Institute • Director of the Real Estate Roundtable • Member of the Executive Board of Nareit • Received a BS in Mechanical Engineering from the University of Virginia and an MBA from Harvard Business School | ||||
Director since:April 2013 Age:58 Other Public Company Boards: • Current: None • Former (past 5 years): None |
| 2020 Proxy Statement | 17 |
1› | PROPOSAL 1: ELECTION OF DIRECTORS |
DAVID A. TWARDOCK Former President of Prudential Mortgage Capital Company, LLC | Qualifications: Mr. Twardock has more than 30 years of experience in the real estate finance industry, during which time he has overseen the lending and asset management of billions of dollars of commercial mortgages and other real estate debt financing and the management and disposition of billions of dollars of real estate equity. Professional Background: • Former President of Prudential Mortgage Capital Company, LLC, the real estate finance affiliate of Prudential Financial, Inc., from December 1998 to March 2013, which had more than $70 billion in assets under management and administration as of December 31, 2012 and annually lent billions of dollars in real estate debt financing • Various positions with Prudential relating to real estate equity and debt from 1982 to December 1998, including as Senior Managing Director of Prudential Realty Group from 1996 to November 1998 • Member of the advisory boards of Blue Vista Capital Management and LBA Realty • Director of Morgan Stanley Bank, N.A. from 2015 through 2018 | Other Leadership Experience, Community Involvement and Education: • Member of the Urban Land Institute and the Economics Club of Chicago • Former director of the Real Estate Roundtable and former Chairman of the Real Estate Roundtable Capital Markets Committee • Received a BS in Civil Engineering from the University of Illinois and an MBA in Finance and Behavioral Science from the University of Chicago | ||||
Director since:May 2003 Age:63 Board Committees: • Audit (Chair) • Compensation Other Public Company Boards: • Current: None • Former (past 5 years): None |
18 | | 2020 Proxy Statement |
1› | PROPOSAL 1: ELECTION OF DIRECTORS |
WILLIAM H. WALTON, III Co-Founder and Managing Member of Rockpoint Group, LLC | Qualifications: Mr. Walton has 40 years of real estate investment, development and management experience, as well as executive leadership experience having served in various roles and as a director of several public and private companies. Professional Background: • Co-founder and managing member of Rockpoint Group, LLC (“Rockpoint”), a global real estate investment management firm, where Mr. Walton is responsible for the overall operations and management of Rockpoint, as well as overseeing the origination, structuring and asset management of all of Rockpoint’s investment activities; since 1994, the Rockpoint founding managing members have invested in approximately $60 billion of real estate • Co-founder of Westbrook Real Estate Partners, LLC (“Westbrook”), a real estate investment management firm • Managing director in the real estate group of Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc. prior toco-founding Westbrook • Director of Crow Holdings, a privately owned real estate and investment firm, and FRP Holdings, Inc., a company engaged in the real estate business • Former trustee of Corporate Office Properties Trust and former director of Florida Rock Industries and The St. Joe Company | Other Leadership Experience, Community Involvement and Education: • Involved with several real estate industry organizations • Director or trustee of severalnon-profit organizations, with a particular interest in educational and policy entities, including the American Enterprise Institute, the Jacksonville University Public Policy Institute, KIPP Jacksonville Schools, Mpala Wildlife Foundation and the University of Florida Investment Corporation • Former member of the boards of Communities in Schools, the Episcopal School of Jacksonville, Princeton University and Princeton University Investment Company • Received an AB from Princeton University and an MBA from Harvard Business School | ||||
Director since:May 2019 Age:68 Board Committees: • Audit Other Public Company Boards: • Current: FRP Holdings, Inc. • Former (past 5 years): None |
| 2020 Proxy Statement | 19 |
1› | PROPOSAL 1: ELECTION OF DIRECTORS |
BOARD’S ROLE IN RISK OVERSIGHT › SUMMARY OF BOARD NOMINEE QUALIFICATIONS, EXPERIENCE AND DIVERSITY
Our Board of Directors plays an important role inIn addition to the risk oversight of Boston Properties. Our Board of Directors is involved in risk oversight through direct decision-making authority with respect to significant matters and the oversight of management byminimum qualifications that our Board of Directors believes are necessary for all directors, the following chart highlights certain qualifications and its committees. In particular,experience that are relevant to our long-term strategy and therefore relevant when considering candidates for election to our Board. A mark for an attribute indicates that the nominee gained the attribute through a current or prior position other than his or her service on the Boston Properties Board of Directors administers its risk oversight function through (1)Directors. Our Board did not assign specific weights to any of these attributes or otherwise formally rate the review and discussionlevel of regular periodic reports to our Board of Directors and its committees on topics relatinga nominee’s attribute relative to the risksrating for any other potential nominee. The absence of a mark for an attribute does not necessarily mean that Boston Properties faces, including, among others, market conditions, tenant concentrations and credit worthiness, leasing activity and expirations, the status of current and anticipated development projects, compliance with debt covenants, management of debt maturities, access to debt and equity capital markets, existing and potential legal claims against Boston Properties, cyber attacks and intrusions, and various other matters relating to Boston Properties’ business, (2)nominee does not possess that attribute; it means only that when the required approval by our Board of Directors (or a committee thereof) of significant transactions and other decisions, including, among others, acquisitions and dispositions of properties, development projects, new borrowings andconsidered that nominee in the appointment and retention of Boston Properties’ senior management, (3) the direct oversight of specific areas of Boston Properties’ business by the Audit, Compensation and NCG Committees, and (4) regular periodic reports from Boston Properties’ independent registered public accounting firm and other outside consultants regarding various areas of potential risk, including, among others, those relating to the qualification of Boston Properties as a real estate investment trust (“REIT”) for tax purposes and Boston Properties’ internal control over financial reporting. Our Board of Directors also relies on management to bring significant matters impacting Boston Properties to its attention.
Pursuant to the Audit Committee’s charter, the Audit Committee is specifically responsible for discussing the guidelines and policies that govern the process by which Boston Properties’ exposure to risk is assessed and managed by management. As part of this process, the Audit Committee oversees the planning and conduct of an annual risk assessment that is designed to identify and analyze risks to achieving Boston Properties’ business objectives. The resultsoverall context of the risk assessment are then discussedwith management and used to develop Boston Properties’ annual internal audit plan. In addition, as one component of Boston Properties’ anti-fraud program, Boston Properties, under the supervision of the Audit Committee, established a hotline that is available for the anonymous and confidential submission of complaints relating to any matter to encourage the reporting of questionable activities directly to our senior management and the Audit Committee (see“– Communications with the Board” below).
Because of the rolecomposition of our Board of Directors, that attribute was not a key factor in the risk oversight of Boston Properties, our Board of Directors believesdetermination to nominate that any leadership structure that it adopts must allow it to effectively overseeindividual. Further information on each nominee’s qualifications and relevant experience is provided in the management of the risks relating to Boston Properties’ operations. Our Board of Directors recognizes that there are different leadership structures that could allow it to effectively oversee the management of the risks relating to Boston Properties’ operations, and while our Board believes its current leadership structure enables it to effectively manage such risks, it was not the primary reason our Board of Directors selected its current leadership structure over other potential alternatives. See the discussion under the heading “– Board Leadership – Leadership Structure” above for a discussion of why our Board of Directors has determined that its current leadership structure is appropriate.individual biographical descriptions above.
NOMINEE QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Qualification/Experience | Ayotte | Duncan | Dykstra | Einiger | Hoskins | Klein | Linde | Lustig | Thomas | Twardock | Walton | |||||||||||
Strategic Planning | 🌑 | 🌑 | 🌑 | 🌑 | 🌑 | 🌑 | 🌑 | 🌑 | 🌑 | 🌑 | 🌑 | |||||||||||
CEO/Executive Management | 🌑 | 🌑 | 🌑 | 🌑 | 🌑 | 🌑 | 🌑 | 🌑 | 🌑 | 🌑 | ||||||||||||
Risk Oversight | 🌑 | 🌑 | 🌑 | 🌑 | 🌑 | 🌑 | 🌑 | 🌑 | 🌑 | 🌑 | 🌑 | |||||||||||
REITs/Real Estate | 🌑 | 🌑 | 🌑 | 🌑 | 🌑 | 🌑 | 🌑 | |||||||||||||||
Asset Management | 🌑 | 🌑 | 🌑 | 🌑 | 🌑 | 🌑 | 🌑 | 🌑 | ||||||||||||||
Capital Markets/ | 🌑 | 🌑 | 🌑 | 🌑 | 🌑 | 🌑 | 🌑 | 🌑 | ||||||||||||||
Other Public Company | 🌑 | 🌑 | 🌑 | 🌑 | 🌑 | 🌑 | 🌑 | 🌑 | ||||||||||||||
Government/Public Policy | 🌑 | 🌑 | 🌑 | |||||||||||||||||||
International | 🌑 | 🌑 | 🌑 | 🌑 | 🌑 | 🌑 | 🌑 | 🌑 | 🌑 | 🌑 | ||||||||||||
Financial Literacy | 🌑 | 🌑 | 🌑 | 🌑 | 🌑 | 🌑 | 🌑 | 🌑 | 🌑 | 🌑 | 🌑 | |||||||||||
Technology Industry | 🌑 | 🌑 | 🌑 | 🌑 | ||||||||||||||||||
Corporate Governance | 🌑 | 🌑 | 🌑 | 🌑 | 🌑 | 🌑 | 🌑 | 🌑 | 🌑 | 🌑 | ||||||||||||
Sustainability | 🌑 | 🌑 | 🌑 | 🌑 | ||||||||||||||||||
Talent Management | 🌑 | 🌑 | 🌑 | 🌑 | 🌑 | 🌑 | 🌑 | 🌑 | 🌑 | 🌑 | 🌑 |
BOARD COMPOSITION | ||||||||
9 of 11 | 7.2 years | 63.2 years | 4 | 1 | ||||
Independent Directors | Average Tenure of all Nominees | Average Age of all Nominees | Women | Ethnic Minority |
20 | | 2020 Proxy Statement |
1› | PROPOSAL 1: ELECTION OF DIRECTORS |
Under the rules of the NYSE,New York Stock Exchange (the “NYSE”), a majority of the Board of Directors must qualify as “independent directors.” To qualify as an “independent director,” the Board of Directors must affirmatively determine that the director has no material relationship with us (either directly or as a partner, stockholder or officer of an organization that has a relationship with us). Our Board of Directors established categorical standards to assist it in making the required independence determinations.
BOSTON PROPERTIES, INC. |2017 Proxy Statement 7
CORPORATE GOVERNANCE PRINCIPLES AND BOARD MATTERS
Under these categorical standards, any relationship with us shall be deemed not material if:
1. | The relationship does not preclude a finding of independence under Sections 303A.02(b) |
2. | The relationship does not involve any of the following, whether currently existing or occurring since the end of the last fiscal year or during the past three fiscal years: |
(a) | a director being an executive officer of, or owning, or having owned, of record or beneficially in excess of ten percent (10%) equity interest in, any business or professional entity that has made during any of such fiscal years, or proposes to make during the Company’s current fiscal year, payments to the Company, an executive officer of the Company or an entity controlled by an executive officer of the Company for property or services in excess of five percent (5%) of: (i) the Company’s consolidated gross revenues for such fiscal year (or, in the case of proposed payments, its last fiscal year), or (ii) the other entity’s consolidated gross revenues for such fiscal year (or, in the case of proposed payments, its last fiscal year); |
(b) | a director being an executive officer of, or owning, or having owned, of record or beneficially in excess of ten percent (10%) equity interest in, any business or professional entity to which the Company, an executive officer of the Company or an entity controlled by an executive officer of the Company has made during any of such fiscal years, or proposes to make during the Company’s current fiscal year, payments for property or services in excess of five percent (5%) of: (i) the Company’s consolidated gross revenues for such fiscal year (or, in the case of proposed payments, its last fiscal year), or (ii) the other entity’s consolidated gross revenues for such fiscal year (or, in the case of proposed payments, its last fiscal year); |
(c) | a director or an immediate family member of the director being an officer, director or trustee of a charitable organization where the annual discretionary charitable contributions of the Company, an executive officer of the Company or an entity controlled by an executive officer of the Company in any single year to the charitable organization exceeded the greater of $1 million or two percent (2%) of that organization’s consolidated gross revenues for the fiscal year; |
(d) | a director or an immediate family member of a director being indebted to the Company, an executive officer of the Company or an entity controlled by an executive officer of the Company in an amount in excess of $120,000; |
(e) | a director being an executive officer, partner or greater than 10% equity owner of an entity, or being a trustee or a substantial beneficiary of a trust or estate, indebted to the Company, an executive officer of the Company or an entity controlled by an executive officer of the Company in an amount in excess of the greater of $120,000 or 5% of such entity’s total consolidated assets, or to whom the Company or an entity controlled by an executive officer of the Company is indebted (other than with respect to (i) any publicly traded debt securities of the Company or such entity or(ii) non-recourse loans secured by real estate where both the lender and the Company or such entity intend for the lender to transfer all right to, and control over, the loan within 12 months and the documentation includes customary provisions for loans targeted at the commercial mortgage backed securities (CMBS) or collateralized debt obligation (CDO) markets) in an amount in excess of 5% of the Company’s or such entity’s total consolidated assets; |
(f) | a transaction or currently proposed transaction (other than relating to the ownership of securities), which involved or involves the direct or indirect payment in a single year of in excess of $120,000 from the Company, an executive officer of the Company or an entity controlled by an executive officer of the Company to a director or an immediate family member of a director; |
8 BOSTON PROPERTIES, INC. |2017 Proxy Statement
| 2020 Proxy Statement | 21 |
CORPORATE GOVERNANCE PRINCIPLES AND BOARD MATTERS
1› | PROPOSAL 1: ELECTION OF DIRECTORS |
(g) | a director or an immediate family member of a director being an executive officer, general or managing partner or owner of more than 10% of the outstanding equity securities of an entity that has aco-investment or is a joint venture partner with the Company where the amount of the entity’s equity investment in any single year exceeds the greater of $1 million or 2% of the total consolidated assets of the entity; or |
(h) | a director or an immediate family member of a director being an executive officer, general or managing partner or owner of more than 10% of the outstanding equity securities of an entity (other than the Company) in which an executive officer of the Company or an entity controlled by an executive officer of the Company is an executive officer, general or managing partner or owner of more than 10% of the outstanding equity securities of the entity. |
For purposes of these standards, “immediate family” member has the same meaning as in the NYSE Disqualifying Rules.
Relationships not specifically deemed not material by the above categorical standards may, in the Board’s judgment, be deemed not to be material.
› 2020 INDEPENDENCE DETERMINATIONS
The Board of Directors concluded that Mses. Dykstra and Einiger and Messrs. Duncan, Frenkel, Klein, Lustig, Patricof, Twardock and Turchinthe following directors qualify as independent directors under NYSE rules because none of them (1) has any relationships that would disqualify him or her from being considered independent under the minimum objective standards contained in the NYSE rules or (2) has any relationships other than those deemed to be immaterial under the categorical standards adopted by the Board of Directors.
› Kelly A. Ayotte › Bruce W. Duncan › Karen E. Dykstra | › Carol B. Einiger › Diane J. Hoskins › Joel I. Klein | › Matthew J. Lustig › David A. Twardock › William H. Walton, III | ||||
In determining that Mr.each of Ms. Ayotte and Messrs. Duncan and Twardock qualified as an independent director for purposes of his or her service on the Compensation Committee, theour Board considered Mr. Twardock’s membership on the Board of Directors of Morgan Stanley Bank, N.A. and noted that he is anon-employee director. Morgan Stanley Bank, N.A. and/(1) each serves or its affiliates are commercial lenders to the Company and tenants in the Company’s properties and have acted as underwriters or sales agents for securities offerings of the Company. The Board’s conclusion that Mr. Twardock is independent was based on the following information, which in the view of the Board demonstrates the relatively de minimis nature of these transactions as they relate to Mr. Twardock’s independence: (1) the Company’s long-standing relationships with Morgan Stanley Bank, N.A. and its affiliates predate Mr. Twardock’s appointment to Morgan Stanley Bank, N.A.’s board and our Board of Directors; (2)previously served as anon-employee director of Morgan Stanley Bank, N.A., Mr. Twardock receives no benefit, directly or indirectly,for a company with regard to these transactions; (3) Mr. Twardock does not have any direct or indirect decision making authority or any other role,which Boston Properties has a commercial relationship and engaged in any capacity, relating to these transactions; and (4) these transactions were arms’ length transactions undertaken in the ordinary course of business.business, (2) each transaction was on arms’-length terms and the director had no direct or indirect involvement in the transaction, and (3) the director had no pecuniary interest in the success of the transaction.
CONSIDERATION OF DIRECTOR NOMINEES
Securityholder Recommendations› SECURITYHOLDER RECOMMENDATIONS
The NCG Committee’s current policy is to review and consider any director candidates who have been recommended by securityholders in compliance with the procedures established from time to time by the NCG Committee. All securityholder recommendations for director candidates must be submitted to our Secretary at Boston Properties, Inc., 800 Boylston Street, Suite 1900, Boston, Massachusetts 02199-8103, who will forward all recommendations to the NCG Committee. We did not receive any securityholder recommendations for director candidates for election at the 20172020 annual meeting in compliance with the procedures set forth below. All securityholder recommendations for director
BOSTON PROPERTIES, INC. |2017 Proxy Statement 9
CORPORATE GOVERNANCE PRINCIPLES AND BOARD MATTERS
candidates for election at the 20182021 annual meeting of stockholders must be submitted to our Secretary on or before December 8, 20174, 2020 and must include the following information:
the name and address of record of the securityholder;
a representation that the securityholder is a record holder of our securities, or if the securityholder is not a record holder, evidence of ownership in accordance with Rule14a-8(b)(2) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
22 | | 2020 Proxy Statement |
1› | PROPOSAL 1: ELECTION OF DIRECTORS |
the name, age, business and residential address, educational background, current principal occupation or employment, and principal occupation or employment for the preceding five (5) full fiscal years of the proposed director candidate;
a description of the qualifications and background of the proposed director candidate which addresses the minimum qualifications and other criteria for Board membership as approved by the Board from time to time;
a description of all arrangements or understandings between the securityholder and the proposed director candidate;
the consent of the proposed director candidate (1) to be named in the proxy statement relating to our annual meeting of stockholders and (2) to serve as a director if elected at such annual meeting; and
any other information regarding the proposed director candidate that is required to be included in a proxy statement filed pursuant to the rules of the SEC.Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”).
Board Membership Criteria› BOARD MEMBERSHIP CRITERIA
The NCG Committee has established criteria for NCG Committee-recommended director nominees. These criteria include the following specific, minimum qualifications that the NCG Committee believes must be met by an NCG Committee-recommended nominee for a position on the Board:
the candidate must have experience at a strategic or policymaking level in a business, government,non-profit or academic organization of high standing;
the candidate must be highly accomplished in his or her respective field, with superior credentials and recognition;
the candidate must be well regarded in the community and must have a long-term reputation for high ethical and moral standards;
the candidate must have sufficient time and availability to devote to our affairs, particularly in light of the number of boards on which the nomineecandidate may serve;
the candidate’s principal business or occupation must not be such as to place the candidate in competition with us or conflict with the discharge of a director’s responsibilities to us and our stockholders; and
to the extent the candidate serves or has previously served on other boards, the candidate must have a history of actively contributing at board meetings.
In addition to the minimum qualifications for each nominee set forth above, the NCG Committee will recommend director candidates to the full Board for nomination, or present director candidates to the full Board for consideration, to help ensure that:
a majority of the Board of Directors will be “independent” as defined by the NYSE rules;
each of its Audit, Compensation and NCG Committees will be comprised entirely of independent directors; and
10 BOSTON PROPERTIES, INC. |2017 Proxy Statement
CORPORATE GOVERNANCE PRINCIPLES AND BOARD MATTERS
Finally, in addition to any other standards the NCG Committee may deem appropriate from time to time for the overall structure and composition of the Board, the NCG Committee may consider the following factors when recommending director candidates to the full Board for nomination, or presenting director candidates to the full Board for consideration:
whether the candidate has direct experience in the real estate industry or in the markets in which we operate; and
whether the candidate, if elected, assists in achieving a mix of Board members that represents a diversity of background and experience.
Identifying and Evaluating Nominees› IDENTIFYING AND EVALUATING NOMINEES
The NCG Committee may solicit recommendations for director nominees from any or all of the following sources:non-management directors, the Chief Executive Officer, other executive officers, third-party search firms or any other source it deems appropriate.
| 2020 Proxy Statement | 23 |
1› | PROPOSAL 1: ELECTION OF DIRECTORS |
The NCG Committee will review and evaluate the qualifications of any proposed director candidate that it is considering or has been recommended to it by a securityholder in compliance with the NCG Committee’s procedures for that purpose, and conduct inquiries it deems appropriate into the background of these proposed director candidates. In identifying and evaluating proposed director candidates, the NCG Committee may consider, in addition to the minimum qualifications for NCGCommittee-recommended director nominees, all facts and circumstances that it deems appropriate or advisable, including, among other things, the skills of the proposed director candidate, his or her depth and breadth of business experience, his or her independence and the needs of our Board. Neither the NCG Committee nor the Board has a specific policy with regard to the consideration of diversity in identifying director nominees, although both may consider diversity when identifying and evaluating proposed director candidates. As noted above, the NCG Committee, when recommending director candidates to the full Board for nomination, may consider whether a director candidate, if elected, assists in achieving a mix of Board members that represents a diversity of background and experience. Other than circumstances in which we may be legally required by contract or otherwise to provide third parties with the ability to nominate directors, the NCG Committee will evaluate all proposed director candidates that it considers or who have been properly recommended to it by a securityholder based on the same criteria and in substantially the same manner, with no regard to the source of the initial recommendation of the proposed director candidate.
24 | | 2020 Proxy Statement |
2› | CORPORATE GOVERNANCE |
Boston Properties is committed to strong corporate governance policies, practices, and procedures designed to make the Board effective in exercising its oversight role. Our Board of Directors oversees management performance on behalf of our stockholders to ensure that the long-term interests of our stockholders are being served, to monitor adherence to Boston Properties standards’ and policies, and to promote the exercise of responsible corporate citizenship. Our Board values and considers the feedback we receive from our stockholders, and we have taken a number of actions over the last several years to increase stockholder rights, enhance the Board’s structure, and augment our commitment to sustainability and corporate responsibility taking into account those perspectives.
Our Corporate Governance Guidelines provide that our Board of Directors does not have a policy with respect to whether or not the role of Chairman of the Board and CEO should be separate or combined. However, our Board has determined that its leadership structure should include either an independent,non-executive Chairman of the Board or a lead independent director who satisfies our standards for independence. Accordingly, our Corporate Governance Guidelines provide that it is the Board’s policy that if (1) the positions of Chairman of the Board and CEO are held by the same person, (2) the position of Chairman of the Board is held by anon-independent director or (3) none of the directors has been elected to serve as Chairman of the Board, then the independent directors shall select an independent director to serve as lead independent director.
When our Board of Directors amended our Corporate Governance Guidelines in 2014 to create the position of lead independent director, the Board contemplated that in the future it might determine that it is advisable to appoint an independent,non-executive Chairman of the Board. As a result, our Corporate Governance Guidelines provide that an independent director selected to serve as lead independent director will serve in that role until (1) he or she ceases to be an independent director or resigns from the position, (2) a successor is selected by a majority of the independent directors or (3) an independent director is serving as the Chairman of the Board. In addition, if the Chairman of the Board is an independent director, then the Chairman of the Board shall assume the responsibilities of the lead independent director referenced above and there will not be a separate lead independent director.
The independent directors selected Mr. Klein to serve as lead independent director in May 2016, a position he held until May 2019. Our Board of Directors appointed Mr. Klein as independent,non-executive Chairman of the Board, effective immediately following the 2019 annual meeting of stockholders. In addition to responsibilities that may be assigned from time to time by the full Board, Mr. Klein’s responsibilities as Chairman include:
• Approving information sent to the Board • Approving Board meeting agendas and schedules to ensure that sufficient time for all agenda items • Coordinating the work of each committee with the activities of the full Board • Calling meetings of the independent directors • Presiding at all meetings of the Board, including executive sessions of independent directors • Attending meetings of Board committees regularly • Working with the CEO and the Chair of the NCG Committee to provide strategic direction on all Board and governance matters • Serving as liaison between the CEO and the independent directors | • Working with the CEO on matters of strategic importance to the Board and the Company • Ensuring that he is available, if requested by major stockholders, for direct consultation and communication • Working with the Compensation Committee to establish and review annual and long-term goals for assessing performance and to evaluate the performance of the CEO • Conductingbi-annual interviews with individual directors regarding individual contributions and overall Board composition and planning • Independently reviewing with the CEO the Company’s succession plan for executive officers |
Our Board believes that Mr. Klein’s appointment as Chairman enhances our independent directors’ oversight of our business and affairs. Our Board of Directors encourages strong communication among all of its independent directors and the CEO, and the Board believes that it has been able to effectively provide independent oversight of our business and affairs, including risks facing the
| 2020 Proxy Statement | 25 |
2› | CORPORATE GOVERNANCE |
Company, through our Chairman of the Board, the independent committees of our Board of Directors, the overall composition of our Board of Directors and contributions from all of our independent directors and other corporate governance processes in place.
Number of Meetings and Attendance. Our Board of Directors met eight times during 2019. Each incumbent director attended at least 75% of the aggregate of (1) the total number of meetings of our Board of Directors in 2019 held during the period for which he or she was a director and (2) the total number of meetings in 2019 of all committees of our Board of Directors on which the director served during the periods that he or she served.As a whole, during 2019, our directors attended more than 98% of the aggregate number of Board meetings and meetings of committees on which they served.
Annual Meeting Attendance.Directors are expected to attend annual meetings of our stockholders in person unless doing so is impracticable due to unavoidable conflicts. Nine of the eleven directors then serving, along with two first-time nominees, attended the 2019 annual meeting of stockholders. Two directors then serving did not attend the 2019 annual meeting of stockholders because they were not standing forre-election.
Meetings ofNon-Management Directors.Directors who qualify as“non-management” within the meaning of the rules of the NYSE meet on a regular basis in executive sessions without management participation. The executive sessions occur after each regularly scheduled meeting of our entire Board and at such other times that thenon-management directors deem appropriate, and they are chaired by our independent,non-executive Chairman of the Board. Each director has the right to call an executive session. Currently, all of ournon-management directors are independent.
BOARD REFRESHMENT AND EVALUATIONS
› DIRECTOR SUCCESSION PLANNING
Led by our Chairman of the Board and our NCG Committee, our Board of Directors remains focused on ensuring a smooth transition if and when directors decide to retire or otherwise leave our Board and that the composition of our Board is systematically refreshed so that, taken as a whole, our Board has the desired mix of skills, experience, reputation and diversity relevant to our strategic direction and operating environment, as well as the knowledge, ability and independence to continue to deliver a high standard of governance expected by investors. Among other aspects of the process, our Board of Directors:
identifies the collective mix of desired skills, experience, knowledge, diversity and independence for our Board of Directors, taken as a whole, and identifies potential opportunities for enhancement in one or more of those areas;
considers each current director’s experience, skills, principal occupation, reputation, independence, age, tenure, committee membership and diversity (including geography, gender and ethnicity); and
• | considers the results of our Board and committee self-evaluations, as well as feedback received from thisbi-annual oral interviews of each director by our Chairman of the Board (see“– Board and Committee Evaluations” below). |
Our Board of Directors recognizes the importance of continuity and that refreshment should not be effectuated all at once. Consistent with this approach, between 2016-2019, our Board nominated, and our stockholders elected, five new directors (Mses. Ayotte, Dykstra and Hoskins and Messrs. Duncan and Walton). |
Board Committee Rotation. The NCG Committee also considers the periodic rotation of committee members and committee chairs to introduce fresh perspectives and to broaden and diversify the views and experience represented on committees.
Director Tenure and Mandatory Retirement Age. To ensure that our Board has an appropriate balance of experience, continuity and fresh perspective, our Board considers the length of tenure and age when nominating candidates for election. Our Board does not have formal limits on director tenure, but has a policy that provides no person shall be nominated by the Board for election as anon-employee director following his or her 75th birthday.
26 | | 2020 Proxy Statement |
2› | CORPORATE GOVERNANCE |
› BOARD AND COMMITTEE EVALUATIONS
The feedback received from each member of our Board during the Board and committee evaluation process plays a critical role in ensuring that our Board and its committees function effectively. To this end, the NCG Committee is responsible for establishing the process used and the criteria for the evaluations.
Topics considered during the Board and committee evaluations include: Board and Committee Operations | ||||
• Board and committee membership, including independence, director skills, background, expertise and diversity • Committee structure | ||||
• Process for director nominations | ||||
• Number and conduct of meetings, including time allocated for, and encouragement of, candid dialogue | ||||
• Materials and information, including quality, quantity and timeliness of information received from management, and suggestions for educational sessions | ||||
• Culture | ||||
Board Performance | ||||
• Strategy oversight • Identification of topics that should receive more attention and discussion • Management succession • Financial, cyber and other risk oversight | ||||
Committee Performance | ||||
• Performance of committee duties under its charter • Effectiveness of outside advisors | ||||
| 2020 Proxy Statement | 27 |
2› | CORPORATE GOVERNANCE |
Our Board of Directors has an (1) Audit, (2) Compensation and (3) NCG Committee. Each of the Audit Committee, Compensation Committee and NCG Committee operates pursuant to a charter that was approved by our Board of Directors and that is reviewed and reassessed at least annually. A copy of each of these charters is available on our website athttp://www.bxp.comunder the heading “Corporate Governance.” Our Board of Directors may from time to time establish other special or standing committees to facilitate the management of Boston Properties or to discharge specific duties delegated by the full Board of Directors.
The membership and the function of each of the Audit Committee, Compensation Committee and NCG Committee, and the number of meetings each held during 2019, are described below.
› AUDIT COMMITTEE
Members: David A. Twardock (Chair)* Karen E. Dykstra* William H. Walton, III† Number of Meetings in 2019:9 *Our Board of Directors determined that each of Ms. Dykstra and Mr. Twardock qualifies as an “audit committee financial expert” as that term is defined in the rules of the SEC. † Mr. Walton was appointed to the Audit Committee on May 21, 2019. | The Audit Committee’s responsibilities include: • sole authority to appoint, retain, terminate and determine the compensation of our independent registered public accounting firm; • reviewing with our independent registered public accounting firm the scope and results of the audit engagement; • approving professional services provided by our independent registered public accounting firm; • reviewing the independence of our independent registered public accounting firm; • overseeing the planning and conduct of our annual risk assessment; • evaluating the Company’s internal audit function and reviewing the internal audit plan; and • performing such other oversight functions as may be requested by our Board of Directors from time to time. Each member of the Audit Committee is “independent” as that term is defined in the rules of the SEC and the NYSE. For additional disclosures regarding the Audit Committee, including the Audit Committee Report, see “Proposal 3: Ratification of Appointment of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm” beginning on page 84. |
28 | | 2020 Proxy Statement |
2› | CORPORATE GOVERNANCE |
��
› COMPENSATION COMMITTEE
Members: Bruce W. Duncan (Chair) Kelly A. Ayotte Carol B. Einiger David A. Twardock Number of Meetings in 2019:7 | The Compensation Committee’s responsibilities include: • reviewing and approving the corporate goals and objectives relevant to the compensation of the CEO and certain designated senior executive officers; • evaluating the performance of the CEO and designated senior executive officers in light of such goals and objectives and determining and approving compensation of these officers based on such evaluation; • reviewing and approving the compensation of other executive officers; • reviewing and approving grants and awards under all incentive-based compensation plans and equity-based plans; • reviewing and making recommendations to the full Board of Directors regarding the compensation ofnon-employee directors; and • performing other functions and duties deemed appropriate by our Board of Directors. None of the members of the Compensation Committee is an employee of Boston Properties and each of them is an independent director under the NYSE rules. The Compensation Committee makes all compensation decisions for all executive officers. The Compensation Committee reviews and approves all equity awards for all employees and delegated limited authority to the CEO to make equity grants to employees who are not executive officers. In 2019, the Compensation Committee engaged Frederic W. Cook & Co., Inc. (“FW Cook”) to serve as its new independent, third-party advisor to provide a fresh perspective on our overall executive compensation program, advise on the reasonableness of executive compensation levels in comparison with those of other similarly situated companies and consult on the structure of our executive compensation program to optimally support our business objectives. FW Cook also advised on executive compensation trends among REITs and the broader market. Information concerning the nature and scope of FW Cook’s assignments and related disclosures is included under “Compensation Discussion and Analysis” beginning on page 43. The Compensation Committee Report is included in this proxy statement on page 82. |
| 2020 Proxy Statement | 29 |
2› | CORPORATE GOVERNANCE |
› NOMINATING AND CORPORATE GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE
Members: Matthew J. Lustig (Chair) Kelly A. Ayotte Bruce W. Duncan Diane J. Hoskins* Number of Meetings in 2019:3 *Ms. Hoskins was appointed to the NCG Committee on May 21, 2019. | The NCG Committee is responsible for, among other functions: • identifying individuals qualified to become Board members, consistent with criteria established by the NCG Committee, and recommending to the Board director nominees for election at each annual meeting of stockholders; • establishing a policy with regard to the consideration by the NCG Committee of director candidates recommended by securityholders; • establishing procedures to be followed by securityholders submitting such recommendations and establishing a process for identifying and evaluating nominees for the Board of Directors, including nominees recommended by securityholders; and • performing such other functions as may be requested by our Board of Directors from time to time. The NCG Committee is also responsible for annually reviewing our Corporate Governance Guidelines and recommending any changes to the Board of Directors. These Corporate Governance Guidelines provide that the NCG Committee, together with our Chief Executive Officer, is responsible for coordinating succession planning by the Board of Directors. A copy of the Corporate Governance Guidelines is available on our website athttp://investors.bxp.com/governance-guidelines. Each member of the NCG Committee is an independent director under the NYSE rules. |
30 | | 2020 Proxy Statement |
2› | CORPORATE GOVERNANCE |
BOARD’S ROLE IN RISK OVERSIGHT
Our Board of Directors plays an important role in the risk oversight of Boston Properties. Our Board of Directors is involved in risk oversight through direct decision-making authority with respect to significant matters and the oversight of management by our Board of Directors and its committees. In particular, our Board of Directors administers its risk oversight function through:
the review and discussion of regular periodic reports to our Board of Directors and its committees on topics relating to the risks that Boston Properties faces, including, among others:
› | market conditions; |
› | tenant concentrations and credit worthiness; |
› | leasing activity and expirations; |
› | the status of current and anticipated development projects; |
› | compliance with debt covenants; |
› | management of debt maturities; |
› | access to debt and equity capital markets; |
› | existing and potential legal claims against Boston Properties; |
› | climate change and sustainability; |
› | potential cyber attacks and intrusions; |
› | public health crises, pandemics and epidemics; and |
› | various other matters relating to Boston Properties’ business; |
the required approval by our Board of Directors (or a committee thereof) of significant transactions and other decisions, including, among others:
› | acquisitions and dispositions of properties; |
› | development projects; |
› | new borrowings; and |
› | the appointment and retention of Boston Properties’ senior management; |
the direct oversight of specific areas of Boston Properties’ business by the Audit, Compensation and NCG Committees; and
regular periodic reports from Boston Properties’ independent registered public accounting firm and other outside consultants regarding various areas of potential risk, including, among others, those relating to the qualification of Boston Properties as a REIT for tax purposes and Boston Properties’ internal control over financial reporting.
Our Board of Directors also relies on management to bring significant matters impacting Boston Properties to its attention.
Pursuant to the Audit Committee’s charter, the Audit Committee is specifically responsible for discussing the guidelines and policies that govern the process by which Boston Properties’ exposure to risk is assessed and managed by management. As part of this process, the Audit Committee oversees the planning and conduct of an annual risk assessment that is designed to identify and analyze risks to achieving Boston Properties’ business objectives. The results of the risk assessment are then discussed with management and used to develop Boston Properties’ annual internal audit plan. In addition, as one component of Boston Properties’ anti-fraud program, Boston Properties, under the supervision of the Audit Committee, established a hotline that is available for the anonymous and confidential submission of complaints relating to any matter to encourage the reporting of questionable activities directly to our senior management and the Audit Committee (see“– Other Governance Matters – Communications with the Board” below).
| 2020 Proxy Statement | 31 |
2› | CORPORATE GOVERNANCE |
Because of the role of our Board of Directors in the risk oversight of Boston Properties, our Board of Directors believes that any leadership structure that it adopts must allow it to effectively oversee the management of the risks relating to Boston Properties’ operations. Our Board of Directors recognizes that there are different leadership structures that could allow it to effectively oversee the management of the risks relating to Boston Properties’ operations, and while our Board believes its current leadership structure enables it to effectively manage such risks, it was not the primary reason our Board of Directors selected its current leadership structure over other potential alternatives. See the discussion under the heading “– Board Leadership Structure” above for a discussion of why our Board of Directors has determined that its current leadership structure is appropriate.
› CODE OF BUSINESS CONDUCT AND ETHICS AND OTHER POLICIES
Our Board of Directors adopted the following policies, copies of which are available on our website:
Code of Business Conduct and Ethics (the “Code of Ethics”) available on our website athttp://investors.bxp.com/code-conduct-and-ethics
The Code of Ethics governs business decisions made and actions taken by our directors, officers and employees. We intend to disclose on this website any amendment to, or waiver of, any provision of this Code of Ethics applicable to our directors and executive officers that would otherwise be required to be disclosed under the rules of the SEC or the NYSE rules.
Corporate Governance Guidelines available on our website athttp://investors.bxp.com/governance-guidelines
Policy on Company Political Spending available on our website athttp://investors.bxp.com/policy-political-spend
› COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE BOARD
Stockholders and other interested parties who wish to communicate with any of our directors or the Board of Directors as a group, may do so by writing to them at Name(s) of Director(s)/Board of Directors of Boston Properties, Inc., c/o Compliance Officer, Boston Properties, Inc., 800 Boylston Street, Suite 1900, Boston, Massachusetts 02199-8103.
Stockholders and other interested parties who wish to contact the Audit Committee to report complaints or concerns regarding accounting, internal accounting controls or auditing matters, may do so by:
• | following any of the “Procedures for Submission of Complaints under the Audit Committee Complaint Procedures” that are attached as Exhibit 1 to our Code of Ethics (see “– Code of Business Conduct and Ethics and Other Policies” above), or |
writing to the Chair of the Audit Committee of Boston Properties, Inc., c/o Compliance Officer, Boston Properties, Inc., 800 Boylston Street, Suite 1900, Boston, Massachusetts 02199-8103.
You are welcome to make any such reports anonymously, but we prefer that you identify yourself so that we may contact you for additional information if necessary or appropriate.
Stockholders and other interested parties who wish to communicate with ournon-management directors as a group, may do so by writing toNon-Management Directors of Boston Properties, Inc., c/o Compliance Officer, Boston Properties, Inc., 800 Boylston Street, Suite 1900, Boston, Massachusetts 02199-8103.
We recommend that all correspondence be sent via certified U.S. mail, return receipt requested. All correspondence received by the Compliance Officer will be forwarded by the Compliance Officer promptly to the addressee(s).
32 | | 2020 Proxy Statement |
2› | CORPORATE GOVERNANCE |
› COMPENSATION COMMITTEE INTERLOCKS AND INSIDER PARTICIPATION
The current members of the Compensation Committee are Mses. Ayotte and Einiger and Messrs. Duncan and Twardock. None of these persons has served as an officer or employee of Boston Properties. None of these persons had any relationships with Boston Properties requiring disclosure under Item 404 of RegulationS-K. None of Boston Properties’ executive officers served as a director or a member of a compensation committee (or other committee serving a similar function) of any other entity, an executive officer of which served as a director of Boston Properties or a member of the Compensation Committee during 2019.
›PROXY ACCESSBY-LAW PROVISIONS
OurBy-laws include a proxy access right for stockholders, pursuant to which a stockholder, or group of no more than five stockholders, meeting specified eligibility requirements, may include director nominees in our proxy materials for annual meetings of our stockholders. In order to be eligible to utilize these proxy access provisions, a stockholder, or group of stockholders, must, among other requirements:must:
have owned shares of common stock equal to at least 3% of the aggregate of the issued and outstanding shares of common stock continuously for at least the prior three years;
represent that such shares were acquired in the ordinary course of business and not with the intent to change or influence control and that such stockholder or group does not presently have such intent; and
provide a notice requesting the inclusion of director nominees in our proxy materials and provide other required information to us not less than 120 days prior to the anniversary of the date of the proxy statement for the prior year’s annual meeting of stockholders (with adjustments if the date for the upcoming annual meeting of stockholders is more than 30 days before or more than 60 days after the anniversary date of the prior year’s annual meeting).
BOSTON PROPERTIES, INC. |2017 Proxy Statement 11
CORPORATE GOVERNANCE PRINCIPLES AND BOARD MATTERS
|
For purposes of the foregoing requirements, issued and outstanding common units, other than those owned by us, Boston Properties Limited Partnership (the(our “Operating Partnership”) or any of their directly or indirectly wholly owned subsidiaries and excluding issued and outstanding long term incentive units, will be treated as issued and outstanding shares of common stock.
Additionally, all director nominees submitted through these provisions must be independent and meet specified additional criteria, and stockholders will not be entitled to utilize this proxy access right at an annual meeting if we receive notice through our traditional advanced noticeby-law provisions that a stockholder intends to nominate a director at such meeting. The maximum number of director nominees that may be submitted pursuant to these provisions may not exceed 25% of the number of directors then in office.
The foregoing proxy access right is subject to additional eligibility, procedural and disclosure requirements set forth in ourBy-laws.
CODE OF BUSINESS CONDUCT AND ETHICS AND OTHER POLICIES
Code of Business Conduct and Ethics
Our Board of Directors adopted a Code of Business Conduct and Ethics (the “Code of Ethics”), which governs business decisions made and actions taken by our directors, officers and employees. A copy of this Code of Ethics is available on our website athttp://www.bostonproperties.com under the heading “Corporate Governance” and subheading “Code of Conduct and Ethics.” We intend to disclose on this website any amendment to, or waiver of, any provision of this Code of Ethics applicable to our directors and executive officers that would otherwise be required to be disclosed under the rules of the SEC or the NYSE rules.
Corporate Governance Guidelines
Our Board of Directors adopted Corporate Governance Guidelines, a copy of which is available on our website athttp://www.bostonproperties.com under the heading “Corporate Governance” and subheading “Governance Guidelines.”
Policy on Company Political Spending
Our Board of Directors adopted a Policy on Company Political Spending, a copy of which is available on our website athttp://www.bostonproperties.com under the heading “Corporate Governance” and subheading “Policy on Political Spending.”
Stockholders and other interested parties who wish to communicate with any of our directors or the Board of Directors as a group, may do so by writing to them at Name(s) of Director(s)/Board of Directors of Boston Properties, Inc., c/o Compliance Officer, Boston Properties, Inc., 800 Boylston Street, Suite 1900, Boston, Massachusetts 02199-8103.
Stockholders and other interested parties who wish to contact the Audit Committee to report complaints or concerns regarding accounting, internal accounting controls or auditing matters, may do so by:
| 2020 Proxy Statement | 33 |
3› | EXECUTIVE OFFICERS |
12 BOSTON PROPERTIES, INC. |2017 Proxy Statement
CORPORATE GOVERNANCE PRINCIPLES AND BOARD MATTERS
You are welcome to make any such reports anonymously, but we prefer that you identify yourself so that we may contact you for additional information if necessary or appropriate.
Stockholders and other interested parties who wish to communicate with ournon-management directors as a group, may do so by writing toNon-Management Directors of Boston Properties, Inc., c/o Compliance Officer, Boston Properties, Inc., 800 Boylston Street, Suite 1900, Boston, Massachusetts 02199-8103.
We recommend that all correspondence be sent via certified U.S. mail, return receipt requested. All correspondence received by the Compliance Officer will be forwarded by the Compliance Officer promptly to the addressee(s).
BOSTON PROPERTIES, INC. |2017 Proxy Statement 13
PROPOSAL 1: ELECTION OF DIRECTORS
At the annual meeting, directors shall be elected to hold office for aone-year term expiring at the 2018 annual meeting of stockholders or until his or her successor is duly elected and qualified, or until his or her earlier resignation or removal. Following the recommendation of the NCG Committee, our Board of Directors has nominated Bruce W. Duncan, Karen E. Dykstra, Carol B. Einiger, Jacob A. Frenkel, Joel I. Klein, Douglas T. Linde, Matthew J. Lustig, Alan J. Patricof, Owen D. Thomas, Martin Turchin, and David A. Twardock for election. Each nominee is currently serving as a director of Boston Properties. In making its recommendations, the NCG Committee considered a number of factors, including its criteria for Board membership, which include the minimum qualifications that must be possessed by a director candidate in order to be nominated for a position on our Board. Our Board of Directors anticipates that, if elected, the nominees will serve as directors. However, if any person nominated by our Board of Directors is unable to serve or for good cause will not serve, the proxies will be voted for the election of such other person as our Board of Directors may recommend.
OurBy-laws provide for a majority voting standard. This means that, in an uncontested election, nominees for director are elected if the votes cast for such nominee’s election exceed the votes cast against such nominee’s election. The majority voting standard would not apply in contested elections, which, generally, will include any situation in which Boston Properties receives a notice that a stockholder has nominated a person for election to our Board of Directors at a meeting of stockholders that is not withdrawn on or before the tenth day before Boston Properties first mails its notice for such meeting to the stockholders.
The majority voting standard will apply to the election of directors at the 2017 annual meeting of stockholders. Accordingly, nominees for director will be elected if the votes cast for such nominee’s election exceed the votes cast against such nominee’s election. Brokernon-votes, if any, and abstentions will not be treated as votes cast.
Our Board of Directors has also adopted a resignation policy, included in our Corporate Governance Guidelines, under which a director who fails to receive the required number of votes forre-election will tender his or her resignation to our Board of Directors for its consideration. The NCG Committee will act on an expedited basis to determine whether it is advisable to accept the director’s resignation and will submit the recommendation for prompt consideration by our Board of Directors. Our Board of Directors will act on the tendered resignation within 90 days following certification of the stockholder vote and will promptly and publicly disclose its decision. The director whose resignation is under consideration will abstain from participating in any decision regarding his or her resignation. If the resignation is not accepted, the director will continue to serve until the next annual meeting of stockholders and until the director’s successor is duly elected and qualified or until the director’s earlier resignation or removal. The NCG Committee and our Board of Directors may consider any factors they deem relevant in deciding whether to accept a director’s resignation.
The Board of Directors unanimously recommends a voteFOReach of its nominees, Bruce W. Duncan, Karen E. Dykstra, Carol B. Einiger, Dr. Jacob A. Frenkel, Joel I. Klein, Douglas T. Linde, Matthew J. Lustig, Alan J. Patricof, Owen D. Thomas, Martin Turchin and David A. Twardock. Properly authorized proxies solicited by the Board of Directors will be votedFOReach of the nominees unless instructions to the contrary are given.
14 BOSTON PROPERTIES, INC. |2017 Proxy Statement
PROPOSAL 1: ELECTION OF DIRECTORS
INFORMATION REGARDING THE NOMINEES AND EXECUTIVE OFFICERS
The following biographical descriptions set forth certain information with respect to the nominees for election as directors at the annual meeting and theBiographies of our executive officers, whoother than Messrs. Thomas and Linde, are not directors,presented below, based on information furnished to Boston Properties by each nominee and executive officer. Each executive officer holds office until the regular meeting of the Board of Directors following the next annual meeting of stockholders and until his or her successor is duly elected and qualified, or until his or her earlier resignation or removal.
The biographical description below Information for each nominee includes the specific experience, qualifications, attributesMessrs. Thomas and skills that led to the conclusion by our BoardLinde is included above under “Proposal I: Election of Directors that such person should serve as a director of Boston Properties.
– Nominees for ElectionElection”beginning on page 9.
| |||
Senior Executive Age 69 |
• Senior Executive Vice President of | ||
• Various positions at Boston Properties since 1980, including Executive Vice President, Head of our Washington, DC Office and National Director of Acquisitions and Development and Senior Vice President andCo-Manager of our Washington, DC office | |||
• Joined Boston Properties in 1980, leading our expansion to become one of the dominant real estate | |||
| |||
• President of the Board of | |||
• Member of | |||
• Founding member of the National Association of Industrial | |||
• Chair of the | |||
• Active volunteer with numerous civic, charitable, and | |||
• Professional honors include: ULI Lifetime Achievement Award; Man of the | |||
• Graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy and U.S. Naval Post Graduate School in Monterey, California
| |||
Michael E. LaBelle Executive Vice Age 56 | • Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of Boston Properties since January 2016, with responsibility for overseeing the finance, accounting, tax, internal audit and investor relations departments and also for capital raising, treasury management, credit underwriting, financial strategy and planning | ||
• Various positions at Boston Properties since March 2000, including Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer from November 2007 to January 2016 and Senior Vice President, Finance from February 2005 to November 2007 | |||
• Former Vice President & Relationship Manager with Fleet National Bank from 1991 to 2000, with the responsibility of financing large-scale commercial real estate developments | |||
• Former Associate National Bank Examiner with the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency in New York City specializing in commercial real estate debt portfolio analysis and valuation in commercial banks located throughout theMid-Atlantic and Northeastern United States | |||
• Member of the National Advisory Board | |||
• Received a BS in Economics from the University of Colorado
|
BOSTON PROPERTIES, INC. |2017 Proxy Statement 15
PROPOSAL 1: ELECTION OF DIRECTORS
| | 2020 Proxy Statement |
3› | EXECUTIVE OFFICERS |
| ||
Executive Vice Age 61 |
• Executive Vice President, Washington, DC Region of Boston Properties since January 2016, with responsibility for all operations, including project development, leasing, construction, property management | |
| ||
• Former director of | ||
• Received a BA in | ||
| ||
|
16 BOSTON PROPERTIES, INC. |2017 Proxy Statement
PROPOSAL 1: ELECTION OF DIRECTORS
| ||
|
| |
Bryan J. Koop Executive Vice Age 61 | • Executive Vice President, Boston Region of Boston Properties since January 2016, with responsibility for overseeing the operation of our existing regional portfolio in the Boston area, which includes the Prudential Center and Kendall Center and developing new business opportunities in the area | |
• Senior Vice President and Regional Manager of our Boston office from 1999 to 2016 | ||
• Various positions at Trammell Crow Company from 1982 to 1999, where his career covered high-rise office building leasing and the development of commercial office buildings and shopping centers, including Managing Director and Regional Leader for Trammell Crow Company’s New England region, with responsibility for all commercial office and shopping center operations. | ||
• Director of the Massachusetts Chapter of NAIOP, the Boston Green Ribbon Commission and the Kendall Square Association | ||
• Former chairman of the Back Bay Association | ||
• Received a BBA and an MBA from Texas Christian University
| ||
|
BOSTON PROPERTIES, INC. |2017 Proxy Statement 17
PROPOSAL 1: ELECTION OF DIRECTORS
| ||
Age 63 |
• Executive Vice President, San Francisco Region of Boston Properties since January 2016, with responsibility for overseeing existing operations in San Francisco and our other Bay Area properties on the Peninsula and in Silicon Valley, and developing new business opportunities in the area | |
• Senior Vice President and Regional Manager of our San Francisco office from 1998 to 2016 | ||
• Executive Vice President and Chief Investment Officer of Bedford Property Investors, a REIT in Lafayette, California, where he led the acquisitions and development program from 1994 to 1998 | ||
• President of Bedford Property Development, a private West Coast development concern that held more than | ||
| ||
• Received a BA in Economics and Political Science from | ||
| ||
|
18 BOSTON PROPERTIES, INC. |2017 Proxy Statement
PROPOSAL 1: ELECTION OF DIRECTORS
| ||||||
| 2020 Proxy Statement |
|
| ||
| EXECUTIVE OFFICERS |
John F. Powers Executive Vice Age 73 | • Executive Vice President, New York Region of Boston Properties since January 2016, with responsibility for overseeing all aspects of our New York and Princeton, New Jersey activities, including development, acquisitions, leasing and building operations | |
• Senior Vice President and Regional Manager of our New York office from January 2014 to January 2016 | ||
• Chairman of CBRE, Inc. for the New YorkTri-State Region, from 2004 to 2016 overseeing the strategic direction of CBRE’sTri-State operations | ||
• Joined the Edward S. Gordon Company, which was subsequently merged into CBRE, in 1986, where he developed and managed the Consulting Division into a strong and integral part of the firm’s service delivery platform, which facilitated its sustained leadership in the Manhattan office leasing market; also brokered millions of square feet of transactions, representing both tenants and landlords, led numerous strategic consulting assignments for large corporate occupiers and advised on manyground-up developments | ||
• Spent eight years at Swiss Bank Corp (now UBS) | ||
• Frequent speaker on commercial real estate in New York valued for his insight linking economic trends and conditions to their eventual impact on the office market | ||
• Chairman of Right to Dream, Inc. | ||
• Received a BA in Mathematics from St. Anselm College, an MA in Economics from the University of Massachusetts and an MBA from the University of Massachusetts | ||
• Studied international economics at the Graduate Institute of International Studies, Geneva | ||
Senior Vice Age 61 | • Senior Vice President, Chief Legal Officer and Secretary of Boston Properties | |
• Various positions at Boston Properties since 1986; represented Boston Properties in the acquisition of the Prudential Center in Boston and the Embarcadero Center in San Francisco, as well as in the development activities at the Prudential Center | ||
• Former attorney in the real estate department at Nutter, McClennen & Fish in Boston | ||
• Member of the American College of Real Estate Lawyers and the Boston Bar Association | ||
• Speaker for the American College of Real Estate Lawyers, the Association of Corporate Counsel, Massachusetts Continuing Legal Education, NAIOP and Nareit | ||
• Received a BA, magna cum laude, from Brown University and a JD, cum laude, from the University of Pennsylvania Law School | ||
Michael R. Walsh Senior Vice Age 53 | • Senior Vice President, Chief Accounting Officer of Boston Properties since May | |
• Executive Vice President, | ||
• Various positions at Boston Properties | ||
| ||
|
BOSTON PROPERTIES, INC. |2017 Proxy Statement 19
PROPOSAL 1: ELECTION OF DIRECTORS
| ||||||
|
| 2020 Proxy Statement | |||||
| ||||||
|
| ||
|
| |
| ||
|
20 BOSTON PROPERTIES, INC. PRINCIPAL AND MANAGEMENT STOCKHOLDERS|2017 Proxy Statement
PROPOSAL 1: ELECTION OF DIRECTORS
| ||
|
| |
|
| ||
|
| |
| ||
|
BOSTON PROPERTIES, INC. |2017 Proxy Statement 21
PROPOSAL 1: ELECTION OF DIRECTORS
| ||
|
| |
| ||
|
Executive Officers who are not Directors
Raymond A. Ritcheyserves as Senior Executive Vice President. Prior to his appointment to this position in January 2016, Mr. Ritchey served as Executive Vice President, Head of our Washington, D.C. Office and National Director of Acquisitions and Development since April 1998 and Senior Vice President andCo-Manager of our Washington, D.C. office. Mr. Ritchey is responsible for all business development, leasing and marketing as well as new opportunity origination in the Washington, D.C. area. He also directly oversees similar activities on a national basis. Mr. Ritchey joined us in 1980, leading our expansion to become one of the dominant real estate firms in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area. For four years prior to joining us, Mr. Ritchey was one of the leading commercial real estate brokers in the Washington, D.C. area with Coldwell Banker. He is a graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy and a graduate of the U.S. Naval Post Graduate School in Monterey, California. He is 66 years old.
Michael E. LaBelleserves as Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer. Prior to his appointment to this position in January 2016, Mr. LaBelle served as Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer since November 2007 and he also served as Senior Vice President, Finance from February 2005 to November 2007. In his current role, Mr. LaBelle oversees the finance, accounting, tax, information systems, internal audit and investor relations departments and is also responsible for capital raising, treasury management, credit underwriting, financial strategy and planning. Prior to joining us in March 2000, Mr. LaBelle held the position of Vice President & Relationship Manager with Fleet National Bank for nine years with the responsibility of financing large-scale commercial real estate developments. He started his career as an Associate National Bank Examiner with the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency in New York City specializing in commercial real estate debt portfolio analysis and valuation in commercial banks located throughout theMid-Atlantic and Northeastern United States. Mr. LaBelle is on the National Advisory Board for the University of Colorado Real Estate Center. Mr. LaBelle holds a BS degree in Economics from the University of Colorado. He is 52 years old.
22 BOSTON PROPERTIES, INC. |2017 Proxy Statement
PROPOSAL 1: ELECTION OF DIRECTORS
Peter D. Johnstonserves as Executive Vice President, Washington, D.C. Region. Prior to his appointment to this position in January 2016, Mr. Johnston served as Senior Vice President and Regional Manager of our Washington, D.C. office. He is in charge of all operations including project development, leasing, construction, property management and administrative activities for our Washington, D.C. office, with a staff of approximately 181 people. Mr. Johnston joined the Company in 1987. In 1989 he was promoted to Project Manager, with subsequent promotions in 1991 to Vice President and in 1997 to Senior Vice President. In 2003 he was appointed head of the development team in the Washington, D.C. Region and held this position until his promotion in September 2005 to the position of Regional Manager. Mr. Johnston has been responsible for more than eight million square feet of new development and renovation projects. He is a past member of the board of directors of the Northern Virginia Chapter of the National Association of Industrial and Office Properties (NAIOP). Mr. Johnston received a BA in Business Administration from Roanoke College, an MA from Hollins College and an MBA from the University of Virginia. He is 58 years old.
Bryan J. Koopserves as Executive Vice President, Boston Region. Prior to his appointment to this position in January 2016, Mr. Koop served as Senior Vice President and Regional Manager of our Boston office since 1999. Mr. Koop is responsible for overseeing the operation of our existing regional portfolio in the Boston area, which includes the Prudential Center and Kendall Center. He is also responsible for developing new business opportunities in the area. Prior to joining us in 1999, Mr. Koop served at Trammell Crow Company from 1982 to 1999 where his career covered high-rise office building leasing and the development of commercial office buildings and shopping centers. From 1993 to 1999, his position was Managing Director and Regional Leader for Trammell Crow Company’s New England region, which included all commercial office and shopping center operations. Mr. Koop is a member of the Board of Directors for the Massachusetts Chapter of NAIOP, the Boston Green Ribbon Commission and the Kendall Square Association and previously served as chairman of the Back Bay Association. Mr. Koop received a BBA and an MBA from Texas Christian University. He is 58 years old.
Robert E. Pesterserves as Executive Vice President, San Francisco Region. Prior to his appointment to this position in January 2016, Mr. Pester served as Senior Vice President and Regional Manager of our San Francisco office since 1998. Mr. Pester is responsible for all of our activities on the West Coast. Mr. Pester is responsible for overseeing existing operations in San Francisco and our other Bay Area properties on the Peninsula and in Silicon Valley, and developing new business opportunities in the area. Prior to joining us in 1998, he served as Executive Vice President and Chief Investment Officer of Bedford Property Investors, a real estate investment trust in Lafayette, CA, where he led the acquisitions and development program. Prior to 1994, he was President of Bedford Property Development, a private West Coast development concern that held more than $2 billion in real estate assets. From 1980 to 1989, he was a leading commercial real estate broker with Cushman & Wakefield in northern California, where he last served as Vice President. He is a graduate of the University of California at Santa Barbara with a BA in Economics and Political Science. He is 60 years old.
John F. Powers serves as Executive Vice President, New York Region. He oversees all aspects of our New York and Princeton, New Jersey activities, including development, acquisitions, leasing and building operations. Prior to joining us on January 2, 2014 as Senior Vice President and Regional Manager of our New York office, he served from 2004 as Chairman of CBRE, Inc. for the New YorkTri-State Region overseeing the strategic direction of CBRE’sTri-State operations. He joined the Edward S. Gordon Company, which was subsequently merged into CBRE, in 1986 after working eight years at Swiss Bank Corp (now UBS). At ESG, he developed and managed the Consulting Division into a strong and integral part of the firm’s service delivery platform, which facilitated its sustained leadership in the Manhattan office leasing market. He also brokered millions of square feet of transactions, representing both tenants and landlords, led numerous strategic consulting assignments for large corporate occupiers and advised on manyground-up developments. He is a frequent speaker on commercial real estate in New York valued for his insight linking economic trends and conditions to their eventual impact on the office
BOSTON PROPERTIES, INC. |2017 Proxy Statement 23
PROPOSAL 1: ELECTION OF DIRECTORS
market. He received a BA in Mathematics from St. Anselm College, an MA in Economics from the University of Massachusetts and an MBA from the University of Massachusetts. He also studied international economics at the Graduate Institute of International Studies, Geneva. He is 70 years old.
Frank D. Burtserves as Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary, positions he has held since 2003. He is responsible for overseeing the legal and risk management departments. Mr. Burt has served in various capacities since he joined us in 1986, and he represented us in the acquisition of the Prudential Center in Boston and the Embarcadero Center in San Francisco, as well as in the development activities at the Prudential Center. He previously worked in the real estate department at Nutter, McClennen & Fish in Boston. Mr. Burt is a member of the American College of Real Estate Lawyers and the Boston Bar Association and a speaker for the American College of Real Estate Lawyers, the Association of Corporate Counsel, Massachusetts Continuing Legal Education, NAIOP and NAREIT. Mr. Burt received a BA, magna cum laude, from Brown University and a JD, cum laude, from the University of Pennsylvania Law School. He is 58 years old.
Michael R. Walshserves as Senior Vice President, Chief Accounting Officer. He is responsible for overseeing financial reporting, property accounting and tax compliance and is also responsible for providing transactional support on capital markets activity. Prior to his appointment to this position in May 2016, Mr. Walsh served as Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of Paramount Group, Inc. (“Paramount”), a real estate investment trust focused on Class A office properties in New York City, Washington, D.C. and San Francisco, from March 2015 to March 2016. Before joining Paramount, Mr. Walsh was the Senior Vice President, Finance and Capital Markets at Boston Properties where he served in various capacities since 1986. While at Boston Properties, he was most recently responsible for overseeing its accounting, financial reporting, financial analysis and tax functions and participated extensively in investor relations matters. Mr. Walsh received a BS, magna cum laude, from Eastern Nazarene College. He is 50 years old.
24 BOSTON PROPERTIES, INC. |2017 Proxy Statement
PRINCIPAL AND MANAGEMENT STOCKHOLDERS
The table below shows the amount of common stock of Boston Properties, Inc. and units of partnership interest in our Operating Partnership beneficially owned as of February 1, 201715, 2020 by:
each director;
each of our named executive officers (“NEOs”);
all directors and executive officers of Boston Properties as a group; and
each person known by Boston Properties to be the beneficial owner of more than 5% of our outstanding common stock.
On February 1, 2017,15, 2020, there were:
154,904,043 shares of our common stock outstanding;
16,791,848 common units of partnership interest in our Operating Partnership (“common units”) outstanding (other than the common units held by Boston Properties), each of which is redeemable for one share of Boston Properties’ common stock (if Boston Properties elects to issue common stock rather than pay cash upon such redemption);
1,368,429 long term incentive units of partnership interest in our Operating Partnership (“LTIP units”) outstanding that were issued as part of our long-term incentive (“LTI”) program, excluding LTIP units issued pursuant to 2018 Multi-Year Long-Term Incentive Program (“MYLTIP”) awards, 2019 MYLTIP awards and 2020 MYLTIP awards, each of which, upon the satisfaction of certain conditions, is convertible into one common unit; and
61,090 deferred stock units outstanding.
All references in this proxy statement to LTIP units exclude LTIP units issued pursuant to 20142018 MYLTIP awards, 20152019 MYLTIP awards and 20162020 MYLTIP awards because theirthe three-year performance periods of these awards had not ended by February 1, 2017.15, 2020. LTIP units issued pursuant to 20142018 MYLTIP awards, 20152019 MYLTIP awards and 20162020 MYLTIP awards are collectively referred to herein as “Performance“Unearned Performance Awards.” None of our directors or NEOs beneficially owns preferred units or shares of our preferred stock.
BOSTON PROPERTIES, INC. |2017 Proxy Statement 25
| 2020 Proxy Statement | 37 |
PRINCIPAL AND MANAGEMENT STOCKHOLDERS
4› | PRINCIPAL AND MANAGEMENT STOCKHOLDERS |
Common Stock | Common Stock and Units | |||||||||||||||
Name and Address of Beneficial Owner* | Number of Shares Beneficially Owned(1) | Percent of Common Stock(2) | Number of Shares and Units Beneficially Owned(1) | Percent of Common Stock and Units(3) | ||||||||||||
Directors and Named Executive Officers | ||||||||||||||||
Bruce W. Duncan(4) | — | ** | 1,013 | ** | ||||||||||||
Karen E. Dykstra(5) | 2,941 | ** | 2,941 | ** | ||||||||||||
Carol B. Einiger(6) | 15,282 | ** | 19,305 | ** | ||||||||||||
Jacob A. Frenkel(7) | 1,013 | ** | 6,395 | ** | ||||||||||||
Joel I. Klein(8) | 3,212 | ** | 6,325 | ** | ||||||||||||
Douglas T. Linde(9) | 281,778 | ** | 414,575 | ** | ||||||||||||
Matthew J. Lustig(10) | 4,351 | ** | 10,322 | ** | ||||||||||||
Alan J. Patricof(11) | 34,642 | ** | 38,665 | ** | ||||||||||||
Owen D. Thomas(12) | 63,399 | ** | 152,016 | ** | ||||||||||||
Martin Turchin(13) | 25,086 | ** | 26,047 | ** | ||||||||||||
David A. Twardock(14) | 28,198 | ** | 28,198 | ** | ||||||||||||
Raymond A. Ritchey(15) | 131,802 | ** | 433,559 | ** | ||||||||||||
Michael E. LaBelle(16) | 20,943 | ** | 89,943 | ** | ||||||||||||
Bryan J. Koop(17) | 31,238 | ** | 84,126 | ** | ||||||||||||
All directors and executive officers as a group (19 persons)(18) | 725,431 | ** | 1,474,570 | ** | ||||||||||||
5% Holders | ||||||||||||||||
The Vanguard Group(19) | 21,802,371 | 14.18% | 21,802,371 | 12.69% | ||||||||||||
BlackRock, Inc.(20) | 14,529,524 | 9.45% | 14,529,524 | 8.45% | ||||||||||||
Vanguard Specialized Funds – Vanguard REIT Index Fund(21) | 11,661,306 | 7.58% | 11,661,306 | 6.79% | ||||||||||||
FMR LLC(22) Abigail P. Johnson | 9,699,951 | 6.31% | 9,699,951 | 5.64% | ||||||||||||
State Street Corporation(23) | 8,887,364 | 5.78% | 8,887,364 | 5.17% |
Common Stock | Common Stock and Units | |||||||||||||||
Name and Address of Beneficial Owner* | Number of Shares Beneficially Owned(1) | Percent of Common Stock(2) | Number of Shares and Units Beneficially Owned(1) | Percent of Common Stock and Units(3) | ||||||||||||
Directors and Named Executive Officers |
| |||||||||||||||
Kelly A. Ayotte(4) | 80 | * | * | 2,267 | * | * | ||||||||||
Bruce W. Duncan(5) | — | * | * | 4,250 | * | * | ||||||||||
Karen E. Dykstra(6) | 5,689 | * | * | 6,214 | * | * | ||||||||||
Carol B. Einiger(7) | 19,207 | * | * | 26,467 | * | * | ||||||||||
Diane J. Hoskins(8) | 1,140 | * | * | 1,140 | * | * | ||||||||||
Joel I. Klein(9) | 6,642 | * | * | 12,992 | * | * | ||||||||||
Douglas T. Linde(10) | 259,860 | * | * | 513,574 | * | * | ||||||||||
Matthew J. Lustig(11) | 7,173 | * | * | 16,381 | * | * | ||||||||||
Owen D. Thomas(12) | 63,488 | * | * | 340,708 | * | * | ||||||||||
David A. Twardock(13) | 5,999 | * | * | 5,999 | * | * | ||||||||||
William H. Walton, III(14) | 465 | * | * | 1,605 | * | * | ||||||||||
Raymond A. Ritchey(15) | — | * | * | 338,725 | * | * | ||||||||||
Michael E. LaBelle(16) | 28,479 | * | * | 136,817 | * | * | ||||||||||
Bryan J. Koop(17) | 15,919 | * | * | 73,182 | * | * | ||||||||||
All directors and executive officers as a group (19 persons)(18) | 470,507 | * | * | 1,687,979 | * | * | ||||||||||
5% Holders | ||||||||||||||||
The Vanguard Group(19) | 20,235,548 | 13.06 | % | 20,235,548 | 11.69 | % | ||||||||||
BlackRock, Inc.(20) | 15,053,881 | 9.72 | % | 15,053,881 | 8.70 | % | ||||||||||
Norges Bank (The Central Bank of Norway)(21) | 13,037,554 | 8.42 | % | 13,037,554 | 7.53 | % | ||||||||||
State Street Corporation(22) | 9,721,252 | 6.28 | % | 9,721,252 | 5.62 | % |
* | Unless otherwise indicated, the address is c/o Boston Properties, Inc., 800 Boylston Street, Suite 1900, Boston, Massachusetts 02199-8103. |
** | Less than 1%. |
(1) | The number of shares of common stock “beneficially owned” by each beneficial owner is determined under rules issued by the SEC regarding the beneficial ownership of securities. This information is not necessarily indicative of beneficial ownership for any other purpose. “Number of Shares Beneficially Owned” includes (a) shares of common stock that may be acquired upon the exercise of options that are exercisable on or within 60 days after February |
26 BOSTON PROPERTIES, INC. |2017 Proxy Statement
PRINCIPAL AND MANAGEMENT STOCKHOLDERS
(2) | The total number of shares outstanding used in calculating this percentage assumes (a) the exercise of all options to acquire shares of common stock that are exercisable on or within 60 days after February |
(3) | The total number of shares outstanding used in calculating this percentage assumes (a) that all common units and LTIP units are presented (assuming conversion in full into common units, if applicable) to the Operating Partnership for redemption and are acquired by Boston Properties for shares of common stock, (b) does not separately include outstanding common units held by Boston Properties, as these common units are already reflected in the denominator by the inclusion of all outstanding shares of common stock, (c) the exercise of all options to acquire shares of common stock that are exercisable on or within 60 days after February |
38 | | 2020 Proxy Statement |
4› | PRINCIPAL AND MANAGEMENT STOCKHOLDERS |
(4) | Represents |
Represents, |
Includes 5,225 shares of common stock held directly (of which 1,140 shares are subject to vesting) and 464 deferred stock units. Also includes, only under the “Number of Shares and Units Beneficially Owned” column, |
(7) | Represents 19,207 deferred stock units. Also includes, only under the “Number of Shares and Units Beneficially Owned” column, 7,260 LTIP units (of which |
(8) | Represents 1,140 shares of common stock (all of which are subject to vesting). |
(9) | Represents 6,642 deferred stock units. Also includes, only under the “Number of Shares and Units Beneficially Owned” column, 6,350 LTIP units (of which 1,140 LTIP units are subject to vesting). |
(10) | Includes |
Represents |
(12) | Includes |
(13) | Includes |
(14) | Includes 465 deferred stock units. Also includes, only under the “Number of Shares and Units Beneficially Owned” column, |
(15) | Includes, only under the “Number of Shares and Units Beneficially Owned” column, 99,305 common units held directly, |
(16) | Includes |
BOSTON PROPERTIES, INC. |2017 Proxy Statement 27
PRINCIPAL AND MANAGEMENT STOCKHOLDERS
(17) | Includes |
(18) | Includes an aggregate of |
(19) | Information regarding The Vanguard Group (“Vanguard”) is based solely on a Schedule 13G/A filed by Vanguard with the SEC on February |
(20) | Information regarding BlackRock, Inc. (“BlackRock”) is based solely on a Schedule 13G/A filed by BlackRock with the SEC on |
(21) | Information regarding |
(22) |
Information regarding State Street Corporation (“State Street”) is based solely on a Schedule 13G filed by State Street with the SEC on February |
| 2020 Proxy Statement | 39 |
5› | COMPENSATION OF DIRECTORS |
SECTION 16(A) BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP REPORTING COMPLIANCECOMPENSATION OF DIRECTORS
Ournon-employee director compensation is intended to attract, retain and appropriately compensate highly qualified individuals to serve on our Board of Directors. At our 2019 annual meeting of stockholders, our stockholders approved the Boston Properties, Inc.Non-Employee Director Compensation Plan (the “Director Compensation Plan”), effective January 1, 2019. The Director Compensation Plan sets forth the cash and equity compensation that is to be paid to ournon-employee directors in a specific, formulaic manner.
Our directors who are also employees receive no additional compensation for their services as directors.
COMPONENTS OF DIRECTOR COMPENSATION
› CASH COMPENSATION
Section 16(a)During 2019, we paid ournon-employee directors the following cash compensation pursuant to the Director Compensation Plan:
Role | Annual Cash Retainer($)(1) | |||
AllNon-Employee Directors for Board Services | 85,000 | |||
Chairman of the Board(2) | 100,000 | |||
Chair of the Audit Committee(2) | 20,000 | |||
Members of the Audit Committee | 15,000 | |||
Chairs of other standing committees(2)(3) | 15,000 | |||
Members of other standing committees(3) | 10,000 |
(1) | The sum of all cash retainers are payable in quarterly installments in arrears, subject to proration for periods of service less than a full quarter in length. |
(2) | The retainer payable to the Chairman is in addition to all other retainers to which the Chairman may be entitled and the retainer to each committee chair is in addition to the retainer payable to all members of the committee. |
(3) | The term “other standing committees” includes the Compensation and NCG Committees, as well as other committees that may be constituted from time to time. |
Under the Director Compensation Plan,non-employee directors do not receive meeting attendance fees for any meeting of our Board of Directors or a committee thereof that he or she attends.Non-employee directors also are reimbursed for reasonable expenses incurred to attend Board of Directors and committee meetings.
› EQUITY COMPENSATION
The Director Compensation Plan provides for grants of equity tonon-employee directors as follows:
Annual Grant. Each continuingnon-employee director is entitled to receive, on the fifth business day after the annual meeting of stockholders, an annual equity award with an aggregate value of $150,000.
Initial Grant. Any newnon-employee director that is appointed to our Board of Directors other than at an annual meeting of stockholders would be entitled to receive, on the fifth business day after the appointment, an initial equity award with an aggregate value of $150,000 (prorated based on the number of months from the date the director is first appointed to our Board of Directors to the first anniversary of the Securities Exchange ActCompany’s most recently held annual meeting of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), requiresstockholders).
Annual and initial equity awards are made in the executive officersform of shares of restricted common stock, or, if offered by the Board of Directors and elected by such director, LTIP units (or a combination of both).
40 | | 2020 Proxy Statement |
5› | COMPENSATION OF DIRECTORS |
The actual number of shares of restricted common stock or LTIP units that we grant is determined by dividing the fixed value of the grant by the closing market price of our common stock on the NYSE on the grant date.
Annual and initial grants of LTIP units and restricted common stock will vest 100% on the earlier of (1) the first anniversary of the grant date and (2) the date of the next annual meeting of stockholders.
Accordingly, on May 29, 2019, Mses. Ayotte, Einiger, Dykstra and Hoskins and Messrs. Duncan, Klein, Lustig, Twardock and Walton each received 1,140 LTIP units or shares of restricted common stock.
Non-employeedirectors ofmay elect, in accordance with the Boston Properties, Inc. 2012 Stock Option and persons who own more than ten percentIncentive Plan (the “2012 Plan”) and our Amended and Restated Rules and Conditions for Directors’ Deferred Compensation Program (the “Directors’ Deferred Compensation Program”), to defer all cash retainers payable to such director and to receive his or her deferred cash compensation in the form of our common stock or in cash following the director’s retirement from our Board of Directors. Each director is credited with the number of deferred stock units determined by dividing the amount of the cash compensation deferred during each calendar quarter by the closing market price of our common stock on the NYSE on the last trading day of the quarter. Hypothetical dividends on the deferred stock units are “reinvested” in additional deferred stock units based on the closing market price of the common stock on the cash dividend payment date. Payment of a registered classdirector’s account may be made in either a lump sum of shares of our common stock equal to the number of deferred stock units in a director’s account or in ten annual installments following the director’s retirement from our Board of Directors. In addition,non-employee directors who elect a deferred payout following their retirement from the Board may elect to change their notional investment from our common stock to a deemed investment in one or more measurement funds. This election to convert may only be made after the director’s service on the Board ends, the conversion date must be at least 180 days after the latest issuance date of deferred stock units credited to the director’s account, the election is irrevocable and the director must convert 100% of his or her deferred stock account if any is converted. Payment of a director’s account that has been converted to measurement funds will be in cash instead of shares of our common stock. The measurement funds available to directors are the same as those available to our executives under our Nonqualified Deferred Compensation Plan. See“Compensation of Executive Officers – Nonqualified Deferred Compensation” on page 72.
DIRECTOR STOCK OWNERSHIP GUIDELINES
Our Board believes it is important to align the interests of the directors with those of the stockholders and for directors to hold equity ownership positions in Boston Properties’ equity securities,Properties. Accordingly, eachnon-employee director is expected to file reportsretain an aggregate number of ownershipshares of common stock of the Company, deferred stock units (and related dividend equivalent rights) in the Company, and changesLTIP units, and common units in ownershipthe Operating Partnership, whether vested or not, equal to at least five (5) times the value of the then current annual cash retainer paid tonon-employee directors for their service on the Board, without respect to service on committees of the Board or as lead independent director or Chairman. Eachnon-employee director, until such director complies with the SECownership guidelines set forth above, is expected to retain all equity awards granted by the Company or the Operating Partnership (less amounts sufficient to fund any taxes owed relating to such equity awards). The deferred stock units (and related dividend equivalent rights) in the Company and LTIP units and common units in the NYSE. Officers, directors and greater than ten percent beneficial owners are requiredOperating Partnership shall be valued by SEC regulationsreference to furnish Boston Properties with copies of all Section 16(a) forms they file. To our knowledge, based solely on our reviewthe market price of the copiesnumber of shares of common stock of the Company issuable upon the settlement or exchange of such reports furnishedunits assuming that all conditions necessary for such settlement or exchange have been met. For shares of common stock of the Company or equity valued by reference to us and written representations that no other reports were requiredcommon stock of the Company for purposes of these ownership guidelines, the market price of the common stock of the Company used to value such equity shall be the greater of (1) the market price on the date of purchase or grant of such equity or (2) the market price as of the date compliance with these ownership guidelines is measured.
| 2020 Proxy Statement | 41 |
5› | COMPENSATION OF DIRECTORS |
The following table summarizes the compensation earned by ournon-employee directors during the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, all Section 16(a) filing requirements applicable to our executive officers, directors and greater than ten percent beneficial owners were timely satisfied.2019.
Name | Fees Earned or Paid in Cash ($)(1) | Stock Awards ($)(2) | Total($) | |||||||||
Kelly A. Ayotte | 105,000 | 135,000 | 240,000 | |||||||||
Bruce W. Duncan | 139,190 | 135,000 | 274,190 | |||||||||
Karen E. Dykstra | 110,000 | 150,000 | 260,000 | |||||||||
Carol B. Einiger | 100,852 | 135,000 | 235,852 | |||||||||
Dr. Jacob A. Frenkel(3) | 37,060 | — | 37,060 | |||||||||
Diane J. Hoskins | 58,200 | 150,000 | 208,200 | |||||||||
Joel I. Klein | 185,000 | 135,000 | 320,000 | |||||||||
Matthew J. Lustig | 120,000 | 135,000 | 255,000 | |||||||||
Martin Turchin(3) | 39,011 | — | 39,011 | |||||||||
David A. Twardock | 130,000 | 150,000 | 280,000 | |||||||||
William H. Walton, III | 61,264 | 135,000 | 196,264 |
28 BOSTON PROPERTIES, INC. |2017 Proxy Statement
(1) | Mses. Ayotte and Einiger and Messrs. Duncan, Klein, Lustig, Turchin, Twardock and Walton deferred their cash fees earned during 2019 and received in lieu thereof deferred stock units. The following table summarizes the deferred stock units credited to the director accounts during 2019. |
Name | Deferred Stock Units Earned During 2019 (#) | |||
Kelly A. Ayotte | 790.07 | |||
Bruce W. Duncan | 1,048.22 | |||
Carol B. Einiger | 758.94 | |||
Joel I. Klein | 1,394.75 | |||
Matthew J. Lustig | 928.49 | |||
Martin Turchin(3) | 292.38 | |||
David A. Twardock | 981.00 | |||
William H. Walton, III | 459.26 |
(2) | Represents the total fair value of common stock and LTIP unit awards granted tonon-employee directors in 2019, determined in accordance with the Financial Accounting Standards Board’s Accounting Standards Codification 718 “Compensation – Stock Compensation” (“ASC 718”), disregarding for this purpose the estimate of forfeitures related to service-based vesting conditions. A discussion of the assumptions used in calculating these values can be found in Note 16 to our 2019 audited financial statements beginning on page 174 of our Annual Report on Form10-K for the year ended December 31, 2019 included in the annual report that accompanied this proxy statement. Ournon-employee directors had the following unvested equity awards outstanding as of December 31, 2019: Ms. Ayotte – 1,140 LTIP units; Mr. Duncan – 1,140 LTIP units; Ms. Dykstra – 1,140 shares of restricted common stock; Ms. Einiger – 1,140 LTIP units; Ms. Hoskins – 1,140 shares of restricted common stock; Mr. Klein – 1,140 LTIP units; Mr. Lustig – 1,140 LTIP units; Mr. Twardock – 1,140 shares of restricted common stock; and Mr. Walton – 1,140 LTIP units. |
(3) | Messrs. Frenkel and Turchin retired from the Board of Directors as of May 21, 2019. On May 21, 2019, the Company issued 17,949 shares of common stock to Mr. Turchin in partial settlement of his deferred stock award account. |
42 | | 2020 Proxy Statement |
6› | COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS | |
I. EXECUTIVE OVERVIEW |
COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
In thisThis “Compensation Discussion and Analysis,” or “CD&A,” when we refer to “executive compensation” we mean primarily the Compensation Committee’s decisionssets forth our philosophy and objectives regarding the compensation of our named executive officers (“NEOs”)., including how we determine the elements and amounts of executive compensation. When we use the term “Committee” in this CD&A, we mean the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of Boston Properties, Inc. Our NEOs for 2016 were Messrs. Thomas, Linde, Ritchey, LaBelle and Koop.
2016 Performance Overview
Our management team had a very productive year in terms of executing our strategy and operating our business. Among other accomplishments discussed in this CD&A, highlights of 2016 included the following:2019 were:
Owen D. Thomas | Douglas T. Linde | Raymond A. Ritchey | Michael E. LaBelle | Bryan J. Koop | ||||
Chief Executive Officer | President | Senior Executive Vice President | Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer | Executive Vice President, Boston Region |
›POLICY CHANGES TO COMPENSATION PROGRAM
During 2019, based on feedback received from $5.36 to $6.03, or 12.5%;
Communication with Stockholders
As we have in prior years, we contacted representatives of approximately 25 stockholders, representing more than 60% of the total number of outstanding shares of our common stock, regarding matters to be voted on at the 2016 annual meeting, as well as other matters of interestCommittee made significant changes to the stockholders. This was in addition to our ongoing dialogue with investors throughout the year on a wide rangedesign and structure of topics. We appreciate hearing and understanding the views of our stockholders and believe it helps us better align our executive compensation program.
Engaged FW Cook as New Consultant(April 2019)Annual Meeting Say-on-Pay Results(May 2019)Investor Outreach(July Oct. 2019)Evaluated Feedback & Advice;Modified & Improved Policies2019Pensation"Increased performance-based equity allocation"Decreased cash compensation2020 CompensationEstablished new 2020 Annual Incentive Plan
At our 2019 annual meeting, our stockholders voted on anon-binding, advisory resolution to ratify the compensation paid to our NEOs (the“Say-on-Pay resolution”). Although the core philosophy and corporate governancedesign of our compensation program remained materially consistent with general market expectationsprior years, Institutional Shareholder Services (“ISS”), a proxy advisory firm, recommended that its clients vote against our 2019Say-on-Pay resolution and the practicespercentage of our peers.
We are pleased that we received strong stockholder support in the 2016“Say-on-Pay” advisory vote, with more than 90% of the votes cast in favor of the resolution. TogetherSay-on-Pay resolution decreased from approximately 91% at our 2018 annual meeting to approximately 67% at our 2019 annual meeting. The outcome of the vote in 2019 was sufficient to approve the resolution, but the level of support was less than we expected, less than we received on ourSay-on-Pay resolution in any of the last five years and less than we desire.
In light of the voting results, our Board, led by the Chairman of the Board and the Chair of our Compensation Committee, directly engaged with our larger institutional investors, some of whom voted against theSay-on-Pay resolution, to solicit feedback on our overall executive compensation program and corporate governance and to better understand their individual concerns. After evaluating the feedback received duringfrom our investors and the year,advice of FW Cook, the Compensation Committee views these results as an indication of our stockholders’ strong support of ourmade policy changes that impacted compensation programs. Accordingly, the Compensation Committee maintained the same principal elements of our executive compensation programs when setting compensation for 2016.
Alignment of Pay with Performance
At the start of each year, the Compensation Committee establishes for management a set of rigorous strategic, operational, capital and management goals, which are aligned with our short- and long-term
BOSTON PROPERTIES, INC. |2017 Proxy Statement 29
COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
strategies and are reflected in the earnings guidance and related assumptions provided to the market. As we have done in prior years, the Compensation Committee looks at performancepaid with respect to key operational2019 and financial metrics not only against our own targets, but also against a backdrop of performance for five office REITs that we consider direct competitors because they operate in markets and/or have assets similar to ours.
Like other REITs that are included inwill impact 2020 compensation decisions, including the S&P 500 Index, in light of our size relative to fourestablishment of the five REITs that we consider direct competitors, we look to a larger, more diverse peer group of publicly traded real estate companies for benchmarking executive compensation. The sixteen companiesnew 2020 Annual Incentive Plan (see“II.Say-on-Pay Results & Investor Outreach” and “VII. New 2020 Annual Incentive Plan”).
As discussed in this peer group are comparable to us in terms of total capitalization, which is the most relevant indicator of the complexity of managing real estate assets, capital, operations and talentCD&A, for a company like ours, irrespective of property focus. See “– Benchmarking Peer Group and Compensation Advisor’s Role” beginning on page 48. We use the median (50th percentile) of this larger peer group as the beginning reference point, and the Compensation Committee then adjusts executive compensation based on corporate and individual performance relative to thepre-determined goals.
We continue to believe, and our investor outreach over the last few years has confirmed, that combining a quantitative and a qualitative assessment againstpre-established goals allows the Compensation Committee to strike the appropriate balance between short-term and long-term strategies in assessing management’s performance, by giving proper emphasis to objective results while also considering subjective factors, if and when applicable. Given the nature of our business and our long-term strategy, we do not rely on a strict formulaic framework for measuring performance against short-term goals to determine compensation awards for a particular year. However, once2019, total compensation is determined, the structure of our long-term incentive (“LTI”) program utilizes a formulaic systempaid to determine how much performance-based equity is ultimately earned at the conclusion of a forward looking, three-year measurement period.
The Compensation Committee believes that this performance-based executive compensation program, with the substantial components of variable pay and“at-risk” equity awards linked to the Company’s future total stockholder return (“TSR”), as described below, is well-aligned with our stockholders’ interests and in line with peer companies.
Variable Pay Mix
The vast majority of our executive compensation is variable pay, in the form of LTI equity awards and annual cash bonuses. For 2016, the variable component was 91.5% for our CEO did not change from 2018 and, 88.2% for all other NEOs as a group. This mix allows the Compensation Committee to strongly motivate and reward good performance and penalize poor performance.
Majority of Compensation“At-Risk” in TSR Performance-Based Equity Awards
For 2016, the ratios of TSR performance-based equity awards to time-based equity awards were (1) 75.0% performance-based and 25.0% time-based for our CEO and (2) approximately 66.3% performance-based and 33.7% time-based for all other NEOs as a group. See “– Alignment of Pay with Performance” beginning on page 43.
For performance-based equity awards the Compensation Committee relies on a rigorous program that uses relative TSR over three-year measurement periods as the main metric. This component of executive compensation aligns a significant portion of what our management actually earns over time with the Company’s multi-year TSR performance compared to two different indices, the Cohen & Steers Realty Majors Index (“C&S Realty Index”) (50%) and the FTSE NAREIT Office Index (the “NAREIT Office Index”) (as adjusted, 50%). See “– Majority of Compensation Awards are in TSR Performance-Based Equity Awards; Three-Year TSR Drives Actual Earned Pay” beginning on page 40.
30 BOSTON PROPERTIES, INC. |2017 Proxy Statement
COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
2016 Executive Compensation Decisions
The Compensation Committee directed its independent advisor, FPL Associates L.P. (“FPL”), to, among other things: (1) benchmark our 2015 executive compensation against our benchmarking peer group and assist in developing compensation objectives, (2) analyze trends in compensation in the marketplace generally and among our benchmarking peers specifically and (3) recommend the components, and the allocation among those components, of compensation for our executive officers. FPL’s benchmarking review was based, in part, on information disclosed in the peer companies’ 2016 proxy statements, which disclose compensation for 2015 (the latest year for which comprehensive data was publicly available). See“– Benchmarking Peer Group and Compensation Advisor’s Role” beginning on page 48. FPL also reviewed the 2016 NAREIT Compensation Survey (which FPL conducts) and additional proprietary real estate compensation surveys conducted throughout the year by FPL for additional context. Based on this information, FPL advised the Compensation Committee that total compensation for our NEOs as a group, for 2015 ranked at approximately the 55th - 60th percentile.total compensation was essentially flat compared to 2018 (a decrease of (0.7%)).
| 2020 Proxy Statement | 43 |
6› | COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS | |
I. EXECUTIVE OVERVIEW |
›2019 PERFORMANCE HIGHLIGHTS
The Compensation Committee then assessed corporate and individual performance. The Compensation Committee concludeddetermined that the NEO’s performance in 2019 was strong, particularly given that it followed very strong performance in 2018. Overall, management team performed very wellmet or exceeded the primary corporate goals for 2019 that were established at the beginning of the year. These goals and our NEOs’ performance against its 2016 goals, with particular emphasis on the following: leasing, development deliveries, development starts, strategic entry into new markets and acquisitions, growtheach are detailed in diluted funds from operations (FFO) per share, growth in same property combined net operating income (NOI), balance sheet management, dispositions, G&A expense, capital expenditures,non-office revenue and investor relations. See “–“V. Assessing Performance– 20162019 Corporate Goals” beginning on page 34 for a list ofbelow. We believe our NEOs’ overall strong performance in 2019 is reflected in the goals and assessment of performance with respect to each goal.following highlights:
2019 Performance Highlights | ||||||
11% | 7.6 Million | 9% | 26% | |||
Y-o-Y Growth in Diluted FFO per Share* | Square Feet Leased | Y-o-Y Increase in Cash Dividend | Total Stockholder Return (“TSR”) for 2019 | |||
6.7% | 5.4% | 8th | 5th | |||
Y-o-Y Growth in Same Property NOI (BXP’s Share)** | Y-o-Y Growth in Same Property NOI – Cash (BXP’s Share)** | Consecutive Green Star Recognition from GRESB | Nareit “Leader in the Light Award” since 2014 |
* | Refer to pages 95 through 97 of our Annual Report on Form10-K for the year ended December 31, 2019 for information relating to and the reconciliations of diluted FFO per share to net income attributable to Boston Properties, Inc. common shareholders. |
** | Refer to Appendix A to this proxy statement for reconciliations and other information regarding our share of Same Property NOI and our share of Same Property NOI – Cash for the fiscal years ended December 31, 2019 and 2018. |
›HIGHLIGHTS OF 2019 COMPENSATION DECISIONS
Based on the goal assessments, FPL’s benchmarking analysis and projections for compensation increases/decreases among our peers andCommittee’s assessment of 2019 performance, the market generally, and other input received from FPL, the Compensation Committee decided that 2016awarded total compensation that was unchanged from 2018 for theour CEO and was essentially flat for all NEOs as a group, should be set atgroup. In addition, the Committee (1) reallocated a level that reflects an increaseportion of approximately 3% over 2015total compensation from cash compensation to long-term incentive (LTI) equity compensation and (2) increased the amount of performance-based LTI equity compensation as a percentage of total compensation. For each NEO, the Compensation Committee approved the appropriate amount and mixThe following are highlights of pay based on his role, responsibilities and performance.2019 compensation:
2019 Compensation Highlights | ||||||||
CEO: | ||||||||
No Change | 93% | 72% | (11.3)% | 55% | ||||
in total compensation from 2018 | of pay that is variable and not guaranteed | paid in equity* with remaining 28% | decrease in cash bonus from 2018 | of total equity awarded as TSR-based performance equity (increase from 50% for 2018*) | ||||
All NEOs (as a group): | ||||||||
(0.7)% | 90% | 64% | (9.9)% | 52% | ||||
decrease in total compensation | of pay that is variable and not guaranteed | paid in equity* with remaining 36% paid in cash | decrease in cash bonus from 2018 | of total equity awarded asTSR-based performance equity |
* | Equity incentives for 2019 performance were granted in 2020, and equity incentives for 2018 performance were granted in 2019. |
44 | | 2020 Proxy Statement |
6› | COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS | |
I. EXECUTIVE OVERVIEW |
BOSTON PROPERTIES, INC. |› 2017 Proxy Statement 31
COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
HOW WE SET EXECUTIVE COMPENSATIONGOVERNANCE
The objectives of our executive compensation program are to attract, retain and reward executives who have the motivation, experience and skills to lead the Company and continue our long-term track record of profitability, growth and TSR. The following are thetable highlights key features of our executive compensation program:program that demonstrate the Company’s ongoing commitment to promoting stockholder interests through sound compensation governance practices.
WHAT WE DO | ||
✓ | The vast majority of total compensation is | |
✓ | ||
✓ | We align our | |
✓ | ||
We have a clawback policy that allows for the recovery of previously paid incentive compensation in the event of a financial restatement. | ||
✓ | We have robust stock ownership guidelines for our executives | |
✓ | We engage an independent compensation consultant to advise the |
WHAT WE DON’T DO | ||
We do | ||
We do not allow hedging or pledging of Company securities. | ||
We do not encourage unnecessary or excessive risk taking as a result of our compensation policies; incentive compensation is not based on a single performance metric and we do not have guaranteed minimum payouts. | ||
We do not allow for repricing of stock options. |
32 BOSTON PROPERTIES, INC. |2017 Proxy Statement
| 2020 Proxy Statement | 45 |
COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
6› | COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS | |
II. SAY-ON-PAY RESULTS & INVESTOR OUTREACH |
ASSESSING PERFORMANCEII.SAY-ON-PAY RESULTS & INVESTOR OUTREACH
The core elements of our strategy are:
Execution of this strategy spans multiple markets with different economic drivers over a number of years. Development projects, which are particularly important to our strategy, take time to identify, acquire, permit, construct and stabilize. To cite one recent example among many, our 888 Boylston Street office development in Boston, Massachusetts, which we partially placedin-service in 2016, was contemplated by a master plan for the Prudential Center property when we acquired it in 1998. Our focus on long-term performance involves management of liquidity, leverage ratios, interest-rate risk, capital commitments and debt maturities so we can take advantage of opportunities as they arise while maintaining our operating parameters within appropriate ranges. For all these reasons, we look at performance not only for the latest year and on a year-over-year basis, but also with a view to managing compensation to appropriately incentivize, compensate and retain our executives.
In addition to assessing our performance against ourpre-established internal goals, the Compensation Committee also reviews our performance against a backdrop of performance for the following five office REITs (with their total capitalizations as of December 31, 2016 shown in parentheses) because they operate in markets and/or have assets similar to ours (our total capitalization asestablishment of the same date was $33.1 billion):
We focus on key drivers of value creation such as leasing, development activity, FFO per share, same property NOI growth, acquisitions/dispositions and balance sheet management. While the Compensation Committee is aware that different companies may calculate relevant performance
BOSTON PROPERTIES, INC. |2017 Proxy Statement 33
COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
metrics differently, the Compensation Committee finds it useful to compare our performance to what these other office REITs disclose for similar measures, even though information is not always directly comparable among companies.
The Compensation Committee believes that internal and external data are important tools in the design and implementation of optimal compensation programs and that benchmarking against peers provides the Compensation Committee with a market check of its compensation awards. Different sections of this CD&A discuss in detail the data on which the Compensation Committee relied to make sure that different elements of compensation align with our performance. In addition, the Compensation Committee utilizes its collective experiences and judgment when establishing the appropriate types and amounts of compensation.
Finally, insofar as management roles change over time, both for individuals and within the executive team as a whole, the Compensation Committee considers each individual’s personal contributions to our organization, as well as his skill sets, qualifications and experience. We value and seek to reward performance that develops talent at all levels of our organization, promotes our culture of excellence and extends our track record of profitability and growth. These subjective factors are also considered in reaching compensation decisions.
2016 Corporate Goals
In early 2016, the Compensation Committee established for management a set of rigorous strategic, operational, capital and management goals. Whenever possible, the Compensation Committee bases its overall assessment as to whether a goal was “exceeded,” “met” or “not met” on both quantitative and qualitative factors. We believe that doing so allows the Compensation Committee to strike the right balance, by giving proper emphasis to objective results while also considering subjective factors, if and when applicable. For the reasons discussed under “– Assessing Performance” above, we do not rely on a strict formulaic framework for measuring annual performance against goals to determine compensation. The Compensation Committee believes that:
34 BOSTON PROPERTIES, INC. |2017 Proxy Statement
COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
The summary table below lists each goal and the Compensation Committee’s overall assessment of management’s performance with respect to the goal, followed by a detailed analysis of each goal:new 2020 Annual Incentive Plan:
|
Filed Proxy Statement & Retained New Compensation Consultant | • 2019 Proxy Statement filed • Committee retained FW Cook to serve as its new consultant and provide fresh perspective on our overall executive compensation program | ||||
May 2019 2019 Annual Meeting of Stockholders | • Management conductedpre-meeting investor outreach efforts • ISS recommended that its clients vote against ourSay-on-Pay resolution • Received 67% support onSay-on-Pay resolution | ||||
July – Oct 2019 Engaged Investors & Evaluated Feedback | • Our independent directors directly engaged larger institutional investors to solicit feedback and better understand individual concerns • Received benchmarking analyses, trend information and advice on the overall executive compensation program from FW Cook | ||||
Nov 2019 – Jan 2020 Implemented Policy Changes | • Made policy changes that impacted 2019 compensation decisions • Established new 2020 Annual Incentive Plan |
Quantitative Assessment:›HistoricalWe had an aggressive 2016 leasing goalSay-on-Pay Results
At the 2019 annual meeting of 5.4 million square feet (of which 4.4 million square feet was forstockholders, our stockholders voted on thein-serviceSay-on-Pay portfolio). We exceededresolution to ratify the goal by executing 344 leases representingcompensation paid to our NEOs. Although the core philosophy and design of our compensation program remained materially consistent with prior years, ISS recommended that its clients vote against our 2019Say-on-Pay resolution and the percentage of votes cast in favor of theSay-on-Pay resolution decreased from approximately 6.4 million square feet of space, or 14.7%91% at our 2018 annual meeting to approximately 67% at our 2019 annual meeting.
SAY-ON-PAY RESULTS | ||||||||
2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 | ||||
67% | 91% | 92% | 90% | 86% |
The outcome of the total square footage at ourin-service properties. The total numbervote in 2019 was sufficient to approve the resolution, but the level of square feet leased was greater than all five office REITs that we consider our direct competitors, and the total as a percentage of ourin-service portfolio was greater than four of the five office REITs that we consider our direct competitors. Leases for approximately 5.7 million of the 6.4 million square feet were in ourin-service portfolio, including 400,000 square feet at the recently acquired Colorado Center in Santa Monica, California.
We also had a goal of achieving 90.5% occupancy for ourin-service portfolio. Leasing activity was balanced across all of our regions, with average occupancy rates in ourin-service portfolio beginning the year at 91.4%, dropping slightly to a low of 89.6%, and ending the year on the upswing at 90.2% (or 90.5% excluding Colorado Center). Excluding Colorado Center, our occupancy as of December 31, 2016support was less than fourwe expected, less than we received on ourSay-on-Pay resolution in any of the last five office REITs thatyears and less than we consider our direct competitors.desire.
Management has identified nine key assets that, if leased to plan, would add approximately $110 million annually to our share of NOI on a combined basis by the end of 2019. Accordingly, in addition to the overall leasing goals discussed above, we set nine specific leasing goals for these assets for 2016. As of December 31, 2016, we completed five of these goals and achieved total leasing that we expect will generate approximately 50%›Investor Outreach
Stockholder Engagement Process
In light of the longer-term goal for increased NOI.
voting results on theQualitative AssessmentSay-on-Pay: During resolution, our Board directly engaged with our larger institutional investors, some of whom voted against the fourth quarter of 2016 alone, we signed leases totaling approximately 3.0 million square feet, which was aquarterly record in our history. Average net rental ratesresolution, to solicit feedback and better understand their individual concerns on our second generation leases signed in 2016 increased by 24.6%, resulting in overall same property revenue growth.
Overall Assessment: Goal exceeded.
BOSTON PROPERTIES, INC. |2017 Proxy Statement 35
COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
Quantitative Assessment: Our goal was to deliver five development projects totaling approximately 1.0 million square feetexecutive compensation program and a development budget (our share) of approximately $546 million. We fully placedin-service fourcorporate governance. Between July and October 2019, one or more of the projects totaling approximately 965,000 square feet at a total costChair of approximately $471 million (our share)our Compensation Committee (Bruce W. Duncan), which was well below the aggregate budget for those four projects of $530 million. We also partially placedin-service the fifth project, which is a retail expansion at the Prudential Center in Boston that comprises the remainderChairman of the 1.0 million square feet. Our 2016 development deliveries represented approximately 2.1% of gross asset value,Board (Joel I. Klein), a greater percentage than fourmember of the five office REITs that we consider our direct competitors.
Qualitative Assessment: In total, we placedin-service approximately 98.8% of the approximately 1.0 million square feet that comprised the goal, for a total cost that was approximately $60 million below budget. In addition, as of December 31, 2016, the four office properties fully placedin-service were approximately 96% leased. Upon stabilization, we expect them to deliver a weighted average unleveragedcash-on-cash return of approximately 8.4%, which is greater than our target return for office developments of 7.0%. The fifth development project that was partially placedin-service during 2016 is 100% leased.
Overall Assessment: Goal met.Compensation
Quantitative Assessment: Our goal was to start four new projects totaling approximately 1.1 million square feet, with a development budget of approximately $502 million. We started three projects totaling approximately 393,000 square feet, with a development budget of approximately $186 million. Our 2016 development starts represented approximately 0.8% of gross asset value, which is a greater percentage than four of the five office REITs that we consider our direct competitors. The fourth project is dependent on the execution of a lease for abuild-to-suit development, and we are still awaiting a decision by the prospective tenant.
Qualitative Assessment: We continue to replenish our development pipeline after delivering approximately 6.3 million square feet of new development since 2011. As of December 31, 2016, we had approximately 4.0 million square feet under construction and redevelopment, including eight office and retail projects with a development budget (our share) of approximately $1.9 billion, and two residential projects with a development budget of approximately $375 million. In addition, we have a total of approximately 5.0 million square feet in our entitled future development pipeline, and in excess of an estimated 10 million square feet of future development projects in the entitlement process.
Overall Assessment: Goal not met.
Quantitative Assessment: Our goal was to pursue acquisitions selectively in both new and existing markets, depending on market conditions. In July 2016, we entered the Los Angeles market through our acquisition of a 49.8% interest in an existing joint venture that owns and operates Colorado Center in Santa Monica, California, asix-building office complex that sits on a15-acre site and contains an aggregate of approximately 1.1 million net rentable square feet with an underground parking garage for 3,100 vehicles, for a net purchase price of approximately $503 million in cash. In April 2016, we acquired 3625-3635 Peterson Way in Santa Clara, California, an approximately 218,000 net rentable square foot office property leased to a single tenant through March 2021, for a purchase price of approximately $78.0 million in cash. Following the lease expiration, we intend to develop the site into a Class A office campus containing an aggregate of approximately 630,000 net rentable square feet. In addition, in November 2016, we
36 BOSTON PROPERTIES, INC. |2017 Proxy Statement
COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
acquired a 50% interest in the rights to develop an approximately440-unit residential property and an approximate270-room hotel, both on air rights above our Hub on Causeway development project located adjacent to the North Station transportation hub and the TD Garden sports and entertainment complex in Boston. We simultaneously executed a long-term lease with a hotel operator who will develop and ground lease the hotel. In the aggregate, these acquisitions represented approximately 2.6% of gross asset value, a smaller percentage than three of the five office REITs that we consider our direct competitors.
Qualitative Assessment: Los Angeles is the first new market for us in 19 years and we are committed to growing our presence and portfolio and expect to continue to underwrite investments in this market. We also continued to actively review an increasing number ofvalue-add and development opportunities in our core markets. Management did an excellent job maintaining its discipline when underwriting acquisitions to meet our desired return levels. We acquired Colorado Center, a premier office campus located in the West Los Angeles submarket, at an attractive valuation consistent with it being 68% leased at rents that we believe were below market, and through active management, repositioning and leasing we expect to improve occupancy and cash flows over time. As of December 31, 2016, the complex was approximately 87% leased, including leases that had not yet commenced. 3625-3635 Peterson Way is 100% leased to a single tenant through 2021 and, importantly, is located in anin-fill location with increasing density; during the remaining lease term, we plan to entitle the property for an approximately 630,000 square foot office campus.
Overall Assessment: Goal met.
Quantitative Assessment: Our goal was to exceed the midpoint of our diluted FFO guidance range of $5.50 to $5.70 (excluding the impact of any acquisitions and dispositions other than 415 Main Street in Cambridge, MA, which was under contract for sale when the goal was established). This goal was set based on assumptions underlying our 2016 earnings guidance. This target range equated to 1.0% to 4.0% projected growth over 2015.
Our actual 2016 diluted FFO per share was $6.03, which was 12.5% greater than $5.36 per share in 2015. After adjusting for the acquisitions of 3625-3635 Peterson Way in Santa Clara, California, and Colorado Center in Santa Monica, California, and the sale of a portion of our interest in Metropolitan Square in Washington, D.C., our diluted FFO per share would have been $5.95, or 6.25% greater than the goal, and $0.25, or 4.39%, greater than the high end of the guidance range set at the beginning of the year.
In addition, our 12.5% year-over-year percentage growth in diluted FFO per share was greater than four of the five office REITs that we consider our direct competitors. (Refer to our Annual Report on Form10-K for information relating to the calculation of FFO and diluted FFO.)
Qualitative Assessment: The goal for 2016 was established based on models and budgets for executing our overall corporate strategy, including operating, leasing, investment and financing objectives. Management successfully executed our strategy in 2016 and delivered performance that exceeded the goal.
Overall Assessment: Goal exceeded.
Quantitative Assessment: Our goal for year-over-year growth in Same Property Combined NOI (excluding termination income) was to be flat with 2015. We exceeded the goal with an increase of 0.6%. Our growth in Same Property Combined NOI (excluding termination income) was below four of the five office REITs that we consider our direct competitors. (Refer to Appendix A to this proxy
BOSTON PROPERTIES, INC. |2017 Proxy Statement 37
COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
statement for reconciliations and other information regarding Same Property Combined NOI (excluding termination income) for the fiscal years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively.)
Qualitative Assessment: The goal for 2016 was established based on models and budgets for executing our overall corporate strategy, including operating, leasing, investment and financing objectives. Management successfully executed our strategy in 2016 and delivered performance that exceeded the goal.
Overall Assessment: Goal exceeded.
Quantitative Assessment: Our goal for year-over-year growth in Same Property Combined NOI (excluding termination income) – Cash was a 2.5% increase. We exceeded this goal with an increase of 3.5%, which was below four of the five office REITs that we consider our direct competitors. (Refer to Appendix A to this proxy statement for reconciliations and other information regarding Same Property Combined NOI (excluding termination income) – Cash for the fiscal years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively.)
Qualitative Assessment: The goal for 2016 was established based on models and budgets for executing our overall corporate strategy, including operating, leasing, investment and financing objectives. Management successfully executed our strategy in 2016 and delivered performance that exceeded the goal.
Overall Assessment: Goal exceeded.
We remain focused on managing our debt maturities and our exposure to possible increases in interest rates. In January 2016, we completed a public offering of $1.0 billion in aggregate principal amount of 3.650% senior unsecured notes due 2026, with an effective yield (including financing fees) of approximately 3.766% per annum. In August 2016, we completed a public offering of $1.0 billion in aggregate principal amount of 2.750% senior unsecured notes due 2026, with an effective yield (including financing fees and the impact of the settlement of certain forward-starting interest rate swap contracts) of approximately 3.495% per annum. The 2.750% stated coupon on these bonds equaled the lowest10-year bond coupon ever issued by a public REIT. We used the net proceeds from this offering and available cash to repay mortgage loans secured by (1) 599 Lexington Avenue in New York City totaling $750.0 million, which bore interest at a fixed rate of 5.57% per annum (5.41% per annum including the impact of financing costs and interest rate hedges) and was scheduled to mature on March 1, 2017, and (2) Embarcadero Center Four in San Francisco, California totaling approximately $344.8 million, which bore interest at a fixed rate of 6.10% per annum (7.02% per annum including the impact of financing costs and interest rate hedges) and was scheduled to mature on December 1, 2016.
In addition, we completed financings having aggregate total commitments of approximately $347.8 million for the following joint venture properties: 1265 Main Street in Waltham, Massachusetts, Annapolis Junction Buildings Six, Seven and Eight in Annapolis, Maryland, and the Dock 72 development project in Brooklyn, New York.
Overall Assessment: Goal met.
Quantitative Assessment: Our goal was $200 million in asset dispositions, depending on market conditions. During 2016, we completed three transactions, including the sale of a portion of our interest in Metropolitan Square in Washington, D.C., for an aggregate gross sales price of
38 BOSTON PROPERTIES, INC. |2017 Proxy Statement
COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
approximately $233 million. We recognized a total gain of approximately $133 million and realized an unleveraged IRR of 11.3% on the three investments. Our 2016 dispositions represented approximately 1.0% of gross asset value, a smaller percentage than four of the five office REITs that we consider our direct competitors.
Qualitative Assessment: Our moderate level of disposition activity reflected our strategy of only sellingnon-core assets or assets with lower growth profiles.
Overall Assessment: Goal met.
Our goal was to manage G&A expense (excluding transaction expenses) to approximately $105 million. Our actual 2016 G&A expense was approximately $105 million (a 9% increase from 2015), which represents approximately 4.1% of our total revenue for 2016. We managed G&A expense to a lower percentage of revenue than all five of the office REITs that we consider our direct competitors.
Overall Assessment: Goal met.
Each year, we develop a plan for capital expenditures that is intended to upgrade and refresh some of the older properties in our portfolio (particularly in connection with a major tenant transition), and help us maintain/increase occupancy and maintain/achieve premium rental rates, thereby leading to enhanced value for our investors over the long-term. Because the development of the plan requires the allocation of resources to different projects in light of our overall corporate strategy and liquidity, and in the case of certain projects may require the approval of a joint venture partner, planned capital expenditures for a given year may increase or decrease materially from the previous year. In 2016, we managed capital expenditures according to plan, completing capital projects for a total cost of approximately $108 million (excluding approximately $37 million that was part of development and tenant improvement budgets but reported under GAAP as capital expenditures), as compared to a budget of $117 million. The amount of 2016 capital expenditures represented a substantial increase (52.2%) over 2015. Both as a percentage of gross asset value (0.5%) and on a per square foot basis ($2.51), our capital expenditures program was larger than four of the five office REITs that we consider our direct competitors.
Overall Assessment: Goal met.
Quantitative Assessment: One of our goals was to increase revenue fromnon-office assets (including 100% of unconsolidated joint ventures) by expanding our parking, residential and retail offerings to approximately $268 million in 2016. For purposes of this goal, revenue does not include recoveries from tenants. Our 2016non-office revenue was approximately $265 million, consisting of approximately $102 million in parking revenue, approximately $14 million in residential revenue and approximately $149 million in retail revenue.
Qualitative Assessment: Retail revenue decreased by approximately $5 million in 2016 compared to 2015 primarily due to the termination of retail leases to allow for the retail redevelopment at 601 Lexington Avenue and the temporary store for Apple Inc. at 767 Fifth Avenue in New York City. These decisions are consistent with our long-term plan, despite their short-term impact. Overall, we believe we are well positioned to grownon-office revenue in the upcoming years as a result of these decisions and management’s focus on retail and residential opportunities. For example, we signed a lease extension with Apple Inc. that includes additional space, and we signed a lease with Under Armour, Inc., in both cases for retail space at 767 Fifth Avenue in New York City. We expect
BOSTON PROPERTIES, INC. |2017 Proxy Statement 39
COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
these leases will substantially increase our retail revenue in future years. In addition, in October 2016 we secured an option to ground lease, with the future right to purchase, property adjacent to the MacArthur BART station in Oakland, California, that could support the development of a400-unit residential building and supporting retail space. Finally, in November 2016, we entered into a joint venture with our partner at our North Station development to acquire the air rights for the future development of a40-story, residential tower consisting of approximately 440 apartment units and approximately 320,000 rentable square feet.
Overall Assessment: Goal met.
During 2016, management continued to enhance our investor communications strategy, including conducting sevennon-deal road-shows, focusing onnon-REIT dedicated and underweight investors, providing additional metrics as part of quarterly disclosures and completing the rollout of our new corporate brand. Our investor relations program was ranked #1 among REITs bybuy-side analysts and overall in an annual survey conducted byInstitutional Investor.
Overall Assessment: Goal exceeded.
MAJORITY OF COMPENSATION AWARDS ARE IN TSR PERFORMANCE-BASED EQUITY AWARDS; THREE-YEAR TSR DRIVES ACTUAL EARNED PAY
Our TSR drives a significant portion of what our NEOs actually earn over time, while, as discussed above, management’s performance against strategic, operational, capital and management goals drives the Compensation Committee’s annual compensation awards. To align executive compensation with the Company’s TSR performance, the Compensation Committee relies on LTI awards under a rigorous performance-based program (our Multi-Year Long-Term Incentive Program, or “MYLTIP”). MYLTIP awards incorporate a formulaic link to our relative TSR over three-year overlapping measurement periods. Because we are the largest dedicated office REIT, our performance is most closely correlated with both the larger U.S. REITs and office-focused companies. Therefore, the MYLTIP design is built on a comparison of our TSR against (1) the C&S Realty Index, which reflects many of the largest andbest-in-class REITs, as well as (2) the NAREIT Office Index (which includes Boston Properties and is adjusted to include Vornado Realty Trust because it is one of the five office REITs that we consider our direct competitors despite being categorized as a diversified REIT by FTSE), which contains all other listed office REITs.One-half of the awards earned on the basis of performance, if any, vest at the end of the performance measurement period. The balance is subject to one additional year of time-based vesting.
For 2016, our TSR underperformed both the NAREIT Office Index (0.71% versus 13.17%) and three of the five office REITs that we consider our direct competitors. We underperformed the C&S Realty Index (0.71% versus 4.93%). This negatively impacted our multi-year TSR performance relative to those indices and thus the actual amount earned by our NEOs with respect to 2014 MYLTIP awards (the value of which was determined by our relative TSR over the period from February 4, 2014 through February 3, 2017) was only 28% of target, or an aggregate of approximately $2.7 million compared to the aggregate target value of the awards of approximately $9.8 million.
40 BOSTON PROPERTIES, INC. |2017 Proxy Statement
COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
Although they are not among the metrics driving MYLTIP awards, the Compensation Committee also receives information regarding the MSCI U.S. REIT Index (commonly referred to as the “RMS Index”), because it is a broad index for the domestic REIT sector, and the S&P 500 Index, because we are included in that index and it is a benchmark for many institutional investors. Our 2016 TSR was less than the TSR of both the RMS Index and the TSR of the S&P 500 Index, which impacted negatively both our three- and five-year TSR performance.
| | 2020 Proxy Statement |
6› | COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS | |
II. SAY-ON-PAY RESULTS & INVESTOR OUTREACH |
Committee (Sen. Kelly A. Ayotte) and the Chair of the NCG Committee (Matthew J. Lustig) met in person with ten (10) of our largest institutional investors representing ownership of more than 40% of the outstanding shares of BXP common stock.
Mr. Duncan attended nine of the ten meetings
Messrs. Duncan and Klein also participated in a teleconference with representatives of ISS to better understand the methodology and key policies underlying its negative voting recommendation, and to discuss potential changes to the overall program
Neither our CEO, nor any other NEO, participated in any of these meetings with investors or ISS
Although our Board sought specific feedback on the topics identified as issues of concern in ISS’ 2019 proxy report on the Company, we did not limit the agenda, and the meetings generally allowed for free-flowing discussions. In addition to executive compensation, these discussions included topics such as:
our strategy and growth drivers,
overall business trends,
Board composition, director tenure, director succession and recruitment, and the process used to conduct Board and committee self-evaluations,
diversity and human capital strategy,
ESG and sustainability, and
corporate governance policies, generally.
All of the feedback received was shared with the full Board of Directors.
Feedback from Stockholders
The general feedback our Board received included support for our strategy, confidence in the strength of our management team and Board, and our demonstrated leadership among REITs in ESG and sustainability. Investors also openly shared their policies and perspectives with respect to our compensation program. Overall, they conveyed that our CEO’s pay and performance were reasonably aligned in 2018 and that our benchmarking peer group included appropriate and high-quality REITs. While acknowledging the limitations inherent in using relative TSR as the performance metric for our MYLTIP program (which is the performance-based component of LTI equity awards) and being open to the use of one or more operational metrics, investors generally support the MYLTIP program as currently designed.
| 2020 Proxy Statement |
|
6› | COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS | |
II. SAY-ON-PAY RESULTS & INVESTOR OUTREACH |
While the general consensus was positive, our investors also offered some specific suggestions to improve our program. The Committee evaluated the feedback received and responded as summarized below.
WHAT WE HEARD | HOW WE RESPONDED | |||
Desire for more objectivity and structure in annual incentive program. Our investors did not insist that we have a formulaic bonus plan that eliminates the application of any discretion by the Committee, but they expressed a preference for more objectivity, including specific weightings ascribed to each measure and transparent disclosure of goals and results. High number of goals used in assessing performance. Due to the high number of performance goals used in assessing performance, investors expressed a desire to better understand which goals were most important and how much the Committee factored them into the compensation decisions. | Adopted new annual incentive plan. The Committee established a new annual incentive plan, effective in 2020, under which our NEOs’ bonuses will be directly linked to performance against goals in three, independent categories. Consistent with feedback from investors, the categories include: • FFO per Share • Leasing • Business/Individual goals For all NEOs except our CFO, each category is equally weighted. See “—VII. New 2020 Annual Incentive Plan.” | |||
Our investors prefer that each NEO have a defined range of bonus opportunities, with a specific target and maximum. |
Under the new 2020 Annual Incentive Plan, all NEOs have target and maximum annual cash bonus opportunities, and the performance categories are weighted. See “—VII. New 2020 Annual Incentive Plan.” | |||
Weighting of performance-based awards in annual equity grant mix. Our investors generally accept a50%-50% allocation between performance-based and time-based equity. However, some expressed a preference for a greater allocation to performance-based equity in certain circumstances. | Increased CEO’s performance-based equity allocation to 55%. Considering the overall feedback received from investors, the Committee increased the allocation to performance-based equity from 50% to 55% for equity awards granted to our CEO in 2020 (for 2019 performance). In addition, by reallocating a portion of total compensation from cash compensation to equity, the Committee increased the amount of performance-based LTI as a percentage of total compensation for all NEOs. |
BOSTON PROPERTIES, INC. |2017 Proxy Statement 41
48 | | 2020 Proxy Statement |
COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
6› | COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS | |
III. 2019 COMPENSATION DECISIONS |
The Compensation Committee believes that MYLTIP awards appropriately align our management’s focus on achieving the Company’s strategy with the relative TSR expectations of our stockholders. Experience with past MYLTIP awards demonstrates that the performance-based compensation our NEOs actually earn validates our strongpay-for-performance philosophy. As of February 3, 2017, the performance measurement period for 2014 MYLTIP awards ended and the performance measurement periods for 2015 and 2016 MYLTIP awards were almosttwo-thirds andone-third complete, respectively. The following charts reflect the (1) actual value earned by NEOs as a group for their 2014 MYLTIP awards and (2) estimated values for NEOs as a group for their 2015 and 2016 MYLTIP awards as of December 31, 2016, based on tracking valuations performed by a valuation expert (which could change up or down over the balance of the respective measurement periods).
42 BOSTON PROPERTIES, INC. |2017 Proxy Statement
III. 2019 COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
For 2017 MYLTIP awards, the Compensation Committee established levels of payout opportunity along a range from zero to 200% of target value, on a straight-line basis, depending on relative TSR performance compared to each of the C&S Realty Index and NAREIT Office Index (as adjusted) as follows:
This compares to anon-linear range from 50% to 250% of target value for 2016 MYLTIP awards as follows: “threshold” at 50% of target value for performance at 400 basis points below the relevant index, “target” for performance at 50 basis points above the relevant index, and “high” at 250% of target value for performance at 725 basis points above the relevant index. The Compensation Committee believes that the simplified and rebalanced design for 2017 MYLTIP awards provides management with quantifiable incentives, spanning a wider, symmetrical range of relative TSR performance that are better correlated with our actual performance and are intended to keep our management motivated over the entire three-year measurement period. The change in range of payout opportunities between 2016 MYLTIP awards and 2017 MYLTIP awards resulted in a greater amount of potential pay being eliminated at the high end above target than was added at the low end below target.
As was the case for 2016 MYLTIP awards, 2017 MYLTIP awards include modifiers that potentially penalize management for low absolute TSR and reward management for high absolute TSR over the entire measurement period. If our annualized TSR is less than 0%, earned awards will be reduced by 20% from what they would be based on relative TSR alone. If our annualized TSR is more than 12%, then awards will be earned at the “threshold” (50% of target value) level even if, based on relative TSR alone, awards would be earned at a lower level.DECISIONS
Based on the Committee’s assessment of 2019 performance, investor feedback and the advice from FPL,of FW Cook, the Compensation Committee believes that the 2017 MYLTIP design is competitive as compared with current market practice in the REIT industry for similar plans and provides an appropriate risk-rewardtrade-off.
ALIGNMENT OF PAY WITH PERFORMANCE
The Compensation Committee directed FPL to, among other things: (1) benchmark our 2015 executive compensation against our benchmarking peer group and assist in developing compensation objectives, (2) analyze trends in compensation in the marketplace generally and among our benchmarking peers specifically, and (3) recommend the components and amounts of compensation for our top executive officers. We look to a group of sixteen publicly traded real estate companies for benchmarking executive compensation (see “– Benchmarking Peer Group and Compensation Advisor’s Role” beginning on page 48). We use the median (50th percentile) of this benchmarking peer group as the beginning reference point and as the indicator of competitive market trends. FPL’s benchmarking review was
BOSTON PROPERTIES, INC. |2017 Proxy Statement 43
COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
based, in part, on information disclosed in the peer companies’ 2016 proxy statements, which disclose compensation for 2015 (the latest year for which comprehensive data was publicly available). FPL also reviewed the 2016 NAREIT Compensation Survey (which FPL conducts) and additional proprietary real estate compensation surveys conducted throughout the year by FPL for additional context. Based on this information, FPL advised the Compensation Committee thatawarded total compensation for our NEOs, as a group, for 2015 ranked at approximately the 55th – 60th percentile.
The Compensation Committee then assesses corporate and individual performance. The Compensation Committee concluded that the management team performed very well against its 2016 strategic, operational, capital and management goals as discussed under “ – Assessing Performance.”Based on the goal assessments, FPL’s benchmarking analysis and projections for compensation increases/decreases among our peers and the market generally, and other input receivedwas unchanged from FPL, the Compensation Committee decided that 2016 total compensation for the NEOs, as a group, should be set at a level that reflects an increase of approximately 3% over 2015 total compensation.
For each NEO, the Compensation Committee approves the appropriate level and mix of pay based on his role, responsibilities and performance. For 2016, the Compensation Committee took note of Mr. Thomas’ being recognized in 2016 as the #3 CEO in the REIT sector by sell-side analysts in an annual survey conducted byInstitutional Investor, and continued to bring his total compensation closer to, although still below, the median for CEOs within our benchmarking peer group. The Compensation Committee also recognized Mr. LaBelle’s continued effectiveness in managing our balance sheet and his being recognized in 2016 for the second year in a row as the #1 CFO in the REIT sector bybuy-side analysts, sell-side analysts and overall, in an annual survey conducted byInstitutional Investor, and continued to bring his total compensation closer to the median for CFOs within our benchmarking peer group.
44 BOSTON PROPERTIES, INC. |2017 Proxy Statement
COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
The Compensation Committee believes that our executive compensation is well-aligned with our stockholders’ interests and in line with our benchmarking peer group. Variable pay, consisting of LTI equity awards and annual cash bonus, constitutes the vast majority of our executive compensation (for our CEO, variable pay constitutes 91.5% of total compensation for 2016 performance). This allows the Compensation Committee to reward good performance and penalize poor performance. To build even strongerpay-for-performance alignment with our stockholders, LTI equity awards are predominantly“at-risk,” performance-based MYLTIP awards, the ultimate value of which depends mostly on the Company’s future relative TSR. The following charts present the allocation of total pay among different components2018 for our CEO and the weighted average of each componentessentially flat for our otherall NEOs as a group:
group. In addition, the Committee (1) reallocated a portion of total compensation from cash compensation to LTI equity compensation and (2) increased the amount of performance-based LTI equity compensation as a percentage of total compensation. When determining specific individual compensation amounts, the Committee considered the following factors:
performance againstpre-established operational, capital and |
individual contributions to overall results and development opportunities,
BOSTON PROPERTIES, INC. |2017 Proxy Statement 45results of a compensation benchmarking analysis among peers with respect to 2018 compensation, and
COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
anticipated market compensation increases and trends.
The following table presents the total direct compensation of our NEOs, inclusive of salary, bonus and LTI equity awards, but not other items required byfor 2019 compared to 2018. LTI equity includes MYLTIP awards whose ultimate value will be determined over a three-year period from the grant date based on our relative TSR. To link annual awards of long-term equity incentive compensation to annual performance, the Committee typically makes equity awards for a particular year in late January or early February of the following year. SEC rules tofor equity awards (unlike for cash bonuses) require that they be reportedpresented as compensation for the year in which the awards were actually granted, and therefore equity awards shown in the Summary Compensation Table presented under “Compensation of Executive Officers.” We believe that this table most accurately reflects the awards made by the Compensation Committee with respect to executive compensation for 2016 compared to 2015, including MYLTIP awards whose value will be determined over a forward three-year period based on our relative TSR. To link annual awards of long-term equity incentive compensation to annual performance, the Compensation Committee, consistent with the majority of other companies whose fiscal year ends on December 31, typically makes equity awards for a particular year in late January or early February of the following year. SEC rules for equity awards (unlike for cash bonuses) require that they be presented as compensation for the year in which they were actually granted, and therefore equity awards shown in the Summary Compensation Table presented under“Compensation of Executive Officers” on page 5668 lag aone year (i.e., awards made in January 20172020 to reward performance in 20162019 are not reflected in this year’s Summary Compensation Table).
Salary(1) | Cash Bonus | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Salary1 | Cash Bonus | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Executive | 2016 | 2015 | % Change | 2016 | 2015 | % Change | 2019 | 2018 | % Change | 2019 | 2018 | % Change | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Owen D. Thomas | $ | 875,000 | $ | 775,000 | 12.9% | $ | 2,558,333 | $ | 2,558,333 | 0.0% | $ | 900,000 | $ | 875,000 | 2.9% | $ | 2,550,000 | $ | 2,875,000 | (11.3)% | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Douglas T. Linde | $ | 725,000 | $ | 715,000 | 1.4% | $ | 1,847,500 | $ | 1,805,000 | 2.4% | $ | 750,000 | $ | 725,000 | 3.4% | $ | 2,095,000 | $ | 2,180,000 | (3.9)% | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Raymond A. Ritchey | $ | 720,000 | $ | 710,000 | 1.4% | $ | 1,555,000 | $ | 1,495,000 | 4.0% | $ | 740,000 | $ | 720,000 | 2.8% | $ | 1,820,000 | $ | 2,080,000 | (12.5)% | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Michael E. LaBelle | $ | 500,000 | $ | 490,000 | 2.0% | $ | 900,000 | $ | 830,000 | 8.4% | $ | 510,000 | $ | 500,000 | 2.0% | $ | 1,295,000 | $ | 1,450,000 | (10.7)% | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bryan J. Koop | $ | 400,000 | $ | 390,000 | 2.6% | $ | 835,000 | $ | 821,250 | 1.7% | $ | 410,000 | $ | 400,000 | 2.5% | $ | 1,370,000 | $ | 1,550,000 | (11.6)% | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total | $ | 3,310,000 | $ | 3,220,000 | 2.8% | $ | 9,130,000 | $ | 10,135,000 | (9.9)% | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total | $ | 3,220,000 | $ | 3,080,000 | 4.5% | $ | 7,695,833 | $ | 7,509,583 | 2.5% | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LTI Equity Awards | Total Compensation | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LTI Equity Awards | Total Compensation | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Executive | 2016 | 2015 | % Change | 2016 | 2015 | % Change | 2019 | 2018 | % Change | 2019 | 2018 | % Change | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Owen D. Thomas | $ | 6,866,667 | $ | 6,666,667 | 3.0% | $ | 10,300,000 | $ | 10,000,000 | 3.0% | $ | 9,050,000 | $ | 8,750,000 | 3.4% | $ | 12,500,000 | $ | 12,500,000 | 0% | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Douglas T. Linde | $ | 4,777,500 | $ | 4,680,000 | 2.1% | $ | 7,350,000 | $ | 7,200,000 | 2.1% | $ | 5,655,000 | $ | 5,395,000 | 4.8% | $ | 8,500,000 | $ | 8,300,000 | 2.4% | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Raymond A. Ritchey | $ | 4,225,000 | $ | 4,095,000 | 3.2% | $ | 6,500,000 | $ | 6,300,000 | 3.2% | $ | 4,240,000 | $ | 4,200,000 | 1.0% | $ | 6,800,000 | $ | 7,000,000 | (2.9)% | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Michael E. LaBelle | $ | 2,100,000 | $ | 1,980,000 | 6.1% | $ | 3,500,000 | $ | 3,300,000 | 6.1% | $ | 1,945,000 | $ | 1,950,000 | (0.3)% | $ | 3,750,000 | $ | 3,900,000 | (3.8)% | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bryan J. Koop | $ | 1,365,000 | $ | 1,338,750 | 2.0% | $ | 2,600,000 | $ | 2,550,000 | 2.0% | $ | 1,370,000 | $ | 1,300,000 | 5.4% | $ | 3,150,000 | $ | 3,250,000 | (3.1)% | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total | $ | 19,334,167 | $ | 18,760,417 | 3.1% | $ | 30,250,000 | $ | 29,350,000 | 3.1% | $ | 22,260,000 | $ | 21,595,000 | 3.1% | $ | 34,700,000 | $ | 34,950,000 | (0.7)% |
(1) | For 2020 compensation, the Committee |
46 BOSTON PROPERTIES, INC. |2017 Proxy Statement
| 2020 Proxy Statement | 49 |
6› | COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS | |
III. 2019 COMPENSATION DECISIONS |
COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS›2019 PAY MIX
For each NEO, the Committee approved the appropriate level and mix of pay based on his role, responsibilities and performance. The Committee believes that our executive compensation is well-aligned with our stockholders’ interests and in line with the Benchmarking Peer Group (see “VI. Determining Executive Compensation – Benchmarking Peer Group & Compensation Advisor’s Role”). Variable pay, consisting of annual cash bonuses and LTI equity awards, constitutes the vast majority of our executive compensation. For our CEO and NEOs as a group, variable pay for 2019 was 93% and 90%, respectively. This emphasis on variable pay allows the Committee to reward good performance and penalize poor performance.
The following present the allocations of total pay for 2019 among each component of compensation for (1) our CEO and (2) all NEOs as a group:
2019 Pay Mix |
›ALLOCATION OF LTI EQUITY AWARDS
The Compensation Committee approved LTI equity awards to NEOs for 20162019 performance as a dollar amount that was then converted into a mix of performance-based MYLTIP awards and time-based, full-value equity awards. The MYLTIP awards were denominated in a fixed number of LTIP units as of February 4, 2020, the date of initial grant. After evaluating the feedback received from investors, the Committee increased the amount of performance-based equity as a percentage of total LTI equity for our CEO so that his allocation was 55% performance-based and 45% time-based. For the other NEOs, the Committee maintained the allocation at 50% performance-based and 50% time-based, which is generally accepted by our investors. In total for 2019, performance-based equity awards for all NEOs represent a greater percentage of total direct compensation than they did for 2018, and the total amount of LTI equity as a percentage of total compensation for all NEOs as a group also increased to 64%.
50 | | 2020 Proxy Statement |
6› | COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS | |
III. 2019 COMPENSATION DECISIONS |
The following table sets forth the total combined valuedollar values of the performance-based and time-based equity awards granted to NEOs:NEOs in 2020 for performance in 2019:
Total LTI Equity Awards Grant Date Value | Performance-Based LTI Equity Awards as a Percentage of Total1 | Time-Based LTI Equity Awards as a Percentage of Total1 | ||||||||||||||||||
Executive | 2016 | 2015 | % Change | 2016 | 2016 | |||||||||||||||
Owen D. Thomas | $ | 6,866,667 | $ | 6,666,667 | 3.0% | 75.0% | 25.0% | |||||||||||||
Douglas T. Linde | $ | 4,777,500 | $ | 4,680,000 | 2.1% | 75.0% | 25.0% | |||||||||||||
Raymond A. Ritchey | $ | 4,225,000 | $ | 4,095,000 | 3.2% | 65.0% | 35.0% | |||||||||||||
Michael E. LaBelle | $ | 2,100,000 | $ | 1,980,000 | 6.1% | 60.0% | 40.0% | |||||||||||||
Bryan J. Koop | $ | 1,365,000 | $ | 1,338,750 | 2.0% | 50.0% | 50.0% | |||||||||||||
|
|
|
| |||||||||||||||||
Total | $ | 19,334,167 | $ | 18,760,417 | 3.1% |
Executive | Total LTI Equity Awards | Total LTI Equity Awards as % of Total Compensation | Performance- Equity Awards | % of Total Equity Awards | Time-Based LTI Equity Awards | % of Total Equity Awards | ||||||||||||||||||
Owen D. Thomas | $ 9,050,000 | 72% | $ 4,977,500 | 55% | $ 4,072,500 | 45% | ||||||||||||||||||
Douglas T. Linde | $ 5,655,000 | 67% | $ 2,827,500 | 50% | $ 2,827,500 | 50% | ||||||||||||||||||
Raymond A. Ritchey | $ 4,240,000 | 62% | $ 2,120,000 | 50% | $ 2,120,000 | 50% | ||||||||||||||||||
Michael E. LaBelle | $ 1,945,000 | 52% | $ 972,500 | 50% | $ 972,500 | 50% | ||||||||||||||||||
Bryan J. Koop | $ 1,370,000 | 43% | $ 685,000 | 50% | $ 685,000 | 50% | ||||||||||||||||||
Total | $22,260,000 | 64% | $11,582,500 | $10,677,500 |
The performance-based portion of LTI equity awards for 20162019 performance was made through 2017granted in the form of 2020 MYLTIP awards, withwhich have a three-year performance period (February 7, 20174, 2020 to February 6, 2020)3, 2023), and an additional year of time-based vesting,vesting. The dollar values of the awards were converted into a totalfixed number of MYLTIP units on the initial grant date, and the number of units initially granted equals 200% of the target valuenumber of units, and it is the maximum number of units that may be earned. Following completion of the three-year performance period, the Committee will determine the final payout based on computations from our appraisal expert for this plan, AON plc, and if the number of units initially awarded exceeds the number of units ultimately earned, then the excess will be forfeited. Therefore, while the award of 2020 MYLTIP units is in recognition for performance in 2019, award recipients must continue to perform over the three-year term of the 2020 MYLTIP program in order to earn and vest in any of the MYLTIP units and must generally remain employed for the four years to earn the full amount. The aggregate target number of units for NEOs ofis approximately $16.2 million85,663 LTIP units and an aggregate payout opportunity ranging from zero to a maximum of $32.3 million.171,326 LTIP units. The baseline share price for 20172020 MYLTIP awards was $130.484$143.52 (the average closing price per share of our common stock on the NYSE for the five trading days prior to and including February 7, 2017)4, 2020).
The following table sets forth the 20172020 MYLTIP awards to NEOs:
Executive | Percentage of 2017 MYLTIP | Grant Date Value | Target Value | |||||||||
Owen D. Thomas | 29.064% | $ | 5,150,000 | $ | 6,204,819 | |||||||
Douglas T. Linde | 20.222% | $ | 3,583,125 | $ | 4,317,018 | |||||||
Raymond A. Ritchey | 15.499% | $ | 2,746,250 | $ | 3,308,735 | |||||||
Michael E. LaBelle | 7.111% | $ | 1,260,500 | $ | 1,518,072 | |||||||
Bryan J. Koop | 3.852% | $ | 682,500 | $ | 822,289 | |||||||
|
|
|
|
|
| |||||||
Total | 75.748% | $ | 13,422,375 | $ | 16,170,933 |
are generally amortized into earnings over the four-year plan period under the graded vesting method, unless accelerated in certain circumstances such as a “Qualified Retirement” as defined under “– Potential Payments Upon Termination or Change in Control – Retirement Eligibility Provisions for LTI Equity Awards.” Under the Financial Accounting Standards Board’s Accounting Standards Codification 718 “Compensation – Stock Compensation” (“ASC Topic 718”), we expect that 20172020 MYLTIP awards to NEOs will have an aggregate value of approximately $13.4 million, which amount will generally be amortized into earnings over the four-year plan period under the graded vesting method. 2017 MYLTIP awards are made in the form of LTIP units that are subject to forfeiture to the extent they are not earned or do not become vested. The number of LTIP units issued was an estimate of the maximum number of LTIP units that NEOs could earn, based on certain assumptions. The number of LTIP units actually earned will be determined at the end of the performance period by dividing each NEO’s share of the total pool, if any, by the average per share closing price of our common stock on the NYSE for the fifteen trading days immediately preceding the measurement date. If fewer LTIP units than the number issued initially are earned, the balance will be forfeited. Prior to the measurement date, LTIP units issued on account of 2017 MYLTIP awards will be entitled to receive per unit distributions equal to 10% of the
BOSTON PROPERTIES, INC. |2017 Proxy Statement 47
COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
regular quarterly distributions payable on a common unit, but will not be entitled to receive any special distributions, as opposed to distributions per unit equal to those, both regular and special, payable on a common unit after the measurement date.$11.6 million.
The time-based portion of LTI equity awards granted for 2016 performance to the NEOs other than Mr. Ritcheyfor 2019 performance consisted of LTIP units or restricted shares of our common stock that generally vest ratably over a four-year period (25% per year). In the case of Mr. Ritchey, the time-based portion of his 2016, subject to acceleration in certain circumstances including attaining retirement eligibility. See “– Potential Payments Upon Termination or Change in Control – Retirement Eligibility Provisions for LTI equity award was fully vested upon issuance because he had attained the retirement age of 65.Equity Awards.” Pursuant to our Equity Award Grant Policy discussed below, time-based full-valueLTI equity awards were issued as of the close of business on February 8, 2016January 31, 2020 based on the closing price per share of our common stock on the NYSE on that date of $143.35.
| 2020 Proxy Statement | 51 |
6› | COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS | |
IV. COMPONENTS OF EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION |
IV. COMPONENTS OF EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION
›OUR EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION PROGRAM
COMPONENT | WHY WE PAY IT | |
Base Salary | Provide a fixed, competitive level of cash compensation that reflects the NEO’s leadership role and the relative market rate for the executive’s experience and responsibilities | |
Annual Cash Incentive | Reward NEOs for achievement of annual financial and strategic goals that drive stockholder value, thereby aligning our NEOs’ interests with those of our stockholders A significant portion of the annual compensation for each NEO should be “at risk” and contingent upon the performance of the Company and the NEO versus their goals • Starting in 2020, annual cash bonuses for each NEO are linked to performance against goals in three weighted categories and each NEO has target and maximum bonus opportunities.(See “VII. New 2020 Annual Incentive Plan”) | |
Performance-Based Equity (MYLTIP) | Align the interests of our NEOs with those of our stockholders Motivate, retain and reward NEOs to achieve multi-year strategic business objectives that drive relative TSRout-performance • Create a direct link between executive pay and long-term relative TSR performance | |
Time-Based Equity | Align the interests of our NEOs with those of our stockholders Motivate, retain and reward NEOs to achieve multi-year strategic business objectives that drive absolute TSRout-performance • Enhance executive officer retention with time-based, multi-year vesting schedules for equity incentive awards |
›CASH COMPENSATION
Base Salary
The base salary for each NEO is determined by the Committee and is intended to provide a fixed level of compensation that reflects the NEO’s leadership role and the relative market rate for similarly-situated executives in the NEO’s position. The Committee determines whether to adjust base salaries based on a range of factors, including benchmark versus peers and changes in individual duties and responsibilities. Any increases to base salaries are generally determined in January of the compensation year and become effective in February of the compensation year.
The 2019 base salaries represented an increase of 2.8% over 2018 for all NEOs as a group. For the 2020 compensation year, the Committee did not increase base salaries for the NEOs.
Annual Incentive Program
The annual incentive program is designed to provide NEOs with the opportunity to earn cash bonuses based on the achievement ofpre-established corporate and individual goals. For 2019 and prior years, rather than rely on a strict formulaic framework, the Committee combined a quantitative and a qualitative assessment against the goals to:
• | evaluate management’s performance annually while taking into account our focus on value creation over the long-term and the difficulty of making precise comparisons to peers with different investment objectives and different strategies (see “—V. Assessing Performance – Focus on Long-Term Value Creation”); |
52 | | 2020 Proxy Statement |
6› | COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS | |
IV. COMPONENTS OF EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION |
strike the appropriate balance between short-term objectives and long-term strategies; and
properly emphasize quantitative results while also considering qualitative factors when assessing management’s performance.
For 2020, the Committee established a new annual cash incentive plan under which annual cash bonuses payable to our executive officers will have a direct link to the achievement of specific,pre-established goals. (See“—VII. New 2020 Annual Incentive Plan”)
›LTI EQUITY COMPENSATION
The Committee’s assessment of management’s performance against operational, capital and management goals is a material factor in determining the annual compensation awards. What our NEOs actually earn is driven to a significant extent by our TSR through LTI equity awards consisting of a mix of time-based and performance-based LTIP unit awards.
Time-Based Equity Awards
Time-based LTI equity awards generally vest ratably over a four-year period (25% per year), subject to acceleration in certain circumstances (e.g., death, disability or retirement), and are intended to align the interests of management with those of stockholders because the ultimate value of the award is directly tied to the value of our stock over the vesting period.
Performance-Based Equity Awards – Multi-Year Long-Term Incentive Program (MYLTIP)
The performance-based portion of LTI equity awards are granted under our Multi-Year Long-Term Incentive Program, or “MYLTIP.” The value of these awards is linked by formula to our relative TSR over three-year, overlapping measurement periods.
Consistent with the 2019 MYLTIP, under the 2020 MYLTIP:
the Company’s relative TSR performance is measured against a single index – the FTSE Russell Nareit Office Index (the “Nareit Office Index”) (which is adjusted to include Vornado Realty Trust because it is one of the six publicly-traded office REITs that we consider our most directly comparable peers (the “Office Peers”) despite being categorized as a diversified REIT by FTSE Nareit);
the awards are denominated in LTIP units; and
relative TSR is the sole determinant of how many LTIP units are earned and eligible to vest; there are no upside or downside absolute TSR modifiers.
For 2020 MYLTIP awards, the number of LTIP units that can be earned, whether in whole, in part or not at all, is based on levels of payout opportunity ranging from zero to 200% of the target number of LTIP units issued, on a straight-line basis depending on relative TSR performance compared to the Nareit Office Index (as adjusted) as follows:
| 2020 Proxy Statement | 53 |
6› | COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS | |
IV. COMPONENTS OF EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION |
Reported Pay vs. Realized Pay
The Committee recognizes that a perfect correlation does not exist between the successful execution of our long-term strategy, as demonstrated over time through the achievement of goals set for management, and our TSR, particularly on a relative basis. This is particularly true when TSR is compared over a limited period of time.
The following graph shows for our CEO (1) the reported value of the MYLTIP awards as of the respective grant dates, (2) the actual realized pay for the 2015-2017 MYLTIP awards for which the measurement periods have ended and (3) the interim valuations as of December 31, 2019 for the 2018 and 2019 MYLTIP awards:
(1) | Interim Valuation amounts and Payout as % of Reported Pay percentages shown for the 2018 and 2019 MYLTIP are estimates as of December 31, 2019 based on interim valuations performed by our valuation expert (which could change materially up or down over the remainder of the respective measurement periods). All percentages are rounded. |
54 | | 2020 Proxy Statement |
6› | COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS | |
V. ASSESSING PERFORMANCE |
› COMPANY STRATEGY
The key tenets of our business strategy are to:
maintain a keen focus on select markets that exhibit the strongest economic growth and investment characteristics over time — currently Boston, Los Angeles, New York, San Francisco and Washington, DC;
invest in the highest quality buildings (primarily office) with unique amenities and desirable locations that are able to maintain high occupancy rates and achieve premium rental rates through economic cycles;
maintain scale and a full-service real estate capability (leasing, development, construction and property management) in our markets to ensure we (1) see all relevant investment deal flow, (2) maintain an ability to execute on all types of real estate opportunities, such as acquisitions, dispositions, repositioning and development, throughout the real estate investment cycle, (3) provide superior service to our tenants and (4) develop and manage our assets in the most sustainable manner possible;
be astute in market timing for investment decisions by acquiring properties in times of opportunity, developing new properties in times of growth and selling assets at attractive prices, resulting in continuous portfolio refreshment;
ensure a strong balance sheet to maintain consistent access to capital and the resultant ability to make new investments at opportune points in time; and
foster a culture and reputation of integrity, excellence and purposefulness, making us the employer of choice for talented real estate professionals, the landlord and developer of choice for our customers and the counterparty of choice for real estate industry participants.
› FOCUS ON LONG-TERM VALUE CREATION
We are a fully integrated real estate company, organized as a real estate investment trust (“REIT”), that develops, manages, operates, acquires and owns a diverse portfolio of primarily Class A office space. We are well-known for our development expertise,in-house building management and responsiveness to tenants’ needs, and we hold a superior track record of developing and operating premium Central Business District office buildings, successfulmixed-use complexes andbuild-to-suit projects for a diverse array of creditworthy tenants. The real estate business is long-term in nature, and our success requires that we make business decisions with a focus on our long-term objectives. As a result, our Committee strives to make compensation decisions that provide management with appropriate incentives to execute our strategy and promote the best interests of the Company and its stockholders over the long term.
Execution of our strategy spans multiple markets with different economic drivers over long periods. Development projects, which are particularly important to our strategy, take time to identify, acquire, permit, construct, lease and stabilize. This strategy of creating value for investors is multifaceted and differs from that of many of our competitors in the office REIT segment, which makes direct comparisons difficult and underlies our less formulaic approach to assessing performance, as contrasted with a purely quantitative “actual versus target” framework.
In addition to maintaining a full-service real estate platform and providing superior service to our tenants, our focus on long-term performance involves management of capital and liquidity, leverage ratios, interest-rate risk, capital commitments and debt maturities to reduce the impact of capital market volatility and provide us with the flexibility to take advantage of opportunities as they arise.
For all of these reasons, we look at performance not only for the latest year and on a year-over-year basis, but also with a view to appropriately compensate, incentivize and retain our executives.
› PERFORMANCE METRICS
We focus on key drivers of value creation such as growth in diluted FFO per share, leasing, development starts, deliveries and economics, and new investments. While the Committee is aware that different companies may calculate relevant performance
| 2020 Proxy Statement | 55 |
6› | COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS | |
V. ASSESSING PERFORMANCE |
metrics differently, particularlynon-GAAP financial measures, the Committee finds it useful to compare our performance to what the Office Peers disclose for similar measures, even though information is not always directly comparable among companies.
The Committee believes that internal and external data are important tools in the design and implementation of optimal compensation programs and that benchmarking against peers provides the Committee with a market check of its compensation awards. Different sections of this CD&A discuss in detail the data on which the Committee relied to make sure that different elements of compensation align with our performance. In addition, the Committee utilizes its collective experiences and judgment when establishing the appropriate types and amounts of compensation.
The Committee’s evaluation of our NEOs places strong emphasis on their contributions to overall Company performance because the Committee believes that the NEOs share responsibility for achieving the goals of the Company as a whole, and the goals are set with a view towards how they help achieve the overall long-term strategy set by the Board. We also value and seek to reward performance that develops talent at all levels of our organization, promotes our culture of excellence, enhances our reputation and extends our track record of profitability and growth.
› DIRECT OFFICE PEER COMPETITORS
In addition to assessing our performance against ourpre-established internal goals, the Committee also reviews our performance against metrics from other companies to assess our performance relative to our peers’ performance and to ensure the goals are sufficiently challenging. Given our scale, national focus and development skills, we do not have a directly comparable peer in the public market. We often compete with larger, privately-owned and, in some cases, global office development companies for which performance data is not publicly available. In the public market where operating data is available, we assess our specific performance relative to the following six Office Peers (with their approximate total capitalizations as of December 31, 2019 shown in parentheses), some of which we compete with in a single market and some of which do not have development capabilities or pursue significant development strategies.
Douglas Emmett, Inc. ($111.14)13.6 billion)
JBG Smith Properties ($7.6 billion)
Kilroy Realty Corporation ($12.9 billion)
Paramount Group, Inc. ($7.8 billion)
SL Green Realty Corp. ($14.2 billion)
Vornado Realty Trust ($22.9 billion)
Boston Properties’ total capitalization as of the same date was approximately $38.0 billion (see “VI. Determining Executive Compensation–Benchmarking Peer Group & Compensation Advisor’s Role”).
› 2019 CORPORATE GOALS
In early 2019, the Committee established for management a rigorous set of operational, capital and management goals that the Committee believed challenged management to perform for our investors, while not creating a strictly formulaic framework. The Committee believes that:
the focus should be on performance over a time span that is consistent with the different core elements of our long-term strategy for creating value;
excessive reliance on short-term goals could have negative implications for the execution of our strategy;
business conditions and unforeseen developments during the year that lead our Board and management to make decisions that impact actual performance against the goals as originally established must be taken into account; and
calculations that formulaically determine the amount of compensation paid based on performance versus goals, without the ability to exercise judgment to evaluate the quality of the results, may have unintended results.
During our outreach efforts, our investors told us that we use a relatively high number of performance goals when assessing performance, and they expressed a desire to better understand which goals were most important and how much the
56 | | 2020 Proxy Statement |
6› | COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS | |
V. ASSESSING PERFORMANCE |
Committee factored them into the compensation decisions. The Committee attributes greater relative importance to certain goals based on what the Committee deems most important in the execution of our strategy in that year and, for 2019, categorized all goals as “primary” or “secondary” goals. The table below lists the primary operational and capital goals for 2019 and the Committee’s overall assessment of management’s performance with respect to each denoting whether a goal was “exceeded,” “met” or “not met.” Although no specific formulaic weightings were attributed to the goals, the Committee’s assessment of performance against the primary goals was the most material factor in their determination of 2019 compensation.
› PRIMARY GOALS
2019 Primary Goals | Overall Assessment | |
Growth in Diluted FFO per Share | Exceeded | |
Leasing | Exceeded | |
Key Individual Leasing | Met | |
Development Deliveries & Economics | Met | |
Development Starts | Met | |
New Investments | Not Met |
Growth in Diluted FFO per Share | Overall Assessment: Exceeded |
Why it is important:FFO is anon-GAAP financial measure that, when combined with the presentation of required GAAP financial measures, has improved the understanding of operating results of REITs among the investing public and has helped make comparisons of REIT operating results more meaningful. Management generally considers FFO and FFO per share to be useful measures for understanding and comparing our operating results because, by excluding real estate-related depreciation and amortization (which can differ across owners of similar assets in similar condition based on historical cost accounting and useful life estimates), impairment losses on depreciable real estate and gains or losses associated with disposition activities, FFO and FFO per share can help investors compare the operating performance of a company’s real estate across reporting periods and to the operating performance of other companies. Our computation of FFO may not be comparable to FFO reported by other REITs or real estate companies that do not define the term in accordance with the current Nareit definition or that interpret the current Nareit definition differently.
Goal: | 2019 Performance: | Office Peer Comparison: | ||
$6.75 - $6.92 per diluted share, or7.1% - 9.8% growth (subject to adjustments for acquisitions, dispositions, financings and similar transactions approved by the Board) | $7.01 per diluted share*, representing year-over-year growth of 11.3%; excluding acquisitions, dispositions and financings, FFO per diluted share would have been $7.17 per share, or 13.8% year-over-year growth** | Greater year-over-year growth than five of the six Office Peers; excluding the impact of acquisitions, dispositions and financings, our growth would have exceeded all six Office Peers |
* | Refer to pages 95 through 97 of our Annual Report on Form10-K for year ended December 31, 2019 for information relating to and the reconciliations of FFO and diluted FFO per share to net income attributable to Boston Properties, Inc. common shareholders. |
** | 2019 diluted FFO per share of $7.01 included the unbudgeted loss on extinguishment of debt of $0.16 per share resulting from the early redemption in September 2019 of $700 million of 5.625% unsecured senior notes that were scheduled to mature in November 2020. Excluding this loss, our diluted FFO per share would have been $7.17, or growth of 13.8% over 2018. |
Leasing | Overall Assessment: Exceeded |
Why it is important: We generate revenue and cash primarily by leasing our operating and development properties. When making leasing decisions, we consider, among other things, the creditworthiness of the tenant, the term of the lease, the rental rate to be paid at inception and throughout the lease term, the costs of tenant improvements and other landlord concessions,
| 2020 Proxy Statement | 57 |
6› | COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS | |
V. ASSESSING PERFORMANCE |
current and anticipated operating expenses, real estate taxes, overall vacancy, anticipated rollover and expected future demand for the space, the impact of any expansion rights and general economic factors.
Goal:* | 2019 Performance:* | Office Peer Comparison: | ||
• 6.0 million square feet (MSF) of total leasing at ourin-service portfolio • 92.0%year-end occupancy for ourin-service portfolio | • 7.6 MSF of total leasing, or 16.9% of ourin-service portfolio • 93.0%year-end occupancy for ourin-service portfolio | • Greater leasing volume than all six Office Peers, and leased a greater percentage of ourin-service portfolio* than four of the six Office Peers • Greater occupancy percentage than one of the six Office Peers |
* | Excludes hotel and residential properties |
Key Individual Leasing | Overall Assessment: Met |
Why it is important: In addition to overall leasing volume, we established individual leasing goals for specific properties that are intended to motivate our executives to (1) anticipate and proactively manage rollover and lease terminations at ourin-service properties and (2) lease and stabilize our development properties. The specific leases and properties that comprise the goal are important components of our annual business plan.
Goal: | 2019 Performance: | |
2.9 MSF of leasing across sevenin-service properties and one development property | Completed 2.9 MSF of leasing across eight properties |
Development Deliveries & Economics | Overall Assessment: Met |
Why it is important:Development deliveries measure our ability to execute our development pipeline on time and within budget. In addition, the success of our development projects and realization of our plans for growth depend on the stabilized unleveraged cash yields we generate.
Goal: | 2019 Performance: | Office Peer Comparison: | ||
• Deliver three office development projects aggregating 1.1M SF at a total budgeted cost of approximately $667M. • Achieve approved economics (% leased at delivery oryear-end, as applicable, andcash-on-cash (“CoC”) return) for five office and residential development projects representing an aggregate weighted-average lease percentage of 91% and aggregate weighted-average CoC return of 7.3%. | • BXP delivered two of the three office projects representing an aggregate of approximately 865K SF with our share of total costs of approximately $488M, representing 2.3% of gross book value (“GBV”). • BXP achieved a weighted-average of 91% leased and weighted-average CoC return of 8.1% for four of the five projects. Although BXP delivered space to the tenant for the fifth project (i.e., 159 E 53rd Street), revenue recognition has been delayed due to accounting policies. | Deliveries represent a greater percentage of GBV than four of the six Office Peers |
Development Starts | Overall Assessment: Met |
Why it is important:Development starts are a useful indicator of future external growth, and they help us assess our ability to identify, underwrite and acquire new land parcels and air rights or redevelop existing properties, secure anchor tenants with significantpre-leasing commitments, obtain financing and/or joint venture partners, and commence construction of the building. Our investments in new developments and redevelopments are a product of the execution of our strategy to drive future growth, and the commencement of these projects substantiates our reputation and expertise in this area.
58 | | 2020 Proxy Statement |
6› | COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS | |
V. ASSESSING PERFORMANCE |
Goal: | 2019 Performance: | Office Peer Comparison: | ||
Commence two development projects totaling approximately 908K SF and approximately $850M of budgeted costs | Commenced development at 325 Main Street in Cambridge, MA, and 2100 Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, DC. In addition, BXP commenced redevelopment of 200 West Street in Waltham, MA. In total, BXP commenced more than 1.0M SF of development with aggregate total budgeted costs of $822M, representing GBV of 3.1%. | Greater GBV than four of the six Office Peers |
New Investments | Overall Assessment: Not Met |
Why it is important:New investments help sustain our market-leading position and growth prospects, and new partnerships provide additional sources of capital and validate our strong reputation as a preeminent owner and developer.
Goal: | 2019 Performance: | Office Peer Comparison: | ||
Consisted of seven transactions to either pursue or complete in 2019 | Completed or pursued four of the seven targeted transactions. Although not completed until January 2020, BXP pursued to near completion in 2019 the joint venture for our Gateway properties. In addition, although not included in the goal, we acquired 880 and 890 Winter Street in Waltham, MA. In total, BXP’s new investments in 2019 represented, in the aggregate, 1.4% of GBV. | Greater GBV than two of the six Office Peers |
› SECONDARY GOALS
In addition to the primary goals, the Committee established the goals listed below for our executive officers for 2019. Although the Committee considered these secondary goals as part of the overall assessment of the NEOs’ performance for the year, no single goal was a material factor in awarding compensation for 2019.
2019 Secondary Goals | Overall Assessment | |
Environmental, Social and Governance | Exceeded | |
Same Property Performance NOI & NOI – Cash | Exceeded | |
Dispositions | Met | |
Financings | Met | |
General & Administrative Expense | Met | |
Capital Expenditures & Repositioning | Met | |
New Development Milestones | Not Met | |
Redevelopment Milestones | Met | |
Entitlements | Met |
| 2020 Proxy Statement | 59 |
6› | COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS | |
VI. DETERMINING EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION |
VI. DETERMINING EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION
› PROCESS FOR DETERMINING EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION
Our Committee followed the same general process when setting executive compensation for 2019 as in recent years, which includes:
using the median (50th percentile) of a peer group of 16 REITs that are constituents of the S&P 500 Index (the “Benchmarking Peer Group”) as the beginning reference point and as an indicator of competitive market trends;
considering an analysis prepared by FW Cook that benchmarks each executive officer, and the NEOs as a group, against the Benchmarking Peer Group to determine their relative placement with respect to compensation for the prior year;
assessing performance not only against our ownpre-established corporate goals, but also against the same performance metrics for six Office Peers;
considering total NEO compensation over time, both on an awarded basis and on a realized basis after forfeitures;
considering projections for compensation increases and decreases among our peers and the market generally, and other input received from FW Cook; and
based on the foregoing, establishing a dollar amount for total compensation for each NEO and then allocating it among base salary, cash bonus and LTI equity awards (including time-based LTI awards and performance-based LTI awards that use relative TSR over overlapping three-year measurement periods as the performance metric, to further align management’s objectives with the interests of our investors).
›BENCHMARKING PEER GROUP AND& COMPENSATION ADVISOR’S ROLE
The Compensation Committee monitors the effectiveness of our executive compensation program on an ongoing basis. For it to be effective, among other things, we believe it is necessary for compensation to be competitive with other large public real estate companies with which we compete for executive talent. The Compensation Committee uses industry peer group data as one tool in assessing and determining pay for our executive officers. Other REITs, however, both in the office sector and in other sectors, are not always comparable to us because of differences in underlying business fundamentals. Peer group data is intended to provide the Compensation Committee with insight into overall market pay levels, market trends, “best” governance practices, and overall industry performance. The median (50th percentile) serves as a reference point and indicator of competitive market trends and the Compensation Committee uses it as the starting point when setting our executive compensation. We believe this use of peer company data is consistent with how stockholders and proxy advisory firms use such data.
The CompensationIn 2019, the Committee has retained FPLFW Cook to serve as its advisor since 2012new independent, third-party compensation consultant. FW Cook reports directly to the Committee and every yearre-assesses andre-affirmsdoes not provide services to management that are not under the independenceCommittee’s purview. A representative of FPL in connection with renewalFW Cook attends meetings of the engagement. Committee, as requested, and communicates with the Committee Chair between meetings. Consistent with its charter and as required by SEC rules and NYSE listing standards, prior to retaining FW Cook as its consultant, the Committee considered all factors relevant to FW Cook’s independence from management.
The Compensation Committee directed FPLengaged FW Cook to amongprovide a fresh perspective on our overall executive compensation program, advise the Committee on the reasonableness of executive compensation levels in comparison with those of other things: (1) benchmarksimilarly situated companies and consult on the structure of our executive compensation againstprogram to optimally support our peersbusiness objectives. It also advised the Committee on executive compensation trends among REITs and assistthe broader market, noting specifically that, in developingaggregate, total direct compensation objectives, (2) analyze trends in compensation inlevels for the marketplace generallyNEOs were competitive and among our peers specificallyreasonably aligned with relative performance, but the pay mix was more heavily weighted to cash and (3) recommend the components and amounts of compensation for our top executive officers.
FPL selected the companiesless to be included inequity than the peer group we useoverall. As a result, the Committee initiated its plan to gradually reduce cash compensation and shift the pay mix toward LTI equity awards for benchmarking executive compensation based on a review ofall NEOs. Accordingly, the methodologies employed by sixteen of the REITs included in the S&P 500 Index. Based on these criteria, FPL recommendedCommittee awarded aggregate cash bonuses to the CompensationNEOs that were (9.9)% less than awarded to the same NEOs for 2018, and the performance-based equity awards for all NEOs in 2019 represent a greater percentage of total direct compensation than they did in 2018. FW Cook also recommended changes to the 2020 compensation program design and structure. The Committee relied on this advice, and the feedback received from the investor outreach process, in deciding to establish the 2020 Annual Incentive Plan (see“—VII. New 2020 Annual Incentive Plan”).
60 | | 2020 Proxy Statement |
6› | COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS | |
VI. DETERMINING EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION |
Benchmarking Peer Group
The Committee selected the same peer group for benchmarking 2019 executive compensation that it used for 2018. That peer group consists of sixteen publicly traded real estate companies as it did in previous years, whichthat are of comparable size to the Company in terms of total capitalization and assets, irrespective of property focus. FPL feltFW Cook (i) advised the Committee that size, as measured by total capitalization, rather than equity market capitalization, is the most relevant criterion because top executives are ultimately responsible for managing the entire organization and total capitalization best depicts the scale, complexity and breadth of the Company’s operations, as well as the amount of capital and assets managed.managed, and therefore is the most appropriate scope measure for peer company selection and (ii) reviewed the peer group for 2018 and recommended that the Committee maintain the same peer group for 2019. Notably, fifteenfourteen out of the sixteen members of this benchmarking peer groupBenchmarking Peer Group also list us as a peer company.
48 BOSTON PROPERTIES, INC. |2017 Proxy Statement
COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
company in their 2019 proxy statements.
The following table provides the names and key information for each peer companycompany:
Number of Employees(1) | UPREIT Market Capitalization (in millions)(2) | Total Capitalization (in millions)(3) | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Alexandria Real Estate Equities, Inc. | Office | Pasadena, CA | 439 | $ | 19,519 | $ | 27,869 | ||||||||||||||||||
American Tower Corporation | Specialty | Boston, MA | 5,454 | $ | 101,785 | $ | 134,377 | ||||||||||||||||||
AvalonBay Communities, Inc. | Multifamily | Arlington, VA | 3,122 | $ | 29,495 | $ | 36,932 | ||||||||||||||||||
Digital Realty Trust, Inc. | Specialty | San Francisco, CA | 1,550 | $ | 26,073 | $ | 38,544 | ||||||||||||||||||
Equity Residential | Multifamily | Chicago, IL | 2,700 | $ | 31,187 | $ | 40,593 | ||||||||||||||||||
Essex Property Trust, Inc. | Multifamily | San Mateo, CA | 1,822 | $ | 20,577 | $ | 26,683 | ||||||||||||||||||
Host Hotels & Resorts, Inc. | Hotel | Bethesda, MD | 175 | $ | 13,375 | $ | 17,781 | ||||||||||||||||||
Prologis, Inc. | Industrial | San Francisco, CA | 1,712 | $ | 57,998 | $ | 73,220 | ||||||||||||||||||
Public Storage | Self-Storage | Glendale, CA | 5,900 | $ | 37,194 | $ | 43,178 | ||||||||||||||||||
Regency Centers Corporation | Shopping Center | Jacksonville, FL | 450 | $ | 10,619 | $ | 14,802 | ||||||||||||||||||
Simon Property Group, Inc. | Regional Mall | Indianapolis, IN | 3,750 | $ | 52,674 | $ | 77,619 | ||||||||||||||||||
SL Green Realty Corp. | Office | New York, NY | 1,033 | $ | 7,663 | $ | 14,186 | ||||||||||||||||||
UDR, Inc. | Multifamily | Highlands Ranch, CO | 1,341 | $ | 14,776 | $ | 19,841 | ||||||||||||||||||
Ventas, Inc. | Health Care | Chicago, IL | 516 | $ | 21,697 | $ | 34,309 | ||||||||||||||||||
Vornado Realty Trust | Diversified | New York, NY | 4,008 | $ | 13,509 | $ | 22,917 | ||||||||||||||||||
Welltower Inc. | Health Care | Toledo, OH | 443 | $ | 33,551 | $ | 50,382 | ||||||||||||||||||
Median | 1,631 | $ | 23,885 | $ | 35,621 | ||||||||||||||||||||
Average | 2,151 | $ | 30,731 | $ | 42,077 | ||||||||||||||||||||
Boston Properties, Inc. | 760 | $ | 23,808 | $ | 37,981 | ||||||||||||||||||||
Relative Percentile Rank | 30%-ile | 50%-ile | 58%-ile |
Source: Market Intelligence, a Division of S&P Global. Data as of December 31, 2016:2019.
Name | Property Focus | Headquarters | Number of Employees | UPREIT Market Capitalization (in millions) | Total Capitalization (in millions) | |||||||||||
American Tower Corporation | Specialty | Boston, MA | 4,507 | $45,136 | $66,948 | |||||||||||
AvalonBay Communities, Inc. | Multi-family | Arlington, VA | 3,071 | $24,329 | $31,429 | |||||||||||
Digital Realty Trust, Inc. | Specialty | San Francisco, CA | 1,345 | $15,868 | $22,761 | |||||||||||
Equity Residential | Multi-family | Chicago, IL | 2,700 | $24,489 | $33,524 | |||||||||||
General Growth Properties, Inc. | Regional Mall | Chicago, IL | 1,800 | $22,221 | $35,285 | |||||||||||
HCP, Inc. | Health Care | Irvine, CA | 188 | $14,111 | $23,514 | |||||||||||
Host Hotels & Resorts, Inc. | Hotel | Bethesda, MD | 220 | $14,066 | $17,754 | |||||||||||
Kimco Realty Corporation | Shopping Center | New Hyde Park, NY | 551 | $10,717 | $16,693 | |||||||||||
The Macerich Company | Regional Mall | Santa Monica, CA | 848 | $10,950 | $16,237 | |||||||||||
Prologis, Inc. | Industrial | San Francisco, CA | 1,530 | $28,756 | $42,515 | |||||||||||
Public Storage | Self-Storage | Glendale, CA | 5,500 | $38,782 | $43,570 | |||||||||||
Simon Property Group, Inc. | Regional Mall | Indianapolis, IN | 3,100 | $64,024 | $87,183 | |||||||||||
SL Green Realty Corp. | Office | New York, NY | 1,075 | $11,285 | $18,761 | |||||||||||
Ventas, Inc. | Health Care | Chicago, IL | 493 | $22,317 | $33,536 | |||||||||||
Vornado Realty Trust | Office | New York, NY | 4,225 | $20,952 | $33,600 | |||||||||||
Welltower, Inc. | Health Care | Toledo, OH | 466 | $24,269 | $38,507 | |||||||||||
Median | 1,438 | $22,269 | $33,530 | |||||||||||||
Average | 1,976 | $24,517 | $35,114 | |||||||||||||
Boston Properties, Inc. | 785 | $21,606 | $33,133 | |||||||||||||
Relative Percentile Rank | 32%-ile | 43%-ile | 45%-ile |
(1) | Represents the number of employees on a full-time equivalent basis. |
FPL’s
(2) | Represents market value of outstanding common stock. May include the value of OP units, where available. |
(3) | Total capitalization includes debt and the book value of any preferred stock. |
The benchmarking review was based, in part, on information disclosed in the peer companies’ 2016 proxy statements filed in 2019 (the latest year for which comprehensive data iswere publicly available). FPL also reviewed, supplemented by data from the 2016 NAREIT2019 Nareit Compensation Survey (which FPL conducts) and additional proprietary real estate compensation surveys conducted throughout the year by FPL for additional context. FPL’s review compared our executive pay practices to cash andSurvey.
non-cash› compensation awarded to executives in comparable positions at peer companies. FPL advised the Compensation Committee that the peer companies generally have compensation programs comparable to ours, with annual bonuses generally in the form of cash and annual long-term compensation generally in the form of equity with time-based vesting over three to five years and a focus on performance-based compensation.
ROLE OF MANAGEMENT IN COMPENSATION DECISIONS
Our CEO and President make recommendations to the Compensation Committee on the compensation of the other executive officers, who reportand our CEO makes recommendations to themthe Committee on the compensation of our President, in each case, based on their assessment of achievement of the Company’s strategicperformance versus corporate and tactical plans, executives’ individual performancegoals and a variety of other factors (e.g., compensation history, tenure, responsibilities, market data for competitive positions and retention concerns). The Compensation Committee considers these recommendations together with input from FPL. All final decisions affecting executive compensation decisions are made by the Compensation Committee.
BOSTON PROPERTIES, INC. |2017 Proxy Statement 49
| 2020 Proxy Statement | 61 |
6› | COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS | |
VII. NEW 2020 ANNUAL INCENTIVE PLAN |
VII. NEW 2020 ANNUAL INCENTIVE PLAN
Based on feedback received from our investors and advice received from FW Cook, the Committee established a new annual cash incentive plan for 2020 under which annual cash bonuses payable to our executive officers will have a direct link to the achievement of specific,COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSISpre-established goals.
Beginning in 2020 (the first fiscal year following the 2019Say-on-Pay vote), individual target bonus opportunities will be expressed in fixed dollar amounts. Actual earned amounts may range from zero (0) to 150% of target, depending on performance versuspre-established annual goals in each category.
Performance Level for Each Category | Payout (% of Target) | |
>= Maximum | 150% | |
Target | 100% | |
Threshold | 50% | |
<Threshold | 0 |
Annual bonuses will be based on performance in three categories: FFO per share, leasing and business/individual goals.
FFO per Share.FFO per share was selected as a key financial metric for the 2020 Annual Incentive Plan because it is the earnings metric most commonly used by investors and analysts to evaluate our performance on an absolute basis and relative to other REITs. The FFO per share goal is subject to adjustment for acquisitions, dispositions, financings, lease terminations and similar transactions and circumstances.
Leasing. For the 2020 Annual Incentive Plan, the Committee established specific corporate and regional leasing goals. Leasing will be evaluated in terms of short-term leasing and total leasing to encourage the executives to focus on current addressable vacancies and near-term roll-over, and to avoid scenarios in which leasing goals are met solely due to unexpected early renewals.
• | Business/Individual Goals. Business goals include milestone-oriented objectives related to acquisitions, dispositions, joint ventures, securing entitlements, and/or launching new developments. Business goals are based on regional priorities for the regional EVPs. For the CEO and President, business goals include a relevant subset of those regional goals, as well as goals related to executive management of the Company. For the CFO, business goals relate to balance sheet management, capital raising, and other finance department priorities. Individual goals include leadership and professional development goals, diversity initiatives, succession planning and other ESG priorities for each executive. Assessment of performance against the goals in this category will be determined based on an analysis of performance versus thepre-established goals, as well as other relevant factors (including,e.g., degree of difficulty, importance to BXP, headwinds and tailwinds during the year and other similar factors). |
The following table summarizes the performance measurement categories and weightings under the new 2020 Annual Incentive Plan.
Weightings | ||||||||||||||||||||
Annual Incentive Performance Measures | Thomas | Linde | LaBelle | Ritchey | Koop | |||||||||||||||
FFO per Share | 33.3 | % | 33.3 | % | 33.3 | % | 33.3 | % | 33.3 | % | ||||||||||
Leasing (Short-Term and Total) | ||||||||||||||||||||
Overall BXP | 33.3 | % | 33.3 | % | 16.7 | % | ||||||||||||||
LA Region + DC Region | 33.3 | % | ||||||||||||||||||
Boston Region | 33.3 | % | ||||||||||||||||||
Business & Individual Goals | ||||||||||||||||||||
Overall BXP | 33.3 | % | 33.3 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Finance – Capital Raising | 25.0 | % | ||||||||||||||||||
Finance – Other | 25.0 | % | ||||||||||||||||||
LA Region + DC Region | 33.3 | % | ||||||||||||||||||
Boston Region | 33.3 | % | ||||||||||||||||||
Total | 100.0 | % | 100.0 | % | 100.0 | % | 100.0 | % | 100.0 | % |
The Committee approved the foregoing categories and specific goal targets in January 2020, prior to theCOVID-19 outbreak becoming a global pandemic that has had a material adverse effect on the global economy. In light of the changing business environment, the Committee mayre-evaluate the categories and targets, as appropriate.
62 | | 2020 Proxy Statement |
6› | COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS | |
VIII. OTHER COMPENSATION POLICIES |
VIII. OTHER COMPENSATION POLICIES
›DOUBLE-TRIGGER ACCELERATION OF VESTING OF EQUITY AWARDS UPON A CHANGE OF CONTROL
Double-Trigger Acceleration of Vesting of Equity Awards Upon a Change of Control
Time-basedAll time-based equity awards made in 2015 or laterafter 2014 include “double-trigger” vesting, meaning that, if there is a “change of control” and the awards are not otherwise cancelled in connection with the change of control transaction, then they only become fully vested if, within 24 months after the change of control, the executive’s employment is terminated by the Company or its successor without “cause” or the executive resigns for “good reason.” We believe that this policy regarding acceleration of vesting upon a change of control is in line with current best practice while also continuing to remove potential disincentives for executives to pursue a change of control transaction that would benefit stockholders.
Although not required, the Compensation Committee decided to make the policy applicable to senior officers, including our Chief Executive Officer,CEO, who were entitled to single-trigger vesting under their employment agreements, and those executives voluntarily agreed to the change. The Compensation Committee believes that this demonstrates its and management’s responsiveness to stockholders and that the new policy addresses two key objectives:
• | Aligning executives’ interests with stockholders’ |
• | Minimizing conflicts of |
Clawback Policy›CLAWBACK POLICY
We have a formal “clawback” policy, which allows us to recoup from all executive officers and certain other specified officersofficers’ incentive compensation paid on the basis of financial results that are subsequently restated. Under the policy, if we are required to prepare an accounting restatement due to materialnon-compliance with any financial reporting requirement, the Compensation Committee may require those officers to repay or forfeit “excess compensation,” which includes annual cash bonus and long-term incentive compensation in any form (including stock options, restricted stock and LTIP units, whether time-based or performance-based) received by them during the three-year period preceding the publication of the restated financial statements, that the Compensation Committee determines was in excess of the amount that they would have received had such compensation been determined based on the financial results reported in the restated financial statements.
The Compensation Committee may take into account any factors it deems reasonable in determining (1) whether to seek recoupment of previously paid excess compensation, (2) the amount of excess compensation to recoup from each individual officer, which may reflect whether the Compensation Committee concluded that he or she engaged in wrongdoing or committed grossly negligent acts or omissions, and (3) the form of the compensation to be recouped. The Compensation Committee intends to periodically review this policy and, as appropriate, conform it to any applicable final rules adopted pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.
›Gross-UpGROSS-UP for Excess Parachute PaymentsFOR EXCESS PARACHUTE PAYMENTS
In January 2014, we adopted a formal “no taxgross-up” policy with respect to our senior executives. Pursuant to this policy, we will not make or promise to make any taxgross-up payment to any senior executive in the future, other than payments in accordance with obligations existing at the time of the policy’s adoption or pursuant to arrangements applicable to our management employees generally,
50 BOSTON PROPERTIES, INC. |2017 Proxy Statement
COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
such as a relocation policy. RecentAll of the employment agreements that we have entered into with new senior executives since 2013, including our original and current employment agreements with our CEO, Mr. Thomas, do not provide for taxgross-up payments and, accordingly,payments. Accordingly, this policy representsformalized the formalization of the Compensation Committee’spre-existing then-existing practice with respect to taxgross-ups. In addition, our Senior Executive Severance Plan and Executive Severance Plan provide that executives who become eligible to participate in these plans in the future will not be entitled to any taxgross-up payments under the plans.
Policy Concerning Hedging and Pledging Transactions›POLICY CONCERNING HEDGING AND PLEDGING TRANSACTIONS
We have a policy prohibitingprohibit all employees, including our executive officers, and directors from engaging in short sales and derivative transactions, purchasing our securities on margin and pledging our securities as collateral for a loan. Transactions such as purchases and sales of publicly traded put and call options, short sales, hedging transactions such as prepaid variable forwards,
| 2020 Proxy Statement | 63 |
6› | COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS | |
VIII. OTHER COMPENSATION POLICIES |
equity swaps and collars create a heightened compliance risk or could create the appearance of misalignment between management and stockholders. In addition, securities held in a margin account or pledged as collateral may be sold without consent if the owner fails to meet a margin call or defaults on the loan, thus creating the risk that a sale may occur at a time when an officeremployee or director is aware of material,non-public information or otherwise is not permitted to trade in Company securities. An exception from the policy may beOur Board has never been asked to grant a waiver, nor has it ever granted onsuch acase-by-case basis where an executive officer or director who wishes to pledge Company securities as collateral for a loan (not including margin debt) clearly demonstrates the financial capacity to repay the loan without resort to the pledged securities. No such exceptions have ever been granted. waiver, of this policy.
Mandatory Minimum Equity Ownership Policy for Senior Executives›MANDATORY MINIMUM EQUITY OWNERSHIP POLICY FOR SENIOR EXECUTIVES
To align senior management with our stockholders and demonstrate to the investment community that our senior management is personally committed to our continued financial success, we have a policy that requires the following officer positions to maintain equity ownership equal to a multiple of their base salaries as follows:
Title | Multiple of Base Salary | |||
Chief Executive Officer | 6.0x | |||
President | 5.0x | |||
Senior Executive Vice President | 5.0x | |||
Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer | 3.0x | |||
Executive Vice President, Regional Manager | 2.0x | |||
Senior Vice President | 1.5x |
If an executive’s ownership falls below the applicable guideline due solely to a decline in the value of our common stock, the executive will not be required to acquire additional shares to meet the guideline, but he or she will be required to retain all shares then held (except for shares withheld to pay withholding taxes or the exercise price of options) until such time as the executive again attains the target multiple.
Employees who are hired or promoted to senior management positions will have a five-year period beginning on January 1 of the year following their appointment to achieve this ownership requirement. Exceptions may be made for significant extenuating personal circumstances. The types of securities that will be counted toward the equity ownership requirement include shares of our common stock, common units and LTIP units (excluding performance-based LTIP units until and unless they have been earned), in each case both vested and unvested, as well as shares acquired and held through our stock purchase and dividend reinvestment plans. Stock options will not be counted.
BOSTON PROPERTIES, INC. |› 2017 Proxy Statement 51
COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
Equity Award Grant Policy
We have a policy that annual grants to employees are approved by the Compensation Committee in or around the third or fourth week of January each year, with an effective grant date immediately following the closing of the NYSE on the second trading day after we publicly release financial results for the prior year. We believe this policy provides the necessary certainty and transparency for both employees and stockholders, while allowing the Compensation Committee desired flexibility.
Our Compensation Committee approves equity awards in dollar values. To the extent these awards are paid in the form of full-value awards (either shares of restricted stock and/or LTIP units), the number of shares/units granted is calculated by dividing the dollar value of the approved awards by the closing market price on the NYSE of a share of our common stock on the effective date of grant. To the extent these awards are made in the form of stock options, the number of shares underlying option grants is determined by dividing the dollar value of the approved awards by the fair value of aten-year option with the exercise price equal to the closing market price on the NYSE of a share of our common stock on the effective date of grant, as calculated by an independent valuation expert in accordance with ASC Topic 718 using assumptions approved by the Compensation Committee. The Equity Award Grant Policy does not apply to MYLTIP awards because they are not “full-value” awards upon issuance and their value depends on our future TSR performance; accordingly, consistent with past practice for performance-based equity awards, the Compensation Committee determined that the MYLTIP baseline share price, from which TSR performance is measured, should be based on the average closing stock price for the five trading days prior to and including the effective date of grant.
LTIP UnitsUNITS
Since 2003, we have used a class of partnership interests in our Operating Partnership, called long termlong-term incentive units, or LTIP units, as a form of equity-based award for annual long-term incentive equity compensation. LTIP units are designed to qualify as “profits interests” in the Operating Partnership for federal income tax purposes, meaning that initially they are not economically equivalent in value to a share of our common stock, but over time can increase in value toone-for-one parity with common stock by operation of special tax rules applicable to profits interests. LTIP units are designed to offer executives a long-term incentive comparable to restricted stock, while allowing them to enjoy a more favorable income tax treatment. Each LTIP unit awarded is deemed equivalent to an award of one share of common stock reserved under our incentive equity plan. The key difference between LTIP units and restricted stock is that at the time of award, LTIP units do not have full economic parity with common units, but can achieve such parity over time upon the occurrence of specified events in accordance with partnership tax rules. Until and unless such parity is reached, the value that an executive will realize for a given number of vested LTIP units is less than the value of an equal number of shares of our common stock.
Under the 2015, 2016 and 2017 MYLTIP awards, during the performance period holders of LTIP units will receive distributions equal toone-tenth (1/10th) of the amount of regular quarterly distributions paid on a common unit, but will not receive any special distributions. After the end of the performance period, holders of earned LTIP units, both vested and unvested, will be entitled to receive
64 | | 2020 Proxy Statement |
6› | COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS | |
VIII. OTHER COMPENSATION POLICIES |
distributions in an amount per LTIP unit equal to the distributions, both regular and special, payable on a common unit (which equal per share dividends (both regular and special) on our common stock). LTIP units awarded with time-based vesting conditions only, both vested and unvested, are entitled to receive distributions in an amount per LTIP unit equal to the distributions, both regular and special, payable on a common unit.
52 BOSTON PROPERTIES, INC. |› 2017 Proxy Statement
COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
Employment AgreementsEMPLOYMENT AGREEMENTS
We have employment agreements with each of our NEOs. (See “Compensation of Executive Officers – Potential Payments Upon Termination or Change in ControlEmployment Agreements” beginning on page 64.) TheseFor NEOs other than Mr. Thomas, these agreements provide for a certain level of severance, generally the sum of base salary plus the prior year’s cash bonus, 12 additional months of vesting in equity-based awards and participation in our health plan for up to 12 months, in the event of a termination of employment by us without cause or by the executives for good reason. The employment agreement with Mr. Thomas provides for stipulated severance benefits in lieu of participation in severance plans for which other NEOs are eligible. In return, each executiveNEO agrees, during the term of employment and for one year thereafter, not to compete with us, solicit our tenants or employees or interfere with our relationship with our tenants, suppliers, contractors, lenders, employees or with any governmental agency. We believe that these agreements are fair to the executivesNEOs and to our stockholders and, because the severance benefits are negotiated at the time of the agreement, avoid the need for protracted negotiations in the event of termination.
Change in Control Arrangements›CHANGE IN CONTROL ARRANGEMENTS
We have an employment agreement with Mr. Thomas that provides him with cash severance and certain benefits in the event of his termination under certain circumstances within 24 months following a change in control. Although Mr. Thomas was entitled to “single-trigger” vesting upon a change in control under his original employment agreement, he has agreed to be subject to the “double-trigger” vesting policy adopted for all time-based LTI equity awards made in 2015 or later.after 2014. We also have two change in control severance plans, one for our President, Senior Executive Vice President and Executive Vice Presidents, and the other for our Senior Vice Presidents and those Vice Presidents with ten (10) or more years of tenure with us. These plans also provide cash severance and certain benefits in the event of termination of employment under certain circumstances within 24 months following a change in control. The two change in control severance plans are “double trigger” arrangements, providing severance benefits only upon involuntary termination or constructive termination of the executive officer following a change in control. (See “Compensation of Executive Officers – Potential Payments Upon Termination or Change in Control” beginning on page 64.) Officers who became eligible under the two severance plans described above prior to their amendment in January 2014 upon adoption by the Compensation Committee of a formal “no taxgross-up” policy are entitled to agross-up payment in the event they become subject to the 20% golden parachute excise tax. This was market practice when these plans were adopted in 1998. Mr. Thomas is not entitled to a taxgross-up payment under his employment agreement.
In our experience, change in control cash severance protection for executive officers is common in the REIT industry. Our Compensation Committee believes it is fair to provide severance protection in the event of an involuntary termination or constructive termination of employment following a change in control because very often senior manager positions are eliminated following a change in control. ByThe Committee believes that agreeing up frontin advance to provide severance benefits in the event of an involuntary termination or constructive termination of employment following a change in control the Compensation Committee believes we canhelps reinforce and encourage the continued attention and dedication of senior management to their assigned duties without distraction in the face of an actual or threatened change in control and helps ensure that management is motivated to negotiate the best consideration for our stockholders. For treatment of equity awards in the event of a change in control, please see“– Double-Trigger Acceleration of Vesting of Equity Awards upon a Change of Control”Control”above.
Perquisites›PERQUISITES
We provide Messrs. Linde, Ritchey and Koop a monthly car allowance of $750 and we provide all of our executive officers a designated parking space. Mr. Thomas’ employment agreement provides that he is entitled to the use of a Company-owned or leased vehicle, but Mr. Thomas has declined this benefit at
BOSTON PROPERTIES, INC. |2017 Proxy Statement 53
all times since 2013. Apart from these arrangements, we do not provide any other perquisites to our executive officers.
| 2020 Proxy Statement | 65 |
6› | COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS | |
VIII. OTHER COMPENSATION POLICIES |
Deferred Compensation Plan›DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN
We offer a deferred compensation plan that enables our executives to defer up to 20% of their base salaries and bonuses. The amounts deferred are not included in the executive’s current taxable income and, therefore, are not currently deductible by us. The executives select from a limited number of mutual funds, which serve as measurement funds, and the deferred amounts are increased or decreased to correspond to the market value of the mutual fund investments. Because the measurement funds are publicly traded securities, we do not consider any of the earnings credited under the deferred compensation plan to be “above market.” We do not provide any matching contribution to any executive officer who participates in this plan, other than a limited amount to make up for any loss of matching contributions under our Section 401(k) plan. We have made this plan available to our executives in order to ensure that our benefits are competitive. See “Compensation of Executive Officers – Nonqualified Deferred CompensationCompensation.” beginning on page 62.
Retirement and Health and Welfare Benefits›RETIREMENT AND HEALTH AND WELFARE BENEFITS
We have never had a traditional or defined benefit pension plan. We maintain a Section 401(k) retirement plan in which all salaried employees can participate, which provides a Company matching contribution of 200% of the first 3% of compensation contributed to the plan (utilizing earnings not in excess of an amount established by the Internal Revenue Service ($265,000280,000 in 2016)2019)). Other benefits, such as health and dental plans, group term life insurance, short- and long-term disability insurance and travel accident insurance, are also available generally to all of our salaried employees. Our executives participate in Company-sponsored benefit programs available broadly to generally all of our salaried employees, including our employee stock purchase plan and our Section 401(k) plan.
Deductibility of Executive Compensation›DEDUCTIBILITY OF EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION
The Compensation Committee’s policy is to consider the tax treatment of compensation paid to our executive officers while simultaneously seeking to provide our executives with appropriate rewards for their performance. Under Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”), a publicly-held corporation may not deduct compensation of more than $1 million paid to any “covered employee” unless certain exceptions are met primarily related to performance-based compensation.employee.” Substantially all of the services rendered by our executive officers were performed on behalf of our operating partnership or its subsidiaries. The Internal Revenue Service has issued a series of private letter rulings which indicate that compensation paid by an operating partnership to executive officers of a REIT that serves as its general partner is not subject to limitation under Section 162(m) to the extent such compensation is attributable to services rendered to the operating partnership. We have not obtained a ruling on this issue, but have no reason to believe that the same conclusion would not apply to us. However, in December 2019, the Internal Revenue Service proposed new regulations that may cause the limits on deductibility under Section 162(m) to apply to such compensation. To the extent that compensation paid to our executive officers is subject to and does not qualify for deduction under Section 162(m), our Compensation Committee is prepared to exceed the limit on deductibility under Section 162(m) to the extent necessary to establish compensation programs that we believe provide appropriate incentives and reward our executives relative to their performance. Because we qualify as a REIT under the Code, we generally distribute at least 100% of our net taxable income each year and therefore do not pay federal income tax. As a result, and based on the level of cash compensation paid to our executive officers, the possible loss of a federal tax deduction would not be expected to have a material impact on us.
Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation›ACCOUNTING FOR STOCK-BASED COMPENSATION
We account for stock-based awards in accordance with the requirements of ASC Topic 718.
66 | | 2020 Proxy Statement |
6› | COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS | |
VIII. OTHER COMPENSATION POLICIES |
BOSTON PROPERTIES, INC. |› 2017 Proxy Statement 54
COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
Assessment of Compensation-Related RisksASSESSMENT OF COMPENSATION-RELATED RISKS
The Compensation Committee is responsible for overseeing the risks relating to compensation policies and practices affecting senior management on an ongoing basis. The Compensation Committee believes that, because of the following factors, there is a low likelihood that our compensation policies and practices would encourage excessive risk-taking:
Risk Mitigation Factors
Risk Mitigation Factors | |||
• | our policies and programs are generally intended to encourage executives to focus on |
• | overall compensation is maintained at levels that are competitive with the market; |
• | the mix of compensation rewards long-term performance with a significantat-risk component; |
• | • except for those employees who satisfy the |
conditions for Qualified Retirement, all equity awards are subject to multi-year |
• | executive officers are subject to minimum stock ownership guidelines and limitations on trading in our securities, including prohibitions on hedging and pledging; and |
• | a clawback policy permits the Company to recoup compensation paid on the basis of financial results that are subsequently restated. |
COMPENSATION COMMITTEE REPORT›EQUITY AWARD GRANT POLICY
We have a policy that annual grants to employees are approved by the Committee in late January or early February of each year, with an effective grant date immediately following the closing of the NYSE on the second trading day after we publicly release financial results for the prior year. We believe this policy provides the necessary certainty and transparency for both employees and stockholders, while allowing the Committee desired flexibility.
Our Committee approves equity awards in dollar values. To the extent these awards are paid in the form of full-value awards (either shares of restricted stock and/or LTIP units), the number of shares/units granted is calculated by dividing the dollar value of the approved awards by the closing market price on the NYSE of a share of our common stock on the effective date of grant. To the extent these awards are made in the form of stock options, the number of shares underlying option grants is determined by dividing the dollar value of the approved awards by the fair value of aten-year option with the exercise price equal to the closing market price on the NYSE of a share of our common stock on the effective date of grant, as calculated by an independent valuation expert in accordance with ASC Topic 718 using assumptions approved by the Committee. The Equity Award Grant Policy does not apply to MYLTIP awards because they are not “full-value” awards upon issuance and their value depends on our future TSR performance; accordingly, consistent with past practice for performance- based equity awards, the Committee determined that the MYLTIP baseline share price, from which TSR performance is measured, should be based on the average closing stock price for the five trading days prior to and including the effective date of grant.
The Compensation Committee of Boston Properties has reviewed and discussed the Compensation Discussion and Analysis required by Item 402(b) of RegulationS-K with management and, based on such review and discussions, the Compensation Committee recommended to the Board of Directors that the Compensation Discussion and Analysis be included in this proxy statement.
| 2020 Proxy Statement | 67 |
Submitted by the Compensation Committee:
Carol B. Einiger, Chair
Bruce W. Duncan
David A. Twardock
7› | COMPENSATION OF EXECUTIVE OFFICERS |
BOSTON PROPERTIES, INC. |2017 Proxy Statement 55
COMPENSATION OF EXECUTIVE OFFICERS
The following table shows the compensation for each of our NEOs in accordance with Item 402(c) of RegulationS-K.
Name and Principal Position | Year | Salary ($) | Bonus ($) | Stock Awards ($)(4) | All Other Compensation ($)(8) | Total ($)(9) | Year | Salary ($) | Bonus ($)(1) | Stock Awards ($)(2) | All Other Compensation ($)(6) | Total ($)(7) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Owen D. Thomas Chief Executive Officer | 2016 | 867,308 | 2,558,333 | (1) | 6,560,000 | (5) | 16,380 | 10,002,021 | 2019 | 898,077 | 2,550,000 | 8,452,063 | (3) | 17,460 | 11,917,600 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2015 | 773,077 | 2,558,333 | (2) | 5,421,975 | (6) | 16,380 | 8,769,765 | 2018 | 875,000 | 2,875,000 | 7,927,786 | (4) | 17,160 | 11,694,946 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2014 | 750,000 | 1,972,500 | (3) | 3,698,841 | (7) | 16,200 | 6,437,541 | 2017 | 875,000 | 2,425,000 | 6,745,617 | (5) | 16,680 | 10,062,297 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Douglas T. Linde President | 2016 | 724,231 | 1,847,500 | (1) | 4,605,120 | (5) | 33,300 | 7,210,151 | 2019 | 748,077 | 2,095,000 | 5,211,300 | (3) | 34,680 | 8,089,057 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2015 | 713,462 | 1,805,000 | (2) | 4,418,624 | (6) | 32,700 | 6,969,786 | 2018 | 725,000 | 2,180,000 | 5,163,416 | (4) | 34,380 | 8,102,796 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2014 | 693,462 | 1,686,377 | (3) | 3,975,284 | (7) | 32,400 | 6,387,523 | 2017 | 725,000 | 1,935,000 | 4,777,500 | (5) | 33,600 | 7,471,100 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Raymond A. Ritchey Senior Executive Vice | 2016 | 719,231 | 1,555,000 | (1) | 3,915,844 | (5) | 32,796 | 6,222,871 | 2019 | 738,462 | 1,820,000 | 3,990,000 | (3) | 33,876 | 6,582,338 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2015 | 708,462 | 1,495,000 | (2) | 3,853,737 | (6) | 29,088 | 6,086,287 | 2018 | 720,000 | 2,080,000 | 4,278,466 | (4) | 33,576 | 7,112,042 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2014 | 688,462 | 1,480,000 | (3) | 3,719,578 | (7) | 28,908 | 5,916,948 | 2017 | 720,000 | 2,080,000 | 4,077,125 | (5) | 33,096 | 6,910,221 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Michael E. LaBelle Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer | 2016 | 499,231 | 900,000 | (1) | 1,929,312 | (5) | 24,300 | 3,352,843 | 2019 | 509,231 | 1,295,000 | 1,916,801 | (3) | 25,680 | 3,746,712 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2015 | 488,846 | 830,000 | (2) | 1,540,000 | (6) | 23,700 | 2,882,546 | 2018 | 500,000 | 1,450,000 | 1,973,150 | (4) | 25,380 | 3,948,530 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2014 | 473,846 | 785,000 | (3) | 1,323,988 | (7) | 23,400 | 2,606,234 | 2017 | 500,000 | 1,325,000 | 2,100,000 | (5) | 24,600 | 3,949,600 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bryan J. Koop Executive Vice President, | 2016 | 399,231 | 835,000 | (1) | 1,295,910 | (5) | 33,300 | 2,563,441 | 2019 | 409,231 | 1,370,000 | 1,235,000 | (3) | 34,680 | 3,048,911 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2015 | 388,846 | 821,250 | (2) | 1,243,150 | (6) | 32,700 | 2,485,946 | 2018 | 400,000 | 1,550,000 | 1,257,523 | (4) | 34,380 | 3,241,903 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2017 | 400,000 | 1,280,000 | 1,316,874 | (5) | 33,600 | 3,030,474 |
(1) | Represent cash |
(2) |
A discussion of the assumptions used in calculating these values can be found in Note |
Represents the |
NEO | Restricted Common Stock and LTIP Unit Awards Grant Date Value ($) | 2019 MYLTIP Awards Grant Date Value ($) | 2019 MYLTIP Awards Maximum Value ($) | |||||||||
Mr. Thomas | 4,077,063 | 4,375,000 | 8,750,000 | |||||||||
Mr. Linde | 2,513,800 | 2,697,500 | 5,395,000 | |||||||||
Mr. Ritchey | 1,890,000 | 2,100,000 | 4,200,000 | |||||||||
Mr. LaBelle | 941,801 | 975,000 | 1,950,000 | |||||||||
Mr. Koop | 585,000 | 650,000 | 1,300,000 |
Represents the |
56 BOSTON PROPERTIES, INC. |2017 Proxy Statement
COMPENSATION OF EXECUTIVE OFFICERS
Represents the |
68 | | 2020 Proxy Statement |
7› | COMPENSATION OF EXECUTIVE OFFICERS |
The table below shows the components of “All Other Compensation” for |
Name | Life Insurance ($) | 401(k) Company Match ($) | Car Allowance ($) | Parking ($) | Total ($) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NEO | Life Insurance ($) | 401(k) Company Match ($) | Car Allowance ($) | Parking ($) | Total ($) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mr. Thomas | 480 | 15,900 | — | — | 16,380 | 660 | 16,800 | — | — | 17,460 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mr. Linde | 480 | 15,900 | 9,000 | 7,920 | 33,300 | 660 | 16,800 | 9,000 | 8,220 | 34,680 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mr. Ritchey | 480 | 15,900 | 9,000 | 7,416 | 32,796 | 660 | 16,800 | 9,000 | 7,416 | 33,876 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mr. LaBelle | 480 | 15,900 | — | 7,920 | 24,300 | 660 | 16,800 | — | 8,220 | 25,680 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mr. Koop | 480 | 15,900 | 9,000 | 7,920 | 33,300 | 660 | 16,800 | 9,000 | 8,220 | 34,680 |
The |
BOSTON PROPERTIES, INC. |2017 Proxy Statement 57
COMPENSATION OF EXECUTIVE OFFICERS
2016 GRANTS OF PLAN-BASED AWARDS IN 2019
The following table provides information about the awards granted to our NEOs during the year ended December 31, 2016.2019.
Date of Compensation Committee Approval(1) | Estimated Future Payouts Under Equity Incentive Plan Awards | All Other Stock Awards: Number of Shares of Stock or Units (#)(3) | Grant Date Fair Value of Stock and Option Awards ($)(4) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Name | Grant Date | Date of Compensation Committee Approval(1) | Estimated Future Payouts Under Equity Incentive Plan Awards | All Other Stock Awards: Number of Shares of Stock or Units (#)(3) | Grant Date Stock and Option ($)(4) | Grant Date | Threshold (#)(2) | Target (#)(2) | Maximum (#)(2) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Threshold ($)(2) | Target ($)(2) | Maximum ($)(2) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Owen D. Thomas | 2/8/2016 | 1/25/2016 | — | — | — | 14,996 | 1,560,000 | 2/1/2019 | 1/23/2019 | — | — | — | 33,351 | 4,077,063 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2/10/2016 | 1/25/2016 | 2,840,909 | 5,681,818 | 14,204,545 | — | 5,000,000 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2/5/2019 | 1/23/2019 | — | 35,784 | 71,569 | — | 4,375,000 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Douglas T. Linde | 2/8/2016 | 1/25/2016 | — | — | — | 10,527 | 1,095,120 | 2/1/2019 | 1/23/2019 | — | — | — | 20,563 | 2,513,800 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2/10/2016 | 1/25/2016 | 1,994,318 | 3,988,636 | 9,971,590 | — | 3,510,000 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2/5/2019 | 1/23/2019 | — | 22,064 | 44,127 | — | 2,697,500 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Raymond A. Ritchey | 2/8/2016 | 1/25/2016 | — | — | — | 12,895 | 1,254,094 | 2/1/2019 | 1/23/2019 | — | — | — | 16,008 | 1,890,000 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2/10/2016 | 1/25/2016 | 1,512,357 | 3,024,715 | 7,561,788 | — | 2,661,750 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2/5/2019 | 1/23/2019 | — | 17,176 | 34,353 | — | 2,100,000 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Michael E. LaBelle | 2/8/2016 | 1/25/2016 | — | — | — | 7,126 | 741,312 | 2/1/2019 | 1/23/2019 | — | — | — | 7,432 | 941,801 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2/10/2016 | 1/25/2016 | 675,000 | 1,350,000 | 3,375,000 | — | 1,188,000 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2/5/2019 | 1/23/2019 | — | 7,975 | 15,950 | 0 | 975,000 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bryan J. Koop | 2/8/2016 | 1/25/2016 | — | — | — | 6,022 | 626,535 | 2/1/2019 | 1/23/2019 | — | — | — | 4,955 | 585,000 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2/10/2016 | 1/25/2016 | 380,326 | 760,653 | 1,901,633 | — | 669,375 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2/5/2019 | 1/23/2019 | — | 5,317 | 10,633 | — | 650,000 |
(1) | For a discussion of the Company’s policy with respect to the effective grant dates for annual equity-based awards, see “Compensation Discussion and Analysis – VII. Other Compensation Policies – Equity Award Grant Policy” beginning on page |
(2) | Represents |
(3) | Stock awards were made in the form of shares of restricted common stock and/or LTIP units at the election of each NEO. Each NEO, other than Mr. LaBelle, elected to receive all LTIP units. Mr. LaBelle elected to receive half of his award as shares of restricted common stock and half as LTIP units. Shares and LTIP |
| 2020 Proxy Statement | 69 |
7› | COMPENSATION OF EXECUTIVE OFFICERS |
units were awarded |
58 BOSTON PROPERTIES, INC. |2017 Proxy Statement
COMPENSATION OF EXECUTIVE OFFICERS
|
(4) | The amounts included in this column represent the |
BOSTON PROPERTIES, INC. |2017 Proxy Statement 59
COMPENSATION OF EXECUTIVE OFFICERS
OUTSTANDING EQUITY AWARDS AT DECEMBER 31, 2016FISCAL YEAR-END
The following table sets forth information regarding outstanding equity awards held by our NEOs as of December 31, 20162019 pursuant to Item 402(f) of RegulationS-K.
Option Awards(1) | Stock Awards(1) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Name | Number of Securities Underlying Unexercised Options (#) Exercisable | Number of Securities Underlying Unexercised Options (#) Unexercisable | Option Exercise Price ($) | Option Expiration Date | Number of Shares or Units of Stock That Have Not Vested (#) | Market Value of Shares or Units of That Have Not Vested ($)(2) | Equity Incentive Plan Awards: Number of Unearned Shares, Units or Other Rights That Have Not Vested (#) | Equity Incentive Plan Awards: Market or Payout Value of Unearned Shares, Units or Other Rights That Have Not Vested ($)(2) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Owen D. Thomas | 40,711 | 13,571 | (3) | 95.69 | 4/2/2023 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
6,058 | (5) | 761,975 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
4,358 | (6) | 548,149 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
7,308 | (7) | 919,200 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
14,996 | (8) | 1,886,197 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
14,311 | (9) | 1,800,038 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
11,495 | (12) | 1,445,841 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
17,211 | (13) | 2,164,800 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
45,290 | (14) | 5,696,576 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Douglas T. Linde | 27,455 | — | 86.86 | 1/28/2021 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
34,476 | — | 100.77 | 2/3/2022 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
30,819 | 10,273 | (4) | 98.46 | 2/1/2023 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
5,120 | (10) | 643,994 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
4,640 | (6) | 583,619 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
5,842 | (7) | 734,807 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
10,527 | (8) | 1,324,086 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
16,939 | (11) | 2,130,587 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
10,893 | (9) | 1,370,122 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
12,239 | (12) | 1,539,421 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
13,758 | (13) | 1,730,481 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
31,794 | (14) | 3,999,049 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Raymond A. Ritchey(15) | 24,739 | — | 86.86 | 1/28/2021 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
32,120 | — | 100.77 | 2/3/2022 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
39,943 | — | 98.46 | 2/1/2023 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
15,810 | (11) | 1,988,582 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
10,162 | (9) | 1,278,176 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
10,095 | (12) | 1,269,749 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
10,875 | (13) | 1,367,858 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
24,110 | (14) | 3,032,556 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Michael E. LaBelle | 7,749 | — | 100.77 | 2/3/2022 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
6,441 | 2,147 | (4) | 98.46 | 2/1/2023 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1,071 | (10) | 134,710 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
3,180 | (6) | 399,980 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
4,072 | (7) | 512,176 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
7,126 | (8) | 896,308 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
7,905 | (11) | 994,291 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
5,314 | (9) | 668,395 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2,796 | (12) | 351,681 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
3,197 | (13) | 402,119 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
10,761 | (14) | 1,353,519 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bryan J. Koop | 5,616 | — | 86.86 | 1/28/2021 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
7,067 | — | 100.77 | 2/3/2022 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
6,200 | 2,067 | (4) | 98.46 | 2/1/2023 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1,031 | (10) | 129,679 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2,544 | (6) | 319,984 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
3,418 | (7) | 429,916 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
6,022 | (8) | 757,447 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
6,493 | (11) | 816,690 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
4,184 | (9) | 526,264 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2,237 | (12) | 281,370 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2,683 | (13) | 337,468 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
6,063 | (14) | 762,604 |
60 BOSTON PROPERTIES, INC. |2017 Proxy Statement
COMPENSATION OF EXECUTIVE OFFICERS
Option Awards(1) | Stock Awards(1) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Name | Number of Securities Underlying Unexercised Options | Option Exercise Price | Option Expiration Date | Number of Shares or Units of Stock That Have Not Vested | Market Value of Shares or Units of Stock That Have Not Vested ($)(3) | Equity Incentive Plan Awards: Number of Unearned Shares, Units or Other Rights That Have Not Vested (#)(4) | Equity Incentive Plan Awards: Market or Payout Value of Unearned Shares, Units or Other Rights That Have Not Vested ($)(3) | |||||||||||||||||||||
Owen D. Thomas | 54,282 | 95.69 | 4/2/2023 | 83,343 | 11,489,666 | 120,097 | 16,556,572 | |||||||||||||||||||||
Douglas T. Linde | 27,455 | 86.86 | 1/28/2021 | 54,155 | 7,465,808 | 79,313 | 10,934,090 | |||||||||||||||||||||
34,476 | 100.77 | 2/3/2022 | — | — | — | — | ||||||||||||||||||||||
41,092 | 98.46 | 2/1/2023 | — | — | — | — | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Raymond A. Ritchey | — | — | — | 9,582 | 1,320,974 | 60,224 | 8,302,481 | |||||||||||||||||||||
Michael E. LaBelle | 7,749 | 100.77 | 2/3/2022 | 23,304 | 3,212,690 | 27,269 | 3,759,304 | |||||||||||||||||||||
8,588 | 98.46 | 2/1/2023 | — | — | — | — | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Bryan J. Koop | 7,067 | 100.77 | 2/3/2022 | 15,886 | 2,190,043 | 16,357 | 2,254,977 | |||||||||||||||||||||
8,267 | 98.46 | 2/1/2023 | — | — | — | — |
(1) | This table does not include LTIP unit and restricted common stock awards and |
70 | | 2020 Proxy Statement |
7› | COMPENSATION OF EXECUTIVE OFFICERS |
(2) | The |
Award/Grant Date(a) | Mr. Thomas | Mr. Linde | Mr. Ritchey(d) | Mr. LaBelle | Mr. Koop | |||||||||||||||
Time-Based Awards(b) | ||||||||||||||||||||
2/8/2016 | 3,749 | 2,632 | — | 1,782 | 1,506 | |||||||||||||||
2/3/2017 | 6,566 | 4,568 | — | 3,213 | 2,611 | |||||||||||||||
2/2/2018 | 24,195 | 15,523 | — | 5,735 | 3,519 | |||||||||||||||
2/6/2018 | — | — | 1,340 | 1,463 | 1,222 | |||||||||||||||
2/1/2019 | 33,351 | 20,563 | — | 7,432 | 4,955 | |||||||||||||||
2016 MYLTIP Award(c) | 15,482 | 10,869 | 8,242 | 3,679 | 2,073 |
(a) | The vesting of |
Time-based LTI equity awards vest ratably over four years, with 25% of the total award vesting on January 15 of each year beginning January 15 |
(c) | On February |
(d) | All of Mr. Ritchey’s shares of restricted common stock and |
(3) | The market value of such holdings is based on the closing price of our common stock as reported on the NYSE on December 31, 2019 of $137.86 per share. |
(4) | The following table sets forth the unearned performance-based LTI equity awards held by each NEO as of December 31, 2019. |
Award(a) | Mr. Thomas | Mr. Linde | Mr. Ritchey | Mr. LaBelle | Mr. Koop | |||||||||||||||
2017 MYLTIP Award(b) | 45,506 | 31,661 | 24,266 | 11,133 | 6,031 | |||||||||||||||
2018 MYLTIP Award(c) | 38,807 | 25,588 | 18,782 | 8,161 | 5,009 | |||||||||||||||
2019 MYLTIP Award(d) | 35,784 | 22,064 | 17,176 | 7,975 | 5,317 |
(a) | The vesting of performance-based LTI equity awards is subject to acceleration under certain |
(b) | On February |
BOSTON PROPERTIES, INC. |2017 Proxy Statement 61
COMPENSATION OF EXECUTIVE OFFICERS
for the same period for the |
(c) | On February |
On February 5, 2019, these NEOs received 2019 MYLTIP awards |
| 2020 Proxy Statement | 71 |
7› | COMPENSATION OF EXECUTIVE OFFICERS |
20162019 OPTION EXERCISES AND STOCK VESTED
The following table sets forth the aggregate number of options to purchase shares of our common stock exercised by our NEOs in 20162019 and the aggregate number of shares of common stock and LTIP units that vested in 2016.2019. The Value Realized on Exercise is the product of (1) the fair market value of a share of our common stock on the date of exercise minus the exercise price, multiplied by (2) the number of shares of common stock underlying the exercised options. The Value Realized on Vesting is the product of (1) the closing price on the NYSE of a share of our common stock on the vesting date (or, if the vesting date was not a trading day, the immediately preceding trading date), multiplied by (2) the number of shares/shares and LTIP units vesting. In each case, the value realized is before payment of any applicable taxes and brokerage commissions.
Name | Number of Shares Acquired on Exercise (#) | Value Realized on Exercise ($) | Number of Shares Acquired on Vesting (#) | Value Realized on Vesting ($) | Number of Shares Acquired on Exercise (#) | Value Realized on Exercise ($) | Number of Shares Acquired on Vesting (#) | Value Realized on Vesting ($) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Owen D. Thomas | — | — | 15,443 | 1,823,499 | 0 | 0 | 36,910 | 4,653,402 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Douglas T. Linde | — | — | 26,334 | 3,086,446 | 0 | 0 | 26,020 | 3,284,768 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Raymond A. Ritchey | — | — | 24,188 | 2,740,180 | 96,802 | 4,075,439 | 28,050 | 3,676,589 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Michael E. LaBelle | — | — | 10,830 | 1,267,410 | 0 | 0 | 11,545 | 1,433,372 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bryan J. Koop | — | — | 9,077 | 1,062,587 | 5,616 | 264,449 | 8,210 | 1,013,312 |
NONQUALIFIED DEFERRED COMPENSATION
We provide our executives with the opportunity to defer up to 20% of their base salarysalaries and cash bonuses. Deferrals are credited with earnings or losses based upon the executive’s selection of one or more of 28 measurement funds, which are all publicly traded mutual funds. Executives may change their selection of measurement funds on a daily basis.
62 BOSTON PROPERTIES, INC. |2017 Proxy Statement
COMPENSATION OF EXECUTIVE OFFICERS
The table below summarizes the annual rates of return for the year ended December 31, 20162019 for the 28 measurement funds:
Name of Fund | 2016 Rate of Return (%) | Name of Fund | 2016 Rate of Return (%) | |||||||
American Beacon Small Cap Value | 29.32 | T. Rowe Price Retirement 2025 | 8.86 | |||||||
Artisan Mid Cap | 1.72 | T. Rowe Price Retirement 2030 | 9.14 | |||||||
Dodge & Cox Income | 5.54 | T. Rowe Price Retirement 2035 | 9.23 | |||||||
Dodge & Cox International | 10.63 | T. Rowe Price Retirement 2040 | 9.33 | |||||||
Domini Impact Equity | 12.77 | T. Rowe Price Retirement 2045 | 9.42 | |||||||
Oakmark Equity & Income | 11.87 | T. Rowe Price Retirement 2050 | 9.51 | |||||||
PIMCO Low Duration Bond | 1.79 | T. Rowe Price Retirement 2055 | 9.45 | |||||||
T. Rowe Price Dividend Growth | 13.30 | T. Rowe Price Retirement 2060 | 9.44 | |||||||
T. Rowe Price Growth Stock | 3.77 | T. Rowe Price Retirement Balanced Fund | 7.15 | |||||||
T. Rowe PriceMid-Cap Value | 25.58 | VanguardSmall-Cap Index | 20.34 | |||||||
T. Rowe Price Retirement 2005 | 7.41 | Vanguard Total Bond Market Index | 2.37 | |||||||
T. Rowe Price Retirement 2010 | 7.88 | Vanguard Total International Stock Index | 6.79 | |||||||
T. Rowe Price Retirement 2015 | 8.26 | Vanguard Total Stock Market Index 1 | 14.45 | |||||||
T. Rowe Price Retirement 2020 | 8.57 | Virtus Real Estate Securities A | 8.50 |
Name of Fund | 2019 Rate of Return (%) | |||
American Beacon Small Cap Value Fund Class Institutional | 22.29 | |||
Artisan Mid Cap Fund Institutional Class | 39.28 | |||
Dodge & Cox Income Fund | 9.65 | |||
Dodge & Cox International Stock Fund | 22.54 | |||
Oakmark Equity And Income Fund Investor Class | 19.00 | |||
PIMCO Low Duration Fund Institutional Class | 4.46 | |||
T. Rowe Price Dividend Growth Fund | 31.62 | |||
T. Rowe Price Growth Stock Fund | 30.75 | |||
T. Rowe Price Mid-Cap Value Fund | 19.27 | |||
T. Rowe Price Retirement 2005 Fund | 14.99 | |||
T. Rowe Price Retirement 2010 Fund | 16.09 | |||
T. Rowe Price Retirement 2015 Fund | 17.40 | |||
T. Rowe Price Retirement 2020 Fund | 19.37 | |||
T. Rowe Price Retirement 2025 Fund | 21.03 | |||
T. Rowe Price Retirement 2030 Fund | 22.54 |
72 | | 2020 Proxy Statement |
7› | COMPENSATION OF EXECUTIVE OFFICERS |
Name of Fund | 2019 Rate of Return (%) | |||
T. Rowe Price Retirement 2035 Fund | 23.77 | |||
T. Rowe Price Retirement 2040 Fund | 24.74 | |||
T. Rowe Price Retirement 2045 Fund | 25.47 | |||
T. Rowe Price Retirement 2050 Fund | 25.42 | |||
T. Rowe Price Retirement 2055 Fund | 25.47 | |||
T. Rowe Price Retirement 2060 Fund | 25.49 | |||
T. Rowe Price Retirement Balanced Fund | 15.30 | |||
Vanguard Small-Cap Index Fund Admiral Shares | 27.49 | |||
Vanguard Total Bond Market Index Fund Admiral Shares | 8.59 | |||
Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund Admiral Shares | 21.89 | |||
Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund Institutional Shares | 30.67 | |||
Virtus Duff & Phelps Real Estate Securities Fund Class I | 30.89 | |||
Vanguard FTSE Social Index Fund Admiral(1) | 23.39 |
(1) | Effective |
Benefits under the deferred compensation plan are generally paid in a lump sum upon the executive’s termination of employment prior to attainment of retirement age (age 55 with five years of service) or the executive’s death, or in a lump sum or annual installments for a period of up to 15 years (as previously selected by the executive) upon the executive’s retirement. Payment will generally start or be made by January 15 following the year of termination or retirement, or six months after the executive’s termination or retirement, whichever is later. Executives may also at the time of deferral elect a fixed distribution date, which must be at least five years after the end of the calendar year in which amounts are deferred. The deferred compensation plan also permits anin-service withdrawal of the executive’s account balance attributable topre-2005 deferrals, subject to a withdrawal penalty equal to 10% of the amount withdrawn.
The following table shows deferrals made by our NEOs to the deferred compensation plan during the year ended December 31, 2016,2019, the earnings and withdrawals/distributions during the year, and the aggregate account balance of each NEO under the deferred compensation plan as of December 31, 2016.2019.
Name | Executive Contributions in 2016 ($)(1)(2) | Registrant Contributions in 2016 ($) | Aggregate Earnings in 2016 ($) | Aggregate Withdrawals/ Distributions ($) | Aggregate Balance at 12/31/2016($)(3) | |||||||||||||||
Owen D. Thomas | 173,462 | — | 31,855 | — | 510,700 | |||||||||||||||
Douglas T. Linde | — | — | — | — | — | |||||||||||||||
Raymond A. Ritchey | 221,423 | — | 261,069 | — | 2,387,871 | |||||||||||||||
Michael E. LaBelle | 24,962 | — | 77,677 | — | 930,838 | |||||||||||||||
Bryan J. Koop | 130,033 | — | 80,536 | — | 946,280 |
BOSTON PROPERTIES, INC. |2017 Proxy Statement 63
COMPENSATION OF EXECUTIVE OFFICERS
Name | Executive Contributions in 2019 ($)(1)(2) | Registrant Contributions in 2019 ($) | Aggregate Earnings in 2019 ($) | Aggregate Withdrawals/ Distributions ($) | Aggregate Balance at 12/31/2019($)(3) | |||||||||||||||
Owen D. Thomas | 179,615 | — | 223,096 | — | 1,312,203 | |||||||||||||||
Douglas T. Linde | — | — | — | — | — | |||||||||||||||
Raymond A. Ritchey | 416,000 | — | 722,304 | — | 4,044,820 | |||||||||||||||
Michael E. LaBelle | — | — | 278,115 | 161,133 | 1,165,973 | |||||||||||||||
Bryan J. Koop | 235,108 | — | 270,293 | — | 1,791,769 |
(1) | These amounts do not include any contributions out of bonus payments that were made |
(2) | Of the amounts reported in the contributions column, (a) |
(3) | Of the amounts reported in the aggregate balance column, (a) |
| 2020 Proxy Statement | 73 |
7› | COMPENSATION OF EXECUTIVE OFFICERS |
Mr. Thomas’ aggregate balance, $72,000 of Mr. Ritchey’s aggregate balance and $48,000 of Mr. Koop’s aggregate balance are also included in the Summary Compensation Table as salary for 2017, (d) $416,000 of Mr. Ritchey’s contributions and $186,000 of Mr. Koop’s contributions are also included in the Summary Compensation Table as bonus for |
POTENTIAL PAYMENTS UPON TERMINATION OR CHANGE IN CONTROL
We have various contractual arrangements with our NEOs to provide severance and other benefits in the event of the termination of their employment under certain circumstances or upon a change in control. These include employment agreements with our NEOs, severance arrangements, our 2012 Plan, LTI equity award agreements and the terms of our MYLTIP programs. In return for such protection, each NEO has agreed to be bound by confidentiality,non-competition,non-interference andnon-solicitation covenants and to provide to us post-termination litigation and regulatory cooperation. Below is a description of the material terms of these arrangements.
Employment AgreementsEMPLOYMENT AGREEMENTS
We have employment agreements with each NEO. Each NEO’s employment with the Company isof our NEOs. The material terms of these agreements are summarized below.
at-will› and maySUMMARY OF OWEN D. THOMAS’ EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
We originally hired Mr. Thomas to be terminated by the Company with or without “cause” (as defined in the employment agreement) and may be terminated by the NEO with or without “good reason” (as defined in the employment agreement) upon prior written notice to the other party.
our CEO effective April 2, 2013. The initial term of Mr. Thomas’ employment agreement was three years, beginning on April 2, 2013 with automaticone-year renewals commencing on the third and fourth anniversary date.anniversaries of the effective date unless prior written notice of termination was given. The current term of Mr. Thomas’ original employment agreement expiresexpired on April 2, 2018. In the event of2018 on which date we entered into a “change in control,” the termnew employment agreement with him. The following is a summary of Mr. Thomas’ current employment agreement shall be automatically extended until 24 months followingagreement:
Term and Duties
April 2, 2018 through June 30, 2023
As CEO, Mr. Thomas reports directly to the dateBoard of the “change in control.” During the term of Mr. Thomas’ employment agreement, he willDirectors, and must devote substantially all of his businessworking time and efforts to the Company’s business and affairs, but will be allowedperformance of his duties.
Our Board agreed to continue certain outside positions, including service as a director/trustee of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. and the University of Virginia Investment Management Company. In addition,to nominate Mr. Thomas is expressly permitted to participate as an officer or director of, or advisor to, any organization that is not engaged in commercial real estate activities (e.g., NAREIT) and also to engage in religious, charitable or other community activities provided that such activities do not materially restrict his ability to fulfill his obligations to us as an employee and officer of the Company. We have agreed that, while Mr. Thomas remains Chief Executive Officer, he will be nominated for re-election to our Board each year. Mr. Thomas may not serve on other boards of directors offor-profit companies without the consent of our Board of Directors.Directors for so long as he remains CEO, and he has agreed to resign from the Board upon termination of employment.
• | Mr. Thomas may participate as an officer or director of, or advisor to, any organization that is not engaged in commercial real estate activities (e.g., Nareit) and also engage in religious, charitable or other community activities, provided that they do not materially restrict his ability to fulfill his obligations to us as an officer. Mr. Thomas may also continue serving on the Board of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. and may engage in “Minority Interest Passive Investments,” which are defined as acquiring, holding and exercising the voting rights associated with an investment made through (1) a non-controlling, minority interest in an entity or (2) the lending of money, in either case with the purpose or intent of obtaining a return on such investment but without management of the property or business to which the investment directly or indirectly relates and without any business or strategic consultation by Mr. Thomas. |
Compensation and Benefits
Mr. Thomas’ employment agreement provided for an initial base salary of $750,000, and it is reviewed annually by the Compensation Committee and may be increased but not decreased at its discretion. His current base salary is $875,000, which remains unchanged from 2016. Mr. Thomas’ annual target
• | Base salary of $875,000, subject to annual review and may be increased but not decreased. The Compensation Committee increased Mr. Thomas’ base salary to $900,000 for 2019 but did not increase his salary for 2020 (see “Compensation Discussion and Analysis – III. 2019 Compensation Decisions” beginning on page 49 of this proxy statement). |
Target bonus is 230%equal to 250% of his base salary, which willwith the actual amount to bepro-rated for any partial year determined at the discretion of employment.the Compensation Committee.
64 BOSTON PROPERTIES, INC. |2017 Proxy Statement
COMPENSATION OF EXECUTIVE OFFICERS
Mr. Thomas is also eligible to participateIncentive equity in the Company’s long term incentive programan amount determined at the discretion of the Compensation Committee based on Company and he is also entitledindividual performance and competitive peer group information. LTI equity awards may be provided in the form of stock options, restricted stock, restricted stock units and/or LTIP units and may be subject to participatetime-based or performance-based vesting, or both, as determined by the Compensation Committee.
Participation in all of our employee benefit plans or programs of the Company generally availableas in effect from time to itstime for our senior level executive employees. He is also entitled toemployees, including medical/dental insurance, life insurance, disability insurance and deferred compensation plans, plus the use of a Company-owned or leased automobile,automobile.
74 | | 2020 Proxy Statement |
7› | COMPENSATION OF EXECUTIVE OFFICERS |
Severance Benefits and Retirement Eligibility
• | Mr. Thomas’ employment with us is at-will, but his employment agreement provides for certain payments and benefits to him upon his separation from the Company in certain circumstances (see “– Potential Payments upon Termination or Change in Control” below). |
• | Mr. Thomas’ employment agreement provides for the acceleration of vesting of equity awards granted after April 2, 2018 upon attainment of age 62 with 10 years of service (see “– Potential Payments upon Termination or Change in Control”below). |
Mr. Thomas is not entitled to date he has declined this benefit.participate in any of the Company’s change in control severance plans or programs. As such, Mr. Thomas is not entitled to receive any tax gross-up payments. In the event that any payment or benefit to be paid or provided to Mr. Thomas would be subject to the golden parachute excise tax, the payments and benefits will be reduced to the extent necessary to avoid the imposition of the excise tax if doing so would result in a greater after-tax benefit to Mr. Thomas.
The expiration of Mr. Thomas’ agreement on June 30, 2023 will not constitute or result in a termination of employment agreement prohibits Mr. Thomas, whileby the Company without cause, and the severance provisions (other than retirement eligibility and related benefits) shall not apply.
Restrictive Covenants
While he is an officer and until the later of the Company and for(1) one year thereafter, from (1) after the termination of his employment for any reason or (2) the latest date of full vesting of any performance-based LTI equity award, Mr. Thomas is prohibited from:
engaging, participating or assisting, directly or indirectly, in the acquisition, development, construction, operation, management, or leasing of any commercial real estate property of a type which is the subject of a significant portion of the Company’s business (measured as at least 10% of the Company’s revenues on a trailing12-month basis) at the time of termination of his employment, (2) employment;
intentionally interfering with the Company’s relationships with its tenants, suppliers, contractors, lenders or employees or with any governmental agency,agency; or (3)
competing for, soliciting or diverting the Company’s tenants or employees, either for himself or any other business, person or entity. Pursuant to the employment agreement, however,
Mr. Thomas may engage in certain “minority interest passive investments,” which means acquiring, holdingis also subject to confidentiality requirements and exercising the voting rights associated with investments made through (1) the purchase of securities that represent anon-controlling, minority interest in an entity or (2) the lending of money, in either case with the purpose or intent of obtaining a return on such investment but without management by Mr. Thomas of the property or business to which such investment directly or indirectly relatespost-termination litigation and without any business or strategic consultation by Mr. Thomas with such entity. regulatory cooperation obligations.
In addition, the employment agreement provides that thenon-competition provision covenant shall not apply if Mr. Thomas’ employment is terminated following a change in control of(as defined in the Company.2012 Plan, as amended from time to time).
› SUMMARY OF EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENTS WITH MESSRS. LINDE, RITCHEY, LABELLE AND KOOP
During the terms of theWe also have employment agreements with the other NEOs – i.e., Messrs. Linde, Ritchey, LaBelle and Koop – under which each of these NEOs willhas agreed to devote substantially all of his business time to our business and affairs. The initial term of each of these employment agreements was two years beginning November 29, 2002 (January 24, 2008 in the case of Mr. LaBelle), with automaticone-year renewals commencing on each anniversary date unless written notice of termination is given at least 90 days prior to such date by either party. The base salary for each of each NEOthese NEOs is to be reviewed annually by the Compensation Committee and may be increased but not decreased in its discretion. Each NEO is also eligible to receive a cash bonus compensation, includingand equity-based compensation to be determined inat the discretion of the Compensation Committee. These
Similar to Mr. Thomas’ employment agreement, the other NEOs’ employment agreements containnon-competition,non-interference andnon-solicitation restrictions (which shall not apply if the NEO’s employment is terminated following a change in control (as defined in the senior executive severance plan)) and permissions that are similar to those of Mr. Thomas’ agreement, except that they are permittedpermit them to participate as an officer or director of, or advisor to, any charitable or other tax exempt organization only and the scope of the noncompetition provision in each employment agreement is limited to our markets at the time of termination of their employment. In consideration for the benefits and protections afforded by the employment agreements, each of these NEOs agreed to confidentiality, non-competition,non-interference and non-solicitation covenants and to provide to the Company post-termination litigation and regulatory
| 2020 Proxy Statement | 75 |
7› | COMPENSATION OF EXECUTIVE OFFICERS |
cooperation. These NEOs’ employment with us is at-will, but their employment agreements also provide for certain payments and benefits to them upon separation from the Company in certain circumstances as described under “– Potential Payments upon Termination or Change in Control” below.
POTENTIAL PAYMENTS UPON TERMINATION OR CHANGE IN CONTROL
Each NEO has the right to receive severance and other benefits in the event of a termination of their employment under different circumstances pursuant to their employment agreements (discussed under“– Employment Agreements” above) and, except for Mr. Thomas, the Company’s Senior Executive Severance Plan. In addition, thenon-competition provision shall not apply ifour LTI equity award agreements (including performance-based MYLTIP awards) provide for the NEO’s employment is terminatedvesting and forfeiture of LTI equity awards under different circumstances. The availability, nature and amount of severance and other benefits differ depending on whether the triggering event is:
a termination by the Company without “cause” (as defined in the applicable agreement or plan) or by the NEO with “good reason” (as defined in the applicable agreement or plan) prior to a change in control,
a termination by the Company without “cause” or by the NEO with “good reason” within 24 months following a change in control, of the Company.
Potential Payments under Contractual Arrangements
The following discussion describes the payments and benefits to which the NEOs would be entitled upon the occurrence of a change in control without termination,
termination due to death or certain termination triggering events. The tables that follow show the potential payments and benefits that would have been provided to our NEOs assuming such events occurred on December 31, 2016.disability, or
Voluntary Termination; Termination with Cause
a qualified retirement.
Upon a voluntary termination by the NEO, other than afor “good reason” termination,or a qualified retirement, or a termination with “cause” by the Company with “cause,” the NEOs are not entitled to any additional or special payments pursuant tounder their employment agreements, severance arrangementsour Senior Executive Severance Plan, equity award agreements or other contractual arrangements.
BOSTON PROPERTIES, INC. |2017 Proxy Statement 65
COMPENSATION OF EXECUTIVE OFFICERS
Termination Without “Cause” or for “Good Reason” Prior to a Change in Control
Each NEOarrangements, and any unvested LTI equity awards will be entitled to theimmediately forfeited.
› EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENTS AND CHANGE IN CONTROL SEVERANCE PLAN
The following chart summarizes payments and benefits upon(1) our CEO is eligible to receive under his employment agreement and (2) the Other NEOs are eligible to receive under their respective employment agreements and our Senior Executive Severance Plan. NEOs other than our CEO participate in our Senior Executive Severance Plan, whereas the severance and benefits to which our CEO is entitled following a termination by the Company without “cause” or by the NEO for ”good reason” prior towithin twenty-four (24) months after a change in control pursuant to theirare provided in his employment agreements, except for performance-based LTI equity awards which, are governed by the relevant award agreements.agreement.
Scenario | ||||
Termination by the Company without “Cause” or by the NEO for “Good Reason” without a Change in Control(2) | Bonus | • Target bonus prorated for number of days employed in year of termination | ||
Cash Severance | • Mr. Thomas: 2x the sum of base salary plus amount of cash bonus, if any, received or payable with respect to the preceding year (but, not less than his target bonus) | |||
• Other NEOs: 1x the sum of base salary plus amount of cash bonus, if any, received or payable with respect to the preceding year | ||||
Time-Based LTI | • Mr. Thomas: Additional 24 months of vesting | |||
• Other NEOs: Additional 12 months of vesting | ||||
Health Benefits | • Participation by the | |||
• Mr. Thomas: Up to • Other NEOs: Up to 12 months |
76 | | 2020 Proxy Statement |
7› | COMPENSATION OF EXECUTIVE OFFICERS |
Scenario | ||||
Termination by the Company without “Cause” or by the NEO for | Bonus | • Mr. Thomas: Target bonus prorated for number of | ||
• Other NEOs: Not applicable | ||||
Cash Severance | • Mr. Thomas: Lump-sum equal to 3x the | |||
• Other NEOs: Lump-sum equal to 3x the sum of (a) the NEO’s base salary plus (b) the amount of his average annual cash bonus with respect to the three calendar years preceding the change in control | ||||
Time-Based LTI Equity Awards | • Full vesting for all NEOs | |||
Health Benefits | • Participation by the NEO, his spouse and dependents for up to 36 months, subject to payment of premiums at active employees’ rate | |||
Other Benefits | • Financial counseling, tax preparation assistance and outplacement counseling for up to 36 months | |||
Tax Gross-Up Payment | • Mr. Thomas is not entitled to receive any tax gross-up payments from the | |||
• Other NEOs will be entitled to receive a tax gross-up payment in the event he becomes subject to the golden parachute excise tax (as discussed above under “Compensation Discussion and Analysis – VIII. Other Compensation Policies – Gross-Up for Excess Parachute Payments” on page 63). | ||||
Termination due to Death or Disability | Bonus | • Target bonus prorated for number of days employed in year of termination | ||
Time-Based LTI Equity Awards | • Full vesting for all NEOs | |||
Health Benefits | • Participation by the |
(1) | Performance-based LTI equity awards are governed by the relevant award agreements. The treatment of these awards under certain termination scenarios or |
Receipt of these payments and benefits (other than the pro rata target bonus and performance-based LTI equity awards) in connection with a termination without cause or for good reason
(2) | Receipt of these payments and benefits (other than the prorated target bonus) is subject to the NEO’s execution of a general release of claims with us. |
Termination by the Company Without “Cause” or by the NEO for “Good Reason” within 24 Months after a Change in Control› DOUBLE-TRIGGER ACCELERATION OF VESTING OF EQUITY AWARDS UPON A CHANGE OF CONTROL
Each NEO will be entitled to the following payments and benefits upon a termination by the Company without “cause” or by the NEO for “good reason,” in either case within 24 months following a change in control. Each NEO’s payments and benefits, except Mr. Thomas’, are governed by our severance plans. Mr. Thomas does not participate in any of our severance plans; his payments and benefits are governed by his employment agreement.
66 BOSTON PROPERTIES, INC. |2017 Proxy Statement
COMPENSATION OF EXECUTIVE OFFICERS
Pursuant to the relevant award agreements for performance-based LTI equity awards, the number of LTIP units earned by each NEO will be determined on the date of the change in control (see “– Change in Control without Termination”below).
In addition, each NEO, except Mr. Thomas, will be entitled to receive a tax gross–up payment in the event he becomes subject to the golden parachute excise tax (as discussed above under “Compensation Discussion and Analysis – Other Compensation Policies –Gross-Up for Excess Parachute Payments”). Mr. Thomas’ employment agreement does not entitle him to receive any taxgross-up payments from the Company, but it does provide that, in the event that any payment or benefit to be paid or provided to Mr. Thomas would be subject to the golden parachute excise tax, the payments and benefits will be reduced to the extent necessary to avoid the imposition of such excise tax if such reduction would result in a greater after-tax benefit to Mr. Thomas.
Change in Control without Termination
Under our 2012 Plan, all time-based LTI equity awards made prior to December 31, 2014 become fully vested upon a “change of control” (as defined in the 2012 Plan). Time-based LTI equity awards made in 2015 or lateraward agreements include “double-trigger” vesting, meaning that, if there is a “change of control” (as defined in the 2012 Plan) and the awards are not otherwise cancelled in connection with the change of control transaction, then they only become fully vested if, within 24 months after the change of control, the executive’sNEO’s employment is terminated by the Company or its successor without “cause” or the executiveNEO resigns for “good reason.” Although Mr. Thomas was entitled to single-trigger vesting upon a “change
| 2020 Proxy Statement | 77 |
7› | COMPENSATION OF EXECUTIVE OFFICERS |
› PERFORMANCE-BASED LTI EQUITY AWARDS
The treatment of control” under his employment agreement, he has agreed to be subject to the new policy.
Under the relevant performance-based LTI equity award agreements, in the eventawards (e.g., MYLTIP awards) upon certain terminations of employment or a change in control is governed by the NEOs’ relevant award agreements. The following chart summarizes the treatment of these awards under each scenario assuming it occurs prior to the end of the applicable three-year performance period, the number of LTIP units earned, if any, will be calculatedperiod.
Scenario | Treatment of Award | |
Termination by the Company without “Cause” or by the NEO for “Good Reason” without a Change in Control | • The number of MYLTIP units the NEO will earn, if any, will be determined at the end of the applicable three-year performance period based on our performance and will then be prorated based on the portion of the three-year performance period during which the NEO was employed by us. • Any earned MYLTIP Units will not be subject to forfeiture but the NEO will not be permitted to transfer the MYLTIP units until they otherwise would have vested under the terms of the awards. | |
Termination due to Death or Disability | • The number of MYLTIP units the NEO will earn, if any, will be determined at the end of the applicable three-year performance period based on our performance. • Any earned MYLTIP units will not be prorated due to service time and will be fully vested. | |
Change in Control Without Termination | • The number of MYLTIP units the NEO will earn, if any, will be determined as of the date of the • Any earned MYLTIP units will not be prorated due to service time and will be fully vested. |
In the case of each of the foregoing scenarios following the end of the applicable three-year performance period, any LTIPMYLTIP units that had been earned prior to the date of thesuch termination or change in control will become fully vested.vested, but, in the case of a termination by the Company without “cause” or by the NEO for “good reason” without a change in control, the NEO will not be permitted to transfer the MYLTIP units until they otherwise would have vested under the terms of the awards.
Termination upon Death or Disability› RETIREMENT ELIGIBILITY PROVISIONS FOR LTI EQUITY AWARDS
ExceptLTI Equity Awards Granted to Mr. Thomas
Retirement Provision. Pursuant to Mr. Thomas’ employment agreement, all award agreements for LTI equity granted after April 2, 2018 provide that if Mr. Thomas is employed by us when he attains age 62 and has completed at least ten (10) years of employment with us, then his time-based LTI equity awards and performance-based LTI equity awards which are governedwill vest in full (without any proration of the award due to service time).
Unearned performance-based LTI equity awards.The full number of MYLTIP units Mr. Thomas earns (if any) under any performance-based LTI equity awards will be determined in the same manner and at the same time as otherwise would have been the case if he had remained employed through the full vesting period for the applicable award, including without limitation with respect to performance hurdles and lapse of restrictions on transfer, without any proration of the award due to service time, and with any service-based vesting requirements deemed satisfied over the relevant service-vesting schedule, so long as he agrees to be bound by the relevant award agreements, each NEO will be entitledpost-employment non-competition, non-interference and non-solicitation covenants (which are otherwise applicable until the later of (1) one (1) year following termination and (2) the latest date of full vesting of any performance-based LTI equity award.
78 | | 2020 Proxy Statement |
7› | COMPENSATION OF EXECUTIVE OFFICERS |
LTI Equity Awards Granted to the Other NEOS
For employees other than Mr. Thomas, the agreements governing time-based LTI equity awards and performance-based LTI equity awards provide as follows:
Awards Granted Prior to 2019 | Awards Granted Beginning in 2019 | |||
Retirement Eligibility Age | • Age 65, or age 62 with 20 years of service with us (the “Pre-2019 Policy”). | • The sum of the employee’s years of service plus age (which must be at least 58) equals or exceeds 70 (the so-called “Rule of 70”). | ||
Time-Based LTI Equity Awards(1) | • Awards will fully vest when the employee attains the applicable retirement eligibility age. | • Awards will fully vest when the employee retires after attaining the applicable retirement eligibility age.(2) | ||
Grandfathering of Time-Based LTI Equity Awards | • Time-based LTI equity awards made to employees who, on or prior to January 31, 2019, attained retirement eligibility under the Pre-2019 Policy are “grandfathered“ under the Pre-2019 Policy such that subsequent time-based LTI awards will continue to be fully vested on the date of grant. | |||
Unearned Performance-Based LTI Equity Awards (the three-year performance period has not ended) | • If an employee retires after attaining retirement eligibility, then the number of MYLTIP units the employee will earn will be determined at the end of the applicable three-year performance period based on our performance and will then be prorated based on the number of days elapsed in the performance period, plus: • 365 (i.e., one additional year) if the employee retires after (1) attaining age 62 with 20 years of service with us, or (2) attaining age 65 with less than 15 years of service with us, or • 730 (i.e., two additional years) if the employee retires after attaining age 65 with 15 years of service with us. | • If an employee retires after attaining retirement eligibility, the number of MYLTIP units the employee will earn will be determined at the end of the applicable three-year performance period based on our performance, without any proration of the award due to service time.(2) | ||
Earned Performance-Based LTI Equity Awards (the three-year performance period has ended) | • If an employee retires after attaining retirement eligibility, then the unvested MYLTIP units will no longer be subject to forfeiture but the employee will not be permitted to transfer the MYLTIP units until they otherwise would have vested under the terms of the awards. |
(1) | Does not apply to awards granted on February 6, 2018, which provide that if an employee had attained age 65, or attained age 62 and completed 20 years of service with us prior to the grant date, the award will vest ratably over two years. |
(2) | Employees must also satisfy the other conditions of a “Qualified Retirement,” that require the employee to: (1) give prior written notice to the Company of his retirement (for NEOs, six (6) months’ notice is required), (2) enter into a Separation Agreement (as defined in the applicable award agreement) with the Company and (3) remain employed by the Company until the retirement date specified in such notice, unless employment is terminated by the Company without “cause” or by the employee for “good reason.” |
NEOs Eligible for Retirement as of December 31, 2019
Based on their respective age and tenure as of December 31, 2019, each of Messrs. Ritchey and Koop is eligible for a Qualified Retirement with respect to awards granted in 2019. In addition, Mr. Ritchey satisfied the Pre-2019 Policy and is grandfathered under such policy with respect to his time-based LTI equity awards. Therefore, all of Mr. Ritchey’s time-based equity awards (other than LTIP units granted on February 6, 2018 (that provide that if an employee had attained age 65, or attained age 62 and completed 20 years of service with us prior to the grant date, the award will vest ratably over two years)) were fully vested as of December 31, 2019 and subsequent awards will continue to be vested on the grant date.
| 2020 Proxy Statement | 79 |
7› | COMPENSATION OF EXECUTIVE OFFICERS |
› ESTIMATED PAYMENTS UPON TERMINATION OR CHANGE IN CONTROL
The following tables show the potential payments and benefits upon a termination upon death or disability pursuantthat would have been provided to their employment agreements:our NEOs assuming each scenario occurred on December 31, 2019.
Scenario | Payments and Benefits Upon Termination | Owen D. ($) | Douglas T. ($) | Raymond ($) | Michael E. ($) | Bryan J. Koop ($) | ||||||||||||||||
Involuntary Not for Cause or Good Reason Termination | Bonus | 2,250,000 | 750,000 | 740,000 | 510,000 | 410,000 | ||||||||||||||||
Severance | 7,550,000 | 2,930,000 | 2,820,000 | 1,960,000 | 1,960,000 | |||||||||||||||||
Unvested Equity Awards(1)(2) | 8,078,872 | 3,598,008 | 1,320,975 | 1,561,265 | 1,061,798 | |||||||||||||||||
2017 MYLTIP Awards(1)(3) | 4,918,948 | 3,422,312 | 2,622,950 | 1,203,447 | 651,901 | |||||||||||||||||
2018 MYLTIP Awards(1)(3) | 3,182,734 | 2,098,585 | 1,540,370 | 669,370 | 410,765 | |||||||||||||||||
2019 MYLTIP Awards(1)(3) | 847,431 | 522,493 | 406,785 | 188,872 | 125,887 | |||||||||||||||||
Benefits Continuation | 45,668 | 22,834 | 20,759 | 22,834 | 20,759 | |||||||||||||||||
Total | 26,873,653 | 13,344,232 | 9,471,839 | 6,115,788 | 4,641,110 | |||||||||||||||||
Involuntary Not for Cause or Good Reason Termination Following Change in Control(4) | Bonus | 2,250,000 | — | — | — | |||||||||||||||||
Severance | 10,558,333 | 8,212,500 | 7,935,000 | 5,205,000 | 4,895,000 | |||||||||||||||||
Unvested Equity Awards(1)(2) | 11,489,666 | 7,465,808 | 1,320,975 | 3,212,689 | 2,190,044 | |||||||||||||||||
2017 MYLTIP Awards(1)(3) | 5,081,520 | 3,535,420 | 2,709,638 | 1,243,221 | 673,446 | |||||||||||||||||
2018 MYLTIP Awards(1)(3) | 5,028,995 | 3,315,947 | 2,433,918 | 1,057,662 | 649,045 | |||||||||||||||||
2019 MYLTIP Awards(1)(3) | 2,811,930 | 1,733,727 | 1,349,787 | 626,712 | 417,716 | |||||||||||||||||
Benefits Continuation | 68,502 | 70,482 | 64,257 | 70,482 | 64,257 | |||||||||||||||||
Other Benefits(5) | 150,000 | 150,000 | 150,000 | 150,000 | 150,000 | |||||||||||||||||
Excise Tax Gross-Up(6) | — | 8,228,447 | 7,066,035 | 4,044,683 | 3,351,083 | |||||||||||||||||
Total | 37,438,946 | 32,712,331 | 23,029,610 | 15,610,449 | 12,390,591 | |||||||||||||||||
Change in Control Without Termination | 2017 MYLTIP Awards(1)(3) | 5,081,520 | 3,535,420 | 2,709,638 | 1,243,221 | 673,446 | ||||||||||||||||
2018 MYLTIP Awards(1)(3) | 5,028,995 | 3,315,947 | 2,433,918 | 1,057,662 | 649,045 | |||||||||||||||||
2019 MYLTIP Awards(1)(3) | 2,811,930 | 1,733,727 | 1,349,787 | 626,712 | 417,716 | |||||||||||||||||
Total | 12,922,445 | 8,585,094 | 6,493,343 | 2,927,595 | 1,740,207 | |||||||||||||||||
Death or Disability | Bonus | 2,250,000 | 750,000 | 740,000 | 510,000 | 410,000 | ||||||||||||||||
Unvested Equity Awards(1)(2) | 11,489,666 | 7,465,808 | 1,320,975 | 3,212,689 | 2,190,044 | |||||||||||||||||
2017 MYLTIP Awards(1)(3) | 5,081,520 | 3,535,420 | 2,709,638 | 1,243,221 | 673,446 | |||||||||||||||||
2018 MYLTIP Awards(1)(3) | 5,028,995 | 3,315,947 | 2,433,918 | 1,057,662 | 649,045 | |||||||||||||||||
2019 MYLTIP Awards(1)(3) | 2,811,930 | 1,733,727 | 1,349,787 | 626,712 | 417,716 | |||||||||||||||||
Benefits Continuation | 34,251 | 34,251 | 31,139 | 34,251 | 31,139 | |||||||||||||||||
Total | 26,696,362 | 16,835,153 | 8,585,457 | 6,684,535 | 4,371,390 | |||||||||||||||||
Qualified Retirement(7) | Unvested Equity Awards(1)(2) | — | — | 1,320,975 | — | 683,096 | ||||||||||||||||
2017 MYLTIP Awards(1)(3) | — | — | 2,709,638 | — | — | |||||||||||||||||
2018 MYLTIP Awards(1)(3) | — | — | 2,433,918 | — | — | |||||||||||||||||
2019 MYLTIP Awards(1)(3) | — | — | 1,349,787 | — | 417,716 | |||||||||||||||||
Total | — | — | 7,814,318 | — | 1,100,812 |
80 | | 2020 Proxy Statement |
7› | COMPENSATION OF EXECUTIVE OFFICERS |
(1) | Restricted common stock, LTIP units and LTIP units that would have been earned pursuant to 2017 MYLTIP awards, 2018 MYLTIP awards and 2019 MYLTIP awards are valued based on the closing price of |
(2) | Includes the following shares of restricted common stock and LTIP units (including outstanding performance-based LTI equity awards for which the three-year performance period has ended and that have been earned (i.e., |
• | Involuntarynot for |
BOSTON PROPERTIES, INC. |2017 Proxy Statement 67
COMPENSATION OF EXECUTIVE OFFICERS
• | Involuntary not for cause termination or a good reason termination within 24 months following a change in control and death or disability: Mr. Thomas — 83,343 LTIP units; Mr. Linde — an aggregate of 54,155 LTIP units and shares of restricted common stock; Mr. Ritchey — 9,582 LTIP units; Mr. LaBelle — an aggregate of 23,304 LTIP units and shares of restricted common stock; and Mr. Koop — 15,886 LTIP units. |
• | Qualified Retirement: Mr. Ritchey — 9,582 LTIP units and Mr. Koop — 4,955 LTIP units. |
(3) | As of December 31, 2019, the three-year performance periods had not ended for the 2017 MYLTIP awards, 2018 MYLTIP awards and 2019 MYLTIP awards. The values set forth above relating to the number of LTIP units that would have been earned in the event of a Qualified Retirement, involuntary not for cause termination/good reason termination, death or disability assume our performance for the three-year performance period under the 2017 MYLTIP awards, 2018 MYLTIP awards and 2019 MYLTIP awards continued at the same annualized rate as we experienced from the first day of the respective performance period through December 31, 2019 with proration, as applicable, but are not discounted to reflect the fact that such LTIP units would not be earned until a later date and would be subject to continuing transfer restrictions in the case of qualified retirement and involuntary termination prior to a change in control. |
(4) | Assumes termination occurs simultaneously with a change in control. |
(5) | Includes outplacement services valued at 15% of the sum of current base salary plus bonus with respect to the immediately preceding year up to a maximum of $75,000 paid in a lump sum, and financial counseling and tax preparation services valued at $25,000 per year for 36 months. |
(6) | Under his employment agreement, Mr. Thomas is not entitled to receive tax gross-up payments in the event he becomes subject to the golden parachute excise tax. Instead, if any payment or benefit to be paid or provided to Mr. Thomas would have been subject to the golden parachute excise tax, the payments and benefits will be reduced to the extent necessary to avoid the imposition of such tax if such reduction would result in a greater after-tax benefit to Mr. Thomas. The amounts set forth in the table above have not been adjusted to reflect any such reduction that might be applicable. |
(7) | Based on their respective age and tenure, as of December 31, 2019, each of Messrs. Ritchey and Koop is eligible for a Qualified Retirement with respect to awards granted in 2019. In
|
The above discussion and the amounts shown in the above tables do not include payments and benefits to the extent they have been earned prior to the termination of employment or are provided on a non-discriminatory basis to salaried employees upon termination of employment. These include:
accrued salary and vacation pay;