companies included in our compensation peer group, provided competitive market assessments of the compensation of our executive officers and non-employee director compensation programs, and provided support on other matters as requested by the Compensation Committee.
The Compensation Committee has analyzed whether the work of Compensia as compensation consultant raises any conflict of interest, taking into account relevant factors in accordance with SEC guidelines. Based on its analysis, our Compensation Committee determined that the work of Compensia and the individual compensation advisors employed by Compensia does not create any conflict of interest pursuant to the SEC rules and Nasdaq listing standards.
Use of Competitive Market Compensation Data
The Compensation Committee believes that it is important when making its compensation decisions to be informed as to the current practices of comparable public companies with which we compete for top talent.
Working with Compensia, the Compensation Committee approved a group of companies that were identified as peers based on alignment with our Company’s industry, stage of drug development, headcount, and market capitalization. The peer group that was identified and used in research that informed executive compensation for 2022 included the following companies: Aquestive Therapeutics, AVEO Pharmaceuticals, Clovis Oncology, Eagle Pharmaceuticals, Eiger BioPharmaceuticals, Epizyme, G1 Therapeutics, Harpoon Therapeutics, Karyopharm Therapeutics, MEI Pharma, Puma Biotechnology, Rigel Pharmaceuticals, Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Syros Pharmaceuticals, Verastem and Zogenix.
Compensia completed a benchmarking assessment of our historical executive compensation at the end of 2021 to inform the Compensation Committee’s determinations regarding executive compensation for 2022 using data compiled from the aforementioned peer group. Identification of peers included consideration of comparable market capitalization, revenues, investigational and/or in-line portfolio, number of employees as well as stage and maturity of the peer company. Compensia prepared and the Compensation Committee reviewed, a range of market data reference points with respect to base salary, performance bonuses, target total cash compensation (base salary and the annual target performance bonus), equity compensation, and total direct compensation (target total cash compensation and equity compensation) with respect to each of the named executive officers.
Additionally, Compensia performed benchmarking analysis of actual 2022 executive compensation awarded as compared to the following peers: Aquestive Therapeutics, AVEO Pharmaceuticals, Harpoon Therapeutics, MEI Pharma, Atara Biotherapeutics, Clovis Oncology, Corcept Therapeutics, Eiger BioPharmaceuticals, Epizyme, G1 Therapeutics, Karyopharm Therapeutics, MacroGenics, Progenics Pharmaceutical, Puma Biotechnology, Rigel Pharmaceuticals, TG Therapeutics, Verastem, Y-mAbs Theapeutics and Zogenix. This benchmarking analysis found that overall target total direct compensation awarded in 2022 was at approximately the 10th percentile for our executive officers excluding the CEO and the 15th percentile for the CEO. This analysis of 2022 compensation and other research performed by Compensia is then used to inform the Compensation Committee’s determinations regarding executive compensation for 2023.
Factors Used in Determining Executive Compensation
Our Compensation Committee sets the compensation of our executive officers at levels they determine to be competitive and appropriate for each named executive officer, using their professional experience and judgment. Pay decisions are not made by use of a formulaic approach or benchmark; the Compensation Committee believes that executive pay decisions require consideration of a multitude of relevant factors which may vary from year to year. In making executive compensation decisions, the Compensation Committee generally takes into consideration the factors listed below.
| • | | Company performance and existing business needs |
12