A decade or two ago, stock option plans were predominantly tailored for the upper echelons of a company, with ‘regular employee’ stock ownership plans heavily favoring top-tier personnel. However, the landscape evolved dramatically with the advent of the technology and dot-com booms. A frenzied pursuit of the ‘best and brightest’ led to the widespread adoption of stock options and awards, ushering in a new era of “Global Plans” that extended equity benefits to all employees, regardless of geographical location.

In recent years, the stock option landscape has witnessed a shift. While a multitude of options still exists, there’s been a surge in the popularity of Restricted Shares, Performance Shares, and even “Phantom Shares.” This proliferation adds another layer of complexity, particularly in recordkeeping, reporting, participant education, and execution. Attendees at industry conferences, when asked about their satisfaction with employee-plan service providers, rarely raise their hands – indicating a widespread dissatisfaction.

When selecting a Plan Provider, paramount considerations include the size, financial strength, reputation, experience, and staying power of the chosen firm. Given the crucial role of the Board and top executives in the decision-making process, the emphasis lies on fast and flawless execution, cost-effectiveness, and a preference for red-carpet treatment.

Once the basic needs of the leadership are met, the focus should shift to ensuring the tightest possible control and compliance environment. This safeguards your interests while incorporating user-friendly tools and flexible delivery systems to adapt to the dynamic nature of compensation programs suggested by consultants.

While the ideal scenario would involve a single provider for all employee plans, thorough research is imperative. Some providers excel in certain services but fall short in others. Given the global nature of many plans, it is essential to choose a provider with a truly global presence and the capability to act locally.
It’s crucial to acknowledge that some tools commonly used by corporate entities may be outdated or require reevaluation. Future issues will delve deeper into scrutinizing and potentially revamping these tools to ensure they meet the evolving needs of corporate stock ownership plans