Where we get called in

Credit Unions

Executive retention, SERP design, and board accountability, under regulatory oversight.

• A new SERP or retention program is on the table and the board wants independent guidance before vendors get involved.
• Conflicting recommendations on executive benefits and funding structures have reached the board, and nobody in the room can reconcile them.
• Retention, succession, and examiner expectations are pulling in different directions, and the trade-offs need to be documented rather than assumed.

Credit union SERP advisory →

Healthcare Systems

Complex compensation structures, executive retention, and heightened public accountability.

• Executive retention arrangements need designing or revisiting in a market where leadership is actively being recruited away.
• Legacy programs are difficult to administer and nobody currently on staff fully understands how they work.
• Participant-funded or shared-risk structures have been proposed, and the board needs them evaluated on alignment and optics, not only economics.

Health system executive benefits advisory →

Higher Education

Coaches, presidents, and senior administrators, with compensation that ends up public.

• A head coach or senior administrator is being recruited elsewhere, and retaining them takes something more durable than salary.
• A participant-funded or shared-premium split-dollar arrangement has been proposed, and nobody has modeled what happens if the participant leaves early, the policy underperforms, or the loan has to be unwound.
• Compensation decisions will appear in the Form 990 and quite possibly in the press, and the board needs a structure it can explain in both places.

Nonprofit Organizations

Mission-driven organizations outside healthcare, higher education, and financial institutions.

• Senior leadership needs retaining without creating a problem with donors or the public.
• The board wants to know how an arrangement will read to auditors, regulators, and anyone who opens the Form 990.
• There is internal disagreement about executive compensation and no neutral party in the room.

Boards and Leadership Teams

When the decision is complicated, or the advice conflicts.

• A complex proposal is up for approval and there is no independent modeling to test what it assumes.
• A CEO and CFO want a second read before an irreversible commitment.
• Several advisors have given incompatible recommendations, and the result is confusion rather than choice.
• A compensation committee needs documentation that shows a prudent process, not just a decision.
• An existing strategy no longer fits the organization’s size, leadership, or regulatory position, and a full reset is not on the table.