Haute Lumière

Commerce · V.03 · MMXXVI · daylight

La Bourse  /  Volume V  /  Nº V.03  /  Workbook — the executive

WORKBOOK — THE CORPORATE EXECUTIVE

Chapter V.03 · Ownership and the Worker

For the person who can actually change a plan document. You have a P&L, a board, an auditor and a signature limit. This workbook assumes all four and wastes none of your time on whether employee ownership is a good idea.

---

THE PREMISE, STATED COMMERCIALLY

Employee ownership pays. The measured effects are real and they are modest: a meta-analytic correlation with firm performance of 0.04, and a one-time productivity step of 4 to 7 percent in the year of adoption which then holds.

Modest is not small when margins are thin. On a business running 60 percent labour cost and a 6 percent operating margin, a 4 percent labour productivity gain takes profit from 6.00 to 8.31 — a 38.5 percent increase in operating profit. And the employment effect is the sturdiest number in the field: Kurtulus and Kruse measured employee-ownership firms cutting employment by 1.3 percent per percentage point of national unemployment against 3.0 percent elsewhere, with firms over 21 percent more likely to survive.

So the question is not whether. It is how much, funded how, and what you owe the workforce in ten years' time — and it is that last clause where these arrangements fail, quietly, on a cash flow rather than an argument.

---

PART ONE — DISCOVERY

Days 1–30

Exercise 1.1 — The funding audit (one week, with your reward lead)

Before you design anything, find out what your people have already been asked to pay. List every route by which employer stock currently reaches an employee, and for each one answer a single question: what did the employee give up?

Everything below the first line is a transfer you are booking at face value and your employees are receiving at 35 to 58 cents. That gap is not a transfer to the company; it is destroyed, and it is destroyed on your side of the relationship.

Exercise 1.2 — The concentration distribution (one week, with benefits)

You almost certainly do not know this number, and it is the number.

For a representative sample — say fifty employees across three levels and two tenures — compute w: employer stock as a share of that person's total retirement savings across all plans. Then plot the distribution.

Expect a long right tail of long-tenured, mid-paid people at 60 percent and above. Those are your most loyal employees, and the plan has quietly made them the most exposed people in the building.

Exercise 1.3 — The appreciative board conversation (one session)

Put one question to your board, in these words:

"When has this company made a decision that was clearly right for the people here and paid off sooner than anyone expected? What made that possible, and how would we get more of it?"

Take notes on conditions. Then ask the follow-up that the evidence demands: do the people in that story have a say in how their work is done, or only a share of the result?

---

PART TWO — THE ARITHMETIC

Days 31–45

Exercise 2.1 — The concentration ledger, for your own workforce (one week)

For each person in the sample from 1.2, compute three numbers. All three are one line of arithmetic and all three belong in the board pack.

  swap value    v(w)  = 1 − (1 − exp(−γ w² σ_ε² T / 2)) / w
  hurdle        λ*(w) = γ w σ_ε² / 2
  ceiling       w*    = 2λ / (γ σ_ε²)

Use your own volatility, not the chapter's. If you are listed, take the realised volatility of your own shares and your beta from your own data; if you are private, use a comparable-company estimate and say in the paper that you did. σ_ε² = σ_c² − β²σ_m².

Present it as a table with three columns — the face value on the statement, the diversified-equivalent value, and the difference. The difference column is the paper. For the chapter's median participant it is $84,170 on a $130,330 account.

Exercise 2.2 — The premium you are prepared to minute (half a day)

The ceiling depends on one number nobody can observe: the annual excess return you believe employee ownership produces at your company. Do not skip it. Write it down, defend it, and put it in the minutes.

A board that wants a 30 percent concentration is asserting a four-point annual premium. It may be right. It must say so.

Exercise 2.3 — The productivity case, correctly framed (2 hours)

Build the profit bridge from a productivity step, not a growth rate.

  revenue                                 100.00
  labour cost (60%)                        60.00
  other cost                               34.00
  operating profit (6%)                     6.00
  labour at a 4% productivity gain         57.69
  operating profit                          8.31   (+38.5%)

Then state the limit explicitly in the paper, because your CFO will find it otherwise: this is a step to a higher level, not a faster growth rate. Ten years of a 5 percent step is worth 50 percent of one year's output; ten years of 5 percent growth would be 62.9 percent in the final year alone. Modelling the first as the second is the most common error in these business cases and it destroys the paper's credibility in one question.

Exercise 2.4 — The repurchase projection (one week, with the actuary)

Project share redemptions over fifteen years on your actual age and tenure profile, not on a five-year average of past outflow. Then cross-check from the other side: at your EBITDA margin, your enterprise multiple and your payroll as a share of revenue, what does repurchasing 5 percent of shares a year cost?

The chapter's worked case: a 10 percent margin at a 5× multiple with payroll at 30 percent of revenue gives equity at half a year's revenue, so 5 percent of shares is 2.5 percent of revenue — 8.3 percent of payroll. The NCEO's 2023 survey of 248 ESOP companies observed contributions averaging 11.7 percent of payroll. Two routes, one order of magnitude.

If your two routes differ by more than a factor of two, one of them is wrong and you have found something before it found you.

---

PART THREE — DESIGN

Days 46–60: the instrument

Exercise 3.1 — Draft the three clauses (one week, with counsel)

Enforce the cap by redirecting future contributions, never by compelled sale. A forced sale is a tax event the participant did not choose, and it will be the thing they remember.

Exercise 3.2 — The diversification pack (two weeks)

Every participant over 50 receives an envelope containing: the §401(a)(28)(B) rule in plain words, their own balance, their own w, the swap value with and without the election, and the name of a person who will sit down and do it with them.

For the chapter's participant, the election is worth 32.1 cents on the dollar — $41,867 — and it costs the company nothing. Take-up is not published anywhere in the industry. Measure yours and publish it in the annual report beside the safety statistics, because a participant who reaches 65 at 90 percent concentration is an operational failure of the same kind as a lost-time injury.

Exercise 3.3 — The auditor conversation (one meeting, month two)

Three questions, asked early rather than in month eleven.

1. How is the trust's borrowing treated, and where does the interest run?
2. When does the repurchase obligation become a recognised liability, and what disclosure would you expect before that?
3. If we establish a segregated repurchase reserve, how is it presented?

The honest position is that the obligation is certain, large, growing and invisible on the balance sheet until the put is exercisable — which is exactly why it should be disclosed and funded voluntarily. An obligation with those four properties is precisely what an audit committee exists to find.

Exercise 3.4 — Build the participation side (one quarter)

The evidence is unambiguous and it is the part most transitions skip. Doucouliagos measured participation in decisions outperforming ownership by two to three and a half times, and codetermination alone measuring negative. The GAO, finding nothing else significant, found participation significant.

So specify it:

• Standing work groups with real authority over method, scheduling and quality — the exact form the GAO found to matter. Not a consultation forum.
• A beneficiary representative on the trustee board, and a trustee majority who do not report to the chief executive.
• A pass-through vote on sale, merger and dissolution.
• An annual valuation meeting where the appraiser explains the number and can be argued with.

A stake with no voice is a lottery ticket with a payroll number on it. You are buying the weaker half of the mechanism if you buy only the shares.

---

PART FOUR — DESTINY

Days 61–90

Exercise 4.1 — Into the pack (one conversation)

Two numbers onto the standing monthly or quarterly pack: median participant concentration and the funded ratio of the repurchase reserve. Anything reviewed on the standing pack persists; anything reviewed by exception does not.

Exercise 4.2 — The valuation discipline (one cycle)

Independent appraiser retained by the trustee, not by management. Method consistent year to year. When the price moves, the appraiser says why, out loud, to the workforce.

The fastest way to kill employee ownership is a valuation that rises smoothly while the business struggles — because the first retiree paid out at that price is being paid by everyone who stays.

Exercise 4.3 — The demographic stress test (2 hours)

Model the founding cohort retiring within a five-year window rather than smoothly. Most reserves are sized on an average and most workforces are not average. Name the year of peak redemption and put it in the paper.

Exercise 4.4 — The board paper (day 90)

One page. The inequality on the front:

         participant's stake                     2 · λ
       ------------------------------   ≤   ------------------
       participant's total retirement           γ · σ_ε²
                savings

Beneath it: the current median concentration, the ceiling implied by the premium the board is prepared to minute, the gap, the diversification take-up, and the funded ratio of the repurchase reserve. Five numbers. Nothing else.

---

THE FAILURE MODES, NAMED

So you can see them coming.

It was bought with wages. The workforce has no diversified savings at all and the plan becomes the whole of retirement. United Airlines: $4.8bn–$4.9bn of concessions for 55 percent of equity, extinguished in 2002, followed by a pension termination with $9.8bn of underfunding across about 122,000 participants — $26,230 per participant that simply did not get paid.

The company stock sat in the 401(k). Enron's plan held $2.1bn, 62 percent of it in Enron stock, which fell 94 percent. That was not an ESOP. It was elective deferrals and a match paid in shares, and it is the one structure with no defence at all.

The repurchase obligation arrived as a wave. Sized on an average, met by a demographic cluster. The company then chooses between paying a retiring machinist and buying the next machine, and whichever it chooses it has lost something it cannot buy back.

The valuation became a morale instrument. Once it does, every payout is a transfer from the stayers to the leavers and somebody will eventually notice.

Nobody was told about the election. A 55-year-old retires ten years later holding 35.4 cents on the dollar when she could have held 67.5, and the company that did this to her believed it was being generous.

---

THE NINETY DAYS ON ONE PAGE

---

BOARD PAPER TEMPLATE

Employee ownership: concentration and the repurchase obligation

What we hold today. Median participant concentration is __ percent of total retirement savings; the top decile is __ percent. Face value of employee holdings is $__; diversified-equivalent value at γ = 2 over ten years is $__. The difference is $__.

The premium this board believes in. __ points a year, on the following basis: ___. This implies a ceiling of __ percent.

The gap. __ participants sit above the ceiling, holding $__ in aggregate above it. Proposed remedy: redirection of future contributions, completing in __ years. No forced sales.

The obligation. Projected repurchases peak in __ at $__, which is __ percent of that year's projected payroll. The reserve is funded at __ percent.

The ask. Approve the funding covenant, the __ percent concentration cap, and the cash match. Approve a reserve contribution of $__ a year.

---

APPRECIATIVE QUESTIONS FOR YOUR LEADERSHIP TEAM

1. Where in this company do people already act like owners without holding a share, and what are they responding to?
2. What would our most loyal employee's retirement look like if everything goes right — and what would we need to have done this year for that to be true?
3. What is the largest share of someone's savings we are comfortable having in this company, and who here would put their name to that number?
4. When the founding cohort retires together, where does the cash come from, and who would be the first to tell us if the answer became unclear?