Survey Results
2012TrendsandDevelopmentsin
ExecutiveCompensation
April 2012
To protect the confidential and proprietary information included in this material, it may not be disclosed or provided
to any third parties without the approval of Meridian Compensation Partners, LLC.
ExecutiveSummary
Over the past twelve months, many Companies made impactful decisions with respect to their executive
compensation programs for 2012. These survey results summarize these decisions, which are based on
responses received as of March 31, 2012 from approximately 150 major companies.
Highlights of Meridian’s 2012 Trends and Developments in Executive Compensation survey include:
SayonPay
■ Ninety-one percent (91%) of responding companies expect to receive shareholder support above the
critical 70% level in 2012.
■ Eighty-one percent (81%) of companies made an effort to understand or prepare for ISS’s pay for
performance tests prior to the report being published; the majority (61%) had an outside compensation
consultant replicate ISS’s pay for performance tests.
2012MeritIncreaseBudgets
■ Salary increase budgets for executives were slightly higher in 2012 than 2011 as the global economy
improved with the most common response being between 3.0% and 3.5% (32%).
■ Twenty percent (20%) of responding companies implemented a budget increase above 3.5% in 2012
versus only 13% in 2011.
AnnualIncentives
■ Two-thirds of companies reported paying out bonuses at or above target in 2012 (based on improved
2011 financial performance).
■ One out of four companies changed at least one of their corporate financial performance metrics.
■ 2012 earnings goals are generally higher than 2011 goals; with 44% setting earnings goals more than 5%
higher than 2011 goals.
Long‐TermIncentives(LTIs)
■ Forty-two percent (42%) of participants reported increasing targeted LTI values for executives in 2012
while nearly 50% kept the targeted values the same as 2011.
■ Companies continue to shift to performance-based awards with 52% of the total LTI value for senior
executives delivered through performance share/unit awards in 2012, on average, up from 47% in 2011.
The average value of LTI delivered through stock options decreased from 26% to 23% while companies
continue to award approximately 25% of total LTI in time-based restricted stock or RSUs. Below the
executive level we are seeing a shift to just one vehicle, especially RSUs.
■ Of companies using one or more performance plans for executives in 2012, performance shares are by
far the most common vehicle (73%), followed by performance units (22%), and performance-contingent
restricted stock (14%).
■ Seventy-seven percent (77%) of performance plans utilize a 3-year performance period, while 22% of
performance plans evaluate performance over a period of 1 or 2 years.
■ The use of Total Shareholder Return (TSR) in long-term performance plans continues to increase.
Fifty percent (50%) of the companies surveyed use TSR in one or more of their long-term performance
awards, up from 44% in 2011.
PAGE 1 SURVEYS/TRENDS IN EC  APRIL 2012 Contents
Background Information
3
Say on Pay
5
Merit Increase Budgets
7
Annual Incentives
9
Long-Term Incentives
16
Perquisites
23
Appendix: Participating Companies
25
PAGE 2 SURVEYS/TRENDS IN EC  APRIL 2012 BackgroundInformation
PAGE 3 SURVEYS/TRENDS IN EC  APRIL 2012 BackgroundInformation
ParticipatingOrganizations
The Trends and Developments in Executive Compensation survey includes responses from 148 companies.
These organizations are listed, by primary GICS sector, in the Appendix. Financial highlights for the
participating organizations are presented in the table below.
FYERevenues
(Millions)
MarketValue
(Millions)
CurrentEnterpriseValue
(Millions)
Numberof
Employees
25th Percentile
$1,339
$1,157
$1,655
3,150
Median
$3,159
$3,986
$4,908
7,550
75th Percentile
$8,284
$9,121
$12,029
21,018
Source: Standard and Poors Compustat Database
Trailing four-quarter revenues were used for companies who have not reported fiscal year-end 2011 figures.
Market value and enterprise value are effective as of December 31, 2011.
2012 Participants by Industry Sector
5%
1%
7%
18%
Consumer Discretionary
Consumer Staples
8%
Energy
Financials
8%
Health Care
Industrials
Information Technology
Materials
24%
17%
Telecommunication Services
Utilities
2%
9%
3‐YearPerformanceSummaryofParticipants
Operating
Margin
ROIC
EPSGrowth
Annualized
TSR
25th Percentile
6.3%
5.0%
-8.8%
13.3%
Median
10.6%
8.8%
6.1%
24.5%
75th Percentile
17.6%
13.3%
16.1%
36.0%
PAGE 4 SURVEYS/TRENDS IN EC  APRIL 2012 SayonPay
PAGE 5 SURVEYS/TRENDS IN EC  APRIL 2012 SayonPay
ExpectedLevelofSupportforSayonPay
Fifty-nine percent (59%) of respondents expect to receive above 90% shareholder support for Say on Pay at
their 2012 annual shareholder meeting. Further, 92% expect greater than 70% support, meaning that those
companies expect to be outside of ISS’s designated cautionary “yellow card” zone.
Say on Pay—2012 Expected Annual Shareholder Support
70%
60%
59%
50%
40%
32%
30%
20%
7%
10%
2%
0%
Above 90%
71%–90%
50%–70%
Below 50%
In 2012, the majority of respondents (61%) asked an outside compensation consultant to replicate ISS’s Pay
for Performance tests in order to prepare for ISS’s evaluation. Twenty-two percent (22%) of responding
companies replicated such testing internally, 19% asked ISS to provide preliminary quantitative test results,
19% asked a proxy solicitor to assist in a shareholder outreach campaign and 19% did nothing specific to
predict ISS’s Pay for Performance results.
2012 ISS Pay for Performance Approach
Replicating ISS’s pay for performance tests internally
22%
Having an outside compensation consultant replicate
ISS’s pay for performance tests
61%
Paying ISS's fee to have them provide preliminary
quantitative test results
19%
Asking proxy solicitor to help with major shareholder
outreach
19%
No specific work done to predict ISS's
recommendation
19%
0%
PAGE 6 SURVEYS/TRENDS IN EC  APRIL 2012 20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
2012MeritIncreaseBudgets
PAGE 7 SURVEYS/TRENDS IN EC  APRIL 2012 2012MeritIncreaseBudgets
MeritBudgetIncreaseforExecutives
Most companies have increased or are increasing their 2012 merit budget for executives, with the most
common response being between 3.0% and 3.5% (32%). Furthermore, in 2012, approximately 20% of
responding companies have implemented or will implement a budget increase over 3.5%. In 2011, only 13%
of companies implemented a budget increase over 3.5%. Thus, there appears to be a moderate rise in merit
budgets for executives in 2012.
MeritBudgetIncreaseforSalariedNon‐Exempt
Most companies also increased or are increasing their 2012 merit budget for salaried employees.
Furthermore, in 2012, 20% of responding companies have implemented or will implement a budget increase
for this group over 3.5%.
2012MeritBudgetIncreaseRange
Prevalence
Executives
Prevalence
SalariedNon‐Exempt
0% (no merit increase for 2012)
6%
2%
< 2.0%
1%
3%
2.0% - 2.99%
23%
30%
3.0% - 3.49%
32%
42%
3.5% - 3.99%
10%
9%
4.0% - 4.49%
4%
3%
4.5% - 5%
5%
7%
> 5.0%
2%
1%
No Fixed Budget for 2012
17%
3%
IncreaseRange
PAGE 8 SURVEYS/TRENDS IN EC  APRIL 2012 AnnualBonus
PAGE 9 SURVEYS/TRENDS IN EC  APRIL 2012 AnnualBonus
2012AnnualIncentivePayoutsfor2011Performance
Sixty-seven percent (67%) of responding companies paid bonuses at or above target in 2012, representing a
slight decrease from 2011 when 72% of respondents reported paying bonuses at or above target. While
financial performance improved in 2011 for many companies, performance goals were set higher for 2011
than 2010. The slight decrease also may be linked to a stabilizing market and, thus, more accurate targetsetting in 2011 than in 2010. It is also noteworthy that only 11% of companies paid less than 50% of target
for 2011 performance.
2012 Payouts as a Percentage of Target
25%
20%
18%
15%
15%
12%
13%
9%
10%
6%
12%
9%
5%
5%
1%
1%
0%
UseofDiscretioninAnnualIncentivePlanPayouts
A clear majority of responding organizations (72%) reported not using discretion to adjust the 2011 results for
extraordinary, unusual or unplanned events. Of those respondents making adjustments, the adjustments
typically increased the results.
IRCSection162(m)BonusPool
Forty-seven percent (47%) of companies utilize an IRC Section 162(m) bonus pool, to ensure tax
deductibility. Of those companies that utilize an IRC Section 162(m) bonus pool the most commonly-used
performance metrics are Operating Income/EBITDA (51%) and Net Income (26%).
PAGE 10 SURVEYS/TRENDS IN EC  APRIL 2012 2012AnnualIncentivePerformanceMetrics
A clear majority of responding companies (80%) continue to utilize two or more performance metrics.
However, the percentage of respondents utilizing a single performance metric has increased from 14% in
2011 to 20% in 2012. Thus, there appears to be a modest trend toward streamlining performance plans for
the senior-most executives.
Number of Performance Metrics Used
1 performance metric
20%
2 performance metrics
30%
3 performance metrics
19%
> 3 performance metrics
31%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
Of the 148 respondents, 35% indicated that no qualitative metrics are used when determining annual
incentive payouts for executives. The remaining 65% of companies utilize some form of qualitative
performance measure, in addition to quantitative financial metrics, when evaluating annual incentive payouts.
The pie chart below illustrates prevalence by qualitative metric used.
Prevalence of Qualitative Metrics
25%
Individual Only
35%
Corporate/Division Only
Both
16%
Do Not Use Qualitative
Metrics
24%
PAGE 11 SURVEYS/TRENDS IN EC  APRIL 2012 2012FinancialPerformanceMetricsChanges
Nearly one-quarter of the respondents (23%) changed at least one of their financial performance metrics in
2012. Of those that made changes, the companies typically shifted from one earnings metric to another.
CorporatePerformanceMetrics
Annual Incentive Performance Metrics
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
46%
18%
18%
Net Income
30%
32%
EPS
10%
Operating Income Margin (EBIT/EBITDA margin)
10%
5%
Return on Invested Capital
Return
Measures
5%
5%
Return on Equity
5%
30%
Sales/Revenues
Free Cash Flow Margin
Economic Value Added
Total Shareholder Return
2011
32%
2012
17%
Free Cash Flow
Cash
Flow
Measures
60%
44%
Operating Income (EBIT/EBITDA)
Profit
Measures
50%
19%
3%
2%
4%
3%
3%
2%
14%
14%
Individual Qualitative Goals
Individual Discretionary Factor
Corporate/Division Discretionary Goals
Industry Specific Financial Measure
Other
10%
9%
16%
14%
13%
14%
24%
25%
As illustrated above, profit measures were clearly the most commonly utilized metrics to evaluate annual
performance. The most prevalent performance metric for 2012 (46%) was Operating Income (including EBIT
and EBITDA). There also were modest increases in 2012 for the use of sales/revenue-related measures,
EPS and free cash flow.
The vast majority of responding organizations (92%) do not utilize relative performance goals (goals that
compare against a peer group or index) for their annual incentive plan.
PAGE 12 SURVEYS/TRENDS IN EC  APRIL 2012 When asked to quantify how 2012 earnings-related goals relate to the previous year’s goals, 68% of
responding companies reported that their primary earnings-related goal for 2012 is at or above that of 2011.
PrimaryEarnings‐RelatedGoalComparedto2011Goals
Lower than 2011 goal
16%
Same as 2011 goal
16%
Higher than 2011 goal by 5% or less
24%
Higher than 2011 goal by more than 5%
44%
Eleven percent (11%) of respondents set their 2012 target goal below 2011 actual results. However, the
decision to do so may be based on unique company circumstances.
PrimaryEarnings‐RelatedGoalComparedto2011Results
Threshold goal is below last year's actual results
19%
Target goal is below last year's actual results
11%
Maximum goal is below last year's actual results
2%
All goals are at or above last year's actual results
67%
PlanDesign
The great majority of respondents (69%) provide a maximum opportunity of 200% of target under their
annual incentive plan.
2012 Maximum Payout Compared to Target
6%
1%
7%
5%
9%
3%
100% of target
150% of target
175% of target
200% of target
250% of target
Uncapped
Other
69%
PAGE 13 SURVEYS/TRENDS IN EC  APRIL 2012 Sixty percent (60%) of responding companies set the minimum payout for the annual incentive plan below
50% of target. Nearly all respondents (95%) set the minimum payout opportunity for threshold performance
below 75% of target.
2012 Minimum Payout Opportunity
as a Percent of Target
5%
38%
35%
Less than 25% of target
25% - 49% of target
50% - 74% of target
75% - 100% of target
22%
PrimaryEarningsMeasures
FinancialPerformanceRequiredtoEarnThresholdPayout
An oft-cited threshold goal level is 80% of target for an annual incentive. However, 41% of the respondents
set threshold performance at less than 80% of target for their primary earnings-related annual incentive
performance measure. Furthermore, one-quarter of the respondents set the threshold performance below
60% of target, yielding a flat performance curve.
2011
2012
Under 60%
24%
25%
60% - 69%
4%
4%
70% - 79%
16%
12%
80% - 84%
20%
22%
85% - 89%
13%
10%
90% - 94%
15%
19%
95% - 99%
9%
8%
PAGE 14 SURVEYS/TRENDS IN EC  APRIL 2012 FinancialPerformanceRequiredtoEarnMaximumPayout
An oft-cited maximum goal level is 120% of target for an annual incentive. However, 48% of the respondents
set threshold performance at more than 120% of target for their primary earnings-related annual incentive
performance measure. Of such companies, 70% set their threshold goals below 80% of target, suggesting
many payout curves are not set on a linear basis. Furthermore, only 44% of respondents indicated a
maximum performance goal over 120% of target in 2011, indicating a slight trend toward increasing the
annual incentive plan maximums.
2011
2012
100% - 104%
8%
6%
105% - 109%
10%
9%
110% - 114%
13%
12%
115% - 120%
25%
24%
Above 120%
44%
48%
PAGE 15 SURVEYS/TRENDS IN EC  APRIL 2012 Long‐TermIncentives
PAGE 16 SURVEYS/TRENDS IN EC  APRIL 2012 Long‐TermIncentives
PlanDesignChangesfor2011
Companies continue to shift towards using a fixed targeted dollar value when determining long-term
incentive (LTI) award sizes. Approximately 92% of responding companies reported using a fixed value in
2012, up significantly from 77% last year. In addition, many organizations are also looking at realized
compensation as part of their annual review process.
About the Same as
2011
42%
Fixed Number of Shares
Combined Approach
7%
51%
1%
6%
Fixed Value
Targeted Value is
Lower than 2011
Targeted Value is
Greater than 2011
92%
Last year’s survey results were indicative of a modest rebound year in terms of grant sizes with 52% of
respondents reporting higher targeted LTI values. This year’s survey results suggest that LTI award size
increases were somewhat less common for 2012 as only 42% increased targeted LTI values and 51% kept
targeted values roughly the same. For those that increased targeted LTI values, the typical increase was
approximately 10%–15%.
MetricsforDeterminingLong‐TermIncentiveGrants
When determining LTI grants for senior-most executives, approximately 75% consider market data as a
primary factor; 23% consider it a secondary factor. Of those that consider market data a secondary factor,
the most common primary factor listed was internal equity (44%). Just over one-third of respondents said
they don’t specifically consider the prior year’s dollar grant size when determining LTI grants.
PrimaryFactor
AdditionalFactor
NotaFactor
Competitive Market Data
75%
23%
2%
Internal Equity (i.e., grouping by level)
31%
64%
5%
Individual Performance
22%
58%
20%
Prior year grant size in number of shares
1%
22%
77%
Prior year grant size in dollars
10%
56%
34%
PAGE 17 SURVEYS/TRENDS IN EC  APRIL 2012 Companies are continuing to increase the number of LTI vehicles regularly granted to their senior-most
executives; however, three vehicles appears to be the ceiling. Eighty-two percent (82%) of respondents are
using 2 or more LTI vehicles in 2012, up from 80% in 2011.
Number of LTI Vehicles Used
60%
52%50%
50%
40%
31%
28%
30%
2011
2012
19%
16%
20%
10%
1% 2%
0% 1%
0%
No LTI
1 vehicle
2 vehicles
3 vehicles
>3 vehicles
Performance-based vehicles represent the largest portion of LTI granted to senior-most executives on a
dollar-weighted basis. On average, 52% of the total LTI value for senior executives is delivered through
performance share/unit/cash awards, up from 47% last year. The average portions delivered in stock
options/SARs or time-based restricted stock both decreased slightly from last year.
2012 Average LTI Mix
25%
2011 Average LTI Mix
Stock
Options/SARS
23%
12%
27%
Performance-Based
Stock Awards
Performance-Based
Cash Awards
Performance-Based
Cash Awards
12%
35%
Stock
Options/SARS
Performance-Based
Stock Awards
Time-Vested
Restricted
Stock/RSUs
40%
26%
PAGE 18 SURVEYS/TRENDS IN EC  APRIL 2012 Time-Vested
Restricted
Stock/RSUs
Performance‐BasedFullValueAwardDetails
Performance shares are the most common type of performance plan (73%), with performance units/cash
(23%) and performance-based restricted stock (14%) a distant second and third.
Performance-Based Grant Award Type
Performance Shares
73%
Performance Units
22%
Performance-based Restricted
Stock/Units
14%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
Note: The grant types are defined as: Performance Shares—a performance-based award with the same
value as a share of company stock that provides for a potential range of payouts; Performance Units—a
performance-based award that assigns a notional value to each unit that is not related to the value of a share
of company common stock and provides for a potential range of payouts; Performance-Based Restricted
Stock/Units—a performance-contingent equity award with no upside in the number of shares that can be
earned.
Time‐BasedFullValueAwardDetails
While time-based full value awards continue to comprise approximately 25% of total LTI values for
executives, many companies are switching to RSUs. Thirteen percent (13%) of 2012 time-based full value
awards were granted in RSUs paid in cash, up from just 4% in 2011. The prevalence of companies utilizing
restricted shares decreased from 36% in 2011 to 32% in 2012. Also, of those companies awarding timebased RSUs, 57% pay dividend equivalents.
Full Value Award Type
13%
Restricted Stock Units
(RSUs) paid in stock
Restricted Shares
32%
PAGE 19 SURVEYS/TRENDS IN EC  APRIL 2012 55%
Restricted Stock Units
(RSUs) paid in cash
Long‐TermPlanPerformanceAwardsEligibility
Most companies (78%) allow performance plan participation below the Section 16 Executive group. Only 5%
of respondents limit performance plan eligibility to the Named Executive Officers (NEOs).
PercentEligible
CEO Only
0%
Named Executive Officers Only
5%
Section 16 Executives Officers Only
17%
Management Group
53%
All Long-Term Incentive Eligible Employees
(Broader than management group)
24%
Long‐TermPerformancePeriodLength
The great majority of long-term performance plans use a 3-year performance period (77%). About 22% of
performance plans use performance periods less than 3 years; only 4% use longer periods. Only 22% of
performance plans have an additional vesting restriction on earned shares once the performance cycle is
completed. Of such additional vesting restrictions, 70% are 2 years or less; 30% have additional vesting
periods of 3 to 5 years.
Performance
Period
Prevalence
1 year
15%
2 years
7%
3 years
77%
4 years
4%
Note: Does not sum to 100% because some
companies have multiple performance awards
PAGE 20 SURVEYS/TRENDS IN EC  APRIL 2012 Performance Measures for LTIPs
0%
10%
20%
Net Income
23%
25%
7%
7%
13%
15%
Return on Invested Capital
Return on Assets
5%
6%
Return on Equity
5%
5%
6%
2%
2%
2%
2%
44%
Total Shareholder Return
Industry Specific Financial Measure
Other
2012
10%
12%
Free Cash Flow
Economic Value Added
2011
4%
Sales
Free Cash Flow Margin
60%
22%
Operating Income Margin (EBIT/EBITDA margin)
Cash
Flow
Measures
50%
6%
4%
EPS
Return
Measures
40%
21%
Operating Income (EBIT/EBITDA)
Profit
Measures
30%
50%
5%
5%
10%
10%
Total Shareholder Return (TSR), which is used in one-half of performance plans, has increased to nearly the
prevalence of all profit metrics combined. The survey results also indicate slight increases in the use of
sales/revenues, operating income, and return on invested capital (ROIC), while net income and return on
equity (ROE) are slightly less prevalent in 2012.
Nearly half of performance plans (49%) use a relative performance metric in 2012, up from approximately
40% in 2011. For those companies, relative performance metrics are weighted 72% on average, versus a
28% weighting for absolute performance metrics. Also, of such plans, approximately 85% use TSR
performance relative to a peer group or index.
PAGE 21 SURVEYS/TRENDS IN EC  APRIL 2012 Three-fourths of performance plans have a maximum payout opportunity equal to 200% of target; only about
8% of companies have a maximum payout above 200% or uncapped. The most common payout at threshold
performance is 50% to 74% of target, while only 6% of plans set threshold payouts at 75% or more of target.
Maximum Payout Opportunity
As a Percent of Target
5%
3%2%
2%
Minimum Non-Zero Payout Opportunity
as a Percent of Target
14%
6%
150% of target
25%
200% of target
250% of target
1% - 24% of Target
25% - 49% of Target
300% of target
Uncapped
50% - 74% of Target
48%
Other
22%
75%
75% - 100% of
Target
TreatmentofLTIAwardsUponNormalRetirement
Upon normal retirement, it is somewhat common (45%) to allow continued vesting on performance awards
until the end of the performance cycle; however, few companies allow for accelerated vesting of performance
awards.
Accelerated
Prorated
(Paidat
Retirement)
Prorated
(PaidatEndof
Vestingor
Performance
Cycle)
Forfeited
Stock Options/SARs
49%
5%
20%
26%
Performance Awards (including
performance-contingent Restricted
Stock/RSUs)
14%
16%
45%
25%
Performance Cash
6%
12%
45%
37%
Time-vested Restricted
Stock/RSUs
39%
23%
7%
31%
PAGE 22 SURVEYS/TRENDS IN EC  APRIL 2012 PerquisitesandOtherBenefits
PAGE 23 SURVEYS/TRENDS IN EC  APRIL 2012 PerquisitesandOtherBenefits
According to the survey results, personal use of the company plane continues as a minority practice for new
NEOs, yet one out of three companies offer this perquisite to their CEO. Annual physicals and financial/tax
planning assistance remain as the most common perquisites offered to new NEOs. While most companies
no longer offer excise tax gross-ups to new NEOs, one-quarter continue to provide this perquisite to their
CEO and/or at least one legacy NEO.
Perquisite
CEO
AtLeastOne
LegacyNEOs
NewNEOs
Company plane for personal use
34%
15%
9%
Excise tax gross-ups
26%
27%
4%
Company car/lease/allowance
28%
25%
23%
Flexible perquisite allowance
9%
9%
8%
Financial/Tax planning
56%
53%
47%
Club memberships
23%
15%
15%
Annual physical
53%
48%
43%
Matching Charitable Gifts
31%
29%
27%
Home Security
11%
6%
5%
Please email Patrick Powers (ppowers@meridiancp.com) or Jennifer Turner
(jturner@meridiancp.com) or call 847-235-3600 with any questions or
comments.
PAGE 24 SURVEYS/TRENDS IN EC  APRIL 2012 Appendix:ParticipatingCompanies
PAGE 25 SURVEYS/TRENDS IN EC  APRIL 2012 Appendix:ParticipatingCompanies
ConsumerDiscretionary
Energy
American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc
Belo Corp.
BorgWarner Inc.
Brinker
Brown Shoe Company
Build-A-Bear Workshop
Chrysler Group LLC
Darden
Einstein Noah Restaurant Group
Gannett Co Inc.
Genuine Parts Company
Harley-Davidson
Harte-Hanks
Interpublic Group of Cos
Lear Corporation
Limited Brands Inc
McDonald's Corporation
Polaris Industries Inc.
Service Corporation International
Scripps Networks Interactive
Sears Canada Inc.
Signet
Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc.
The Bon-Ton Stores, Inc.
Tower International
Vera Bradley
Yum! Brands
Anadarko Petroleum Corporation
Approach Resources Inc.
Arch Coal Inc.
Buckeye Partners
Cabot Oil & Gas Corporation
Cal Dive International Inc.
Cobalt International Energy
Crosstex Energy Services, LP
Devon Energy Corporation
Encana Corporation
Endeavour International
EOG Resources, Inc.
FMC Technologies, Inc.
Helix Energy Solutions
Kosmos Energy, LLC
Legend Natural Gas
Linn Energy
Marathon Oil Corporation
North American Energy Partners Inc.
Pioneer Natural Resources USA, Inc.
QEP Resources, Inc.
SemGroup Corporation
Tidewater Inc.
Williams Cos
WPX Energy
ConsumerStaples
Beam Inc.
Coca-Cola Enterprises Inc.
Corn Products
Energizer Holdings, Inc.
Flowers Foods, Inc.
Kraft Foods Inc.
Orchids Paper Products Company
The Procter & Gamble Company
Reynolds American Inc.
Spartan Stores Inc.
Pantry Inc.
TreeHouse Foods, Inc.
Financials
Blue Cross Blue Shield of Kansas City
BlueCross BlueShield of South Carolina
Comerica Bank
Discover Financial Services
Freddie Mac
Glimcher Realty Trust
Hanover Insurance Group
MetLife, Inc.
Moody's Corporation
Radian Group
Ramco Gershenson Properties Trust
The PNC Financial Services Group
XL Group
PAGE 26 SURVEYS/TRENDS IN EC  APRIL 2012 HealthCare
InformationTechnology
Mylan
Onyx Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Perrigo Company
Akamai Technologies Inc.
Alliance Data Systems
Amphenol Corp
Applied Materials
Avnet
Broadridge Financial Solutions
Cardtronics
Dell, Inc.
Global Payments
Hewlett-Packard Company
Paychex
Viasystems Group, Inc
Industrials
AMR Corp.
Andersen Corporation
Arkansas Best Corporation
Avis Budget Group, Inc.
Barnes Group Inc
BNSF Railway Company
Caterpillar Inc.
Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V.
CSX Corporation
The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation
Eaton Corporation
Equifax Inc.
Finning International Inc.
Fortune Brands Home & Security
Franklin Electric Co Inc.
Gardner Denver, Inc.
Hendrickson
Hydrogenics Corporation
Illinois Tool Works
JB Hunt Transport Services, Inc
JBT Corporation
Johanson Group
KBR, Inc.
Lockheed Martin
Meritor, Inc.
Mueller Water Products, Inc.
PACCAR Inc
Robbins & Myers Inc.
Schneider National, Inc.
The Toro Company
TransUnion LLC
Trinity Industries, Inc.
United Stationers
United Technologies
W.W Grainger
Wabash National
PAGE 27 SURVEYS/TRENDS IN EC  APRIL 2012 Materials
Celanese
Centerra Gold Inc.
Chemtrade
Domtar Inc.
FMC Corporation
Inmet Mining
Milliken & Co
The Valspar Corporation
TelecommunicationServices
Vonage Holdings Corporation
Utilities
AES Corporation
Ameren Corporation
Capstone Infrastructure
El Paso Electric
FirstEnergy Corp.
National Fuel Gas
PNM Resources
Progress Energy, Inc.
Questar Corp
WGL Holdings
Westar Energy