UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

 

SCHEDULE 14A

 

Proxy Statement Pursuant to Section 14(a) of the Securities

Exchange Act of 1934 (Amendment No. )

 

Filed by the Registrant  ☑

Filed by a Party other than the Registrant  ☐

Check the appropriate box:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

March 29, 2017

 

You are invited to Arrow’s Annual Meeting on Thursday, May 11, 2017. The formal notice of the Annual Meeting and the Proxy Statement soliciting your vote at the Annual Meeting appear on the following pages.

Under the rules adopted by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, we are furnishing proxy materials to our shareholders online rather than mailing printed copies to each shareholder. Accordingly, you will not receive a printed copy of the proxy materials unless you request one. The Important Notice Regarding the Availability of Proxy Materials for the Annual Meeting (the “Notice”) includes instructions on how to access and review the materials, and how to access your proxy card and vote online. If you would like to receive a printed copy of our proxy materials, please follow the instructions included in the Notice.

Please make sure you vote whether or not you plan to attend the Annual Meeting. You can cast your vote in person at the Annual Meeting, online by following the instructions on either the proxy card or the Notice, by telephone, or, if you received paper copies of our proxy materials, by mailing your proxy card in the postage-paid return envelope.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ARROW ELECTRONICS, INC.
Annual Meeting of Shareholders
To Be Held May 11, 2017

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PROXY STATEMENT

In Connection with the 2017 Annual Meeting

THE PURPOSE OF THIS STATEMENT

The Board of Directors of Arrow Electronics, Inc., a New York corporation (“Arrow” or the “Company”), is furnishing this Proxy Statement to shareholders of record to solicit proxies to be voted at the 2017 Annual Meeting. By returning a completed proxy card, or voting over the telephone or internet, you are giving instructions on how your shares are to be voted at the Annual Meeting. The Proxy Statement is available through www.proxyvote.com.

 

 

 

 

SHAREHOLDERS ENTITLED TO VOTE

Only shareholders of record of Arrow’s common stock at the close of business on March 13, 2017 (the “Record Date”) are entitled to notice of and to vote at the Annual Meeting. As of the Record Date, there were 89,174,805 shares of Arrow common stock outstanding. Each share of common stock is entitled to one vote on each matter properly brought before the Annual Meeting. The presence in person or by proxy of a majority of the shares entitled to vote at the Annual Meeting shall constitute a quorum.

For those who hold shares as a participant in Arrow’s 401(k) Plan, the shareholder has the right to direct Vanguard Fiduciary Trust Company (the “Trustee”), who is the holder of record, how to vote the shares of common stock credited to the participant’s account at the Annual Meeting. If voting instructions for the shares of common stock in the 401(k) Plan are not received, those shares will be voted by the Trustee in the same proportions as the shares for which voting instructions were received from other participants in the 401(k) Plan. Voting (including any revocations) by 401(k) Plan participants will close at 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on May 8, 2017. The Trustee will then vote all shares of common stock held in the 401(k) Plan by the established deadline. For all other shareholders, voting (including any revocations) will close at 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on May 10, 2017.

REVOCATION OF PROXIES

The person giving a proxy may revoke it at any time prior to the time it is voted at the Annual Meeting by giving written notice to Arrow’s Secretary, Gregory Tarpinian, at Arrow Electronics, Inc., 9201 East Dry Creek Road, Centennial, CO 80112. If the proxy was given by telephone or through the internet, it may be revoked in the same manner. You may also revoke your proxy by attending the Annual Meeting and voting in person. If your shares are held in “street name,” you must contact the record holder of the shares regarding how to revoke your proxy.

COST OF PROXY SOLICITATION

Arrow pays the cost of soliciting proxies. Arrow has retained D.F. King & Co., Inc. to assist in soliciting proxies at an anticipated cost of approximately $20,000, plus expenses. Arrow will supply soliciting materials to the brokers and other nominees holding Arrow common stock in a timely manner so that the brokers and other nominees may send the material to each beneficial owner. Arrow will reimburse the brokers and other nominees for their expenses in so doing. In addition to this solicitation by mail, employees of the Company may solicit proxies in person or by telephone.

PROPOSALS REQUIRING YOUR VOTE

VOTING YOUR SHARES

 

 

 

CERTAIN SHAREHOLDERS

HOLDERS OF MORE THAN 5% OF COMMON STOCK

The following Table sets forth certain information with respect to the only shareholders known to the Company to own beneficially more than 5% of the outstanding common stock of Arrow as of March 13, 2017.

 

 

 

 

 

 

SHAREHOLDINGS OF EXECUTIVE OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS

The following Table shows, as of March 13, 2017, the beneficial ownership of the Company’s common stock for each director, each of the “Named Executive Officers” (the Chief Executive Officer, the Chief Financial Officer, and each of the other three most highly compensated executive officers of the Company, referred to as the “NEOs”), and other executive officers who file Section 16(a) reports.

*Represents holdings of less than 1%.

 

 

 

PROPOSAL 1: ELECTION OF DIRECTORS

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS A VOTE “FOR” ALL OF THE NOMINEES NAMED BELOW.

Each nominee for election as a member of the Board of Directors of Arrow (the “Board”) is to be elected to hold office until the next Annual Meeting.

All nominees identified below are current members of the Board. All have been recommended for re-election to the Board by the Corporate Governance Committee and approved and nominated for re-election by the Board. The Board does not anticipate that any of the nominees named below will be unable or unwilling to serve as a director. If any nominee should refuse or be unable to serve, the proxy will be voted for a person designated by the Board, or in lieu thereof, the Board may reduce the number of directors. In accordance with the Company’s bylaws, the nine nominees receiving a plurality of votes cast at the Annual Meeting will be elected directors, subject to the Director Resignation Policy described below.

An uncontested election of directors is no longer considered “routine” under the New York Stock Exchange rules. As a result, if a shareholder holds shares in “street name” through a broker or other nominee, the broker or nominee is not permitted to exercise voting discretion with respect to this proposal. For this reason, if a shareholder does not give his or her broker or nominee specific instructions, the shareholder’s shares will not be voted on this proposal. If you vote to “abstain,” your shares will be counted as present at the meeting, and your abstention will have the effect of a vote against the proposal.

BOARD MEMBERSHIP REQUIREMENTS

In accordance with the Company’s corporate governance guidelines, members of the Board should have the education, business experience, and insight necessary to understand the Company’s business. Members of the Board must be able to evaluate and oversee its direction and performance for the Company’s continued success. The directors should also possess such functional skills, corporate leadership, and international experience required to contribute to the development and expansion of the Board’s knowledge and capabilities. Moreover, the directors should have the willingness and ability to objectively and constructively appraise the performance of executive management and, when necessary, recommend appropriate changes. The Corporate Governance Committee has a thoughtful policy regarding diversity. Whenever the Corporate Governance Committee evaluates a potential candidate, it considers that individual in the context of the composition of the Board as a whole. The Board believes that its membership should reflect diversity in its broadest sense and, consistent with that philosophy, the Board does consider a candidate’s experience, education, gender, race, ethnicity, geographic location, and difference of viewpoint when evaluating his or her qualifications for election to the Board. Based on the nominee’s experience, attributes, and skills, which exemplify the sought-after characteristics described above, the Board has concluded that each nominee possesses the appropriate qualifications to serve as a director of the Company.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DIRECTOR RESIGNATION POLICY

The Board has adopted a Director Resignation Policy, which provides that any director nominee that receives a greater number of votes “withheld” from his or her election than votes “for” his or her election must tender a letter of resignation to the Board within five days of the certification of the shareholder vote. The Corporate Governance Committee must then consider whether to accept the director’s resignation and make a recommendation to the Board as to acceptance or rejection. The Board will then consider the resignation and, within 90 days following the date of the shareholders’ meeting at which the election occurred, shall publicly disclose its decision. A director whose resignation is under consideration may not participate in any deliberation regarding his or her resignation. The Director Resignation Policy can be found at the “Leadership & Governance” sublink of investor.arrow.com.

 

THE BOARD AND ITS COMMITTEES

The Board meets in general sessions with the Chairman of the Board presiding, in meetings limited to non-management directors (which are led by the Lead Director), and in various committees. Committee meetings are open to all members of the Board.

Committee memberships and chair assignments are reviewed annually by the Corporate Governance Committee, which makes appointment and chair recommendations to the Board.

The Table below reflects committee memberships for calendar year 2016.

LEAD DIRECTOR

In accordance with the Company’s corporate governance guidelines, the Board appointed Mr. Perry to serve as the Lead Director. The Lead Director chairs Board meetings when the Chairman is not present. He also chairs the sessions of the non-management directors held in connection with each regularly scheduled Board meeting. The Lead Director serves as a liaison between the Chairman and the independent, non-management directors, and reviews and approves Board agendas and meeting schedules. The Lead Director has the authority to call meetings of the non-management directors.

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHAIRMAN POSITIONS

The Company’s Chief Executive Officer currently serves as Chairman of the Board. In his position as Chief Executive Officer, Mr. Long has primary responsibility for the day-to-day operations of the Company and provides consistent leadership on the Company’s key strategic objectives. In his role as Chairman, he sets the strategic priorities for the Board, presides over its meetings, and communicates its findings and guidance to management. The Board believes that the combination of these two roles is the most appropriate structure for the Company at this time because: (i) this structure provides more consistent communication and coordination throughout the organization, which results in a more effective and efficient implementation of corporate strategy; (ii) it unifies the Company’s strategy behind a single vision; (iii) the Chief Executive Officer is the most knowledgeable member of the Board regarding risks the Company may be facing and, in his role as Chairman,

is able to facilitate the Board’s oversight of such risks; (iv) the structure has a long-standing history of serving the Company’s shareholders well through many economic cycles, business challenges, and succession of multiple leaders; (v) the Company’s current corporate governance processes, including those set forth in the various Board committee charters and corporate governance guidelines, preserve and foster independent communication amongst non-management directors as well as independent evaluations of and discussions with the Company’s senior management, including the Company’s Chief Executive Officer; and (vi) the role of the Lead Director, which fosters better communication among non‑management directors, fortifies the Company’s corporate governance practices, making the separation of the positions of Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer unnecessary at this time.

COMMITTEES

Each of the committees of the Board operates under a charter, copies of which are available at the “Leadership & Governance” sublink of investor.arrow.com. As a matter of practice, the Board determined that a director that acts as a chair for a committee will not serve as a member of any other committee.

Audit Committee

The Board has determined that Mrs. Keeth and Messrs. Asherman, Kerin, and Patrick are qualified as “audit committee financial experts,” as the term is defined in Item 407(d) of Regulation S-K.

Compensation Committee

 

In 2016, the Compensation Committee directly engaged Pearl Meyer & Partners as a consultant to examine and report exclusively to the Compensation Committee on best practices in the alignment of compensation programs for the Chief Executive Officer and other members of senior management by providing competitive benchmarking data, analyses, and recommendations with regard to plan design and target compensation. Pearl Meyer & Partners does not provide any other services to the Company. These services to the Compensation Committee have not raised any conflicts of interest.

Corporate Governance Committee

The Corporate Governance Committee considers shareholder recommendations of nominees for membership on the Board as well as those recommended by current directors, Company officers, employees, and others. Such recommendations may be submitted to Arrow’s Secretary, Gregory Tarpinian, at Arrow Electronics, Inc., 9201 East Dry Creek Road, Centennial, CO 80112, who will forward them to the Corporate Governance Committee. Possible candidates suggested by shareholders are evaluated by the Corporate Governance Committee in the same manner as other possible candidates.

The Corporate Governance Committee retains the services of a third-party executive recruitment firm to assist its members in the identification and evaluation of potential nominees for the Board. The Corporate Governance Committee’s initial review of a potential candidate is typically based on any written materials provided to it. The committee then determines whether to interview the nominee. If warranted, the Corporate Governance Committee, the Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer, the Lead Director, and others, as appropriate, interview the potential nominees.

The Corporate Governance Committee’s expectations as to the specific qualities and skills required for directors, including those nominated by shareholders, are set forth in Section 4 of Arrow’s Corporate Governance Guidelines (available at the “Leadership & Governance” sublink of investor.arrow.com).

ENTERPRISE RISK MANAGEMENT

The role of the Board is to promote the best interests of the Company and its shareholders by overseeing the management of Arrow’s business, assets, and affairs. Management is responsible for the day-to-day analysis and review of the risks facing the Company, including timely identification of risk and risk controls related to significant business activities, and developing programs and recommendations to determine the sufficiency of risk identification, the balance of potential risk to potential reward, and the appropriate manner in which to control risk. The Board implements its risk oversight responsibilities by having management provide regular briefing and information sessions on the significant risks that the Company faces and how the Company seeks to control those risks when appropriate. In some cases, risk oversight in specific areas is the responsibility of a Board committee, such as: the Audit Committee’s oversight of issues related to internal controls over financial reporting and regulatory compliance; the Corporate Governance Committee’s oversight of the Board’s succession planning and governance; and the Compensation Committee’s oversight of risks related to compensation programs. Arrow’s Chief Executive Officer has the ultimate management authority for enterprise risk management, including responsibility for capability development, risk identification and assessment, and policies and governance, as well as strategies and actions to address enterprise risk.

COMPENSATION RISK ANALYSIS

The Company believes that its executive compensation program reflects an appropriate mix of compensation elements and balances current and long-term performance objectives, cash and equity compensation, and risks and rewards associated with executive roles. The following features of the Company’s executive incentive compensation program illustrate this point:

>    performance goals and objectives reflect a balanced mix of performance measures to avoid excessive weight on a certain goal or performance measure;

 

>    annual and long-term incentives provide a defined range of payout opportunities (ranging from 0% to 200% of target for annual cash incentives for the NEOs and 0% to 185% for long-term incentives);

 

>    total direct compensation levels are heavily weighted on long-term, equity-based incentive awards that vest over a number of years;

 

>    equity incentive awards that vest over a number of years are granted annually so executives always have unvested awards that could decrease significantly in value if the business is not managed for the long-term;

 

>    the Company has implemented meaningful executive stock ownership guidelines so that the component of an executive’s personal wealth that is derived from compensation from the Company is significantly tied to the long-term success of the Company; and

 

>    the Compensation Committee retains discretion to adjust compensation based on the quality of Company and individual performance and adherence to the Company’s ethics and compliance programs, among other things.

Based on the above combination of program features, the Company believes that: (i) its executives are encouraged to manage the Company in a prudent manner; and (ii) its incentive programs are not designed in a manner that encourages executives to take risks that are inconsistent with the Company’s best interests.

It is the Company’s opinion that its compensation policies and practices for all employees are not likely to create risks that could have a material adverse effect on the Company. The Company delivers, to its entire employee base in the aggregate, most of its compensation in the form of base salary, with smaller portions delivered in the form of cash incentives and long-term incentives. The Company’s cash incentive compensation plans, which represent the primary variable component of compensation, have been designed to drive performance of employees working in management, sales, and sales-related roles. These plans are typically tied to achievement of sales/financial goals that include maximums that prevent “windfall” payouts.

INDEPENDENCE

The Company’s corporate governance guidelines provide that the Board should consist primarily of independent, non-management directors. For a director to be considered independent under the guidelines, the Board must determine that the director does not have any direct or indirect material relationships with the Company and that he or she is not involved in any activity or interest that conflicts with or might appear to conflict with his or her fiduciary duties. A director must also meet the independence standards in the New York Stock Exchange listing rules, which the Board has adopted as its standard.

In addition to applying these guidelines, the Board will consider all relevant facts and circumstances in making an independence determination. For example, in making this determination regarding Gail Hamilton, the Board considered Ms. Hamilton’s role as an independent director of Ixia, a testing and security solution provider. In 2016, the Company purchased approximately $13.4 million of Ixia products and services, which is 2.7% of Ixia’s total sales. The Board determined that this relationship did not impair Ms. Hamilton’s independence because she is an independent director of Ixia, and receives compensation from Ixia only in connection with her services as such.

The Board has determined that all of its directors and nominees, other than Mr. Long, satisfy both the New York Stock Exchange’s independence requirements and the Company’s guidelines.

As required by the Company’s corporate governance guidelines and the New York Stock Exchange’s listing rules, all members of the Audit, Compensation, and Corporate Governance Committees are independent. Non-management directors and all members of the Audit Committee and Compensation Committee also satisfy the independence requirements.

COMPENSATION COMMITTEE INTERLOCKS AND INSIDER PARTICIPATION

No member of the Compensation Committee is a present or former employee of the Company. Additionally, no member of the Compensation Committee has a relationship that requires disclosure of a Compensation Committee interlock.

Meetings and Attendance

Consistent with the Company’s corporate governance guidelines, it is the practice of the Board for all of its non-management directors to meet separately (without Company management present) either prior to or after each regularly scheduled Board meeting, with the Lead Director presiding. In 2016, these non-management director meetings totaled four in number.

During 2016, there were five meetings of the Board, eight meetings of the Audit Committee, four meetings of the Compensation Committee, and four meetings of the Corporate Governance Committee. All of the directors attended 75% or more of all of the meetings of the Board and the committees on which they served. It is the

policy of the Board that all of its members attend the Annual Meeting absent exceptional cause, and all members of the Board did so in 2016.

DIRECTOR COMPENSATION

The independent, non-management members of the Board (that is, all members except Mr. Long) received the following fees in cash:

In addition to the cash fees, each non-management director received an annual grant of restricted stock units (“RSUs”) valued at $150,000, based on the fair market value of Arrow common stock on the date of grant. Further, the Lead Director received another annual award of RSUs valued at $30,000 in recognition of the additional responsibilities associated with such position.

The following Table shows the total dollar value of compensation received by all non-management directors in or in respect of 2016.

 

 

 

Under the terms of the Non-Employee Director Deferred Compensation Plan, non-management directors may defer the payment of all or a portion of their annual retainers until the end of their service on the Board. Unless a different amount is chosen by the director, 50% of the director’s annual retainer fee is automatically deferred and converted to units of Arrow common stock. The units held by each director are included under the heading “Common Stock Units” in the Shares of Common Stock Beneficially Owned Table. The amounts deferred by each director for 2016, to the extent there are any, are included under the heading “Fees Earned” on the Non-Management Director Compensation Table. All deferrals under the Plan will be paid after termination of director service on the Board.

For stock awards outlined in the Non-Management Director Compensation Table, each director is given the option to have his or her RSUs converted to shares and sold any time beyond one year after grant. Ms. Hamilton and Messrs. Hanson, Hill, and Kerin have selected that option for their 2016 grants.

STOCK OWNERSHIP BY DIRECTORS

The Board believes that stock ownership by its directors strengthens their commitment to the long-term future of the Company and further aligns their interests with those of the shareholders generally. As a result, the corporate governance guidelines specifically state that directors are expected to own beneficial shares of the Company’s common stock having a value of at least three times their annual retainer fee (including shares owned outright and RSUs and common stock units in a deferred compensation account). All directors are in compliance with this requirement.

 

AUDIT COMMITTEE REPORT

The Audit Committee represents and assists the Board by overseeing: (i) the Company’s financial statements and internal controls; (ii) the independent registered public accounting firm’s qualifications and independence; and (iii) the performance of the Company’s corporate audit function and of its independent registered public accounting firm.

The Audit Committee currently consists of four directors, all of whom are independent in accordance with New York Stock Exchange listing standards and other applicable regulations. The Board has determined that all four committee members, Mr. Asherman, Mrs. Keeth, Mr. Kerin, and Mr. Patrick, are “audit committee financial experts” as defined by the SEC.

Company management has the primary responsibility for the preparation of the financial statements and for the reporting process, including the establishment and maintenance of Arrow’s system of internal control over financial reporting. The Company’s independent registered public accounting firm is responsible for auditing the financial statements prepared by management, expressing an opinion on the conformity of those audited financial statements with generally accepted accounting principles, and auditing the Company’s internal control over financial reporting.

In fulfilling its oversight responsibilities, the Audit Committee reviewed and discussed with both management and the independent registered public accounting firm, the Company’s quarterly earnings releases, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, and the 2016 Annual Report on Form 10-K. Such reviews included a discussion of critical or significant accounting policies, the reasonableness of significant judgments, the quality (not just the acceptability) of the accounting principles, the reasonableness and clarity of the financial statement disclosures, and such other matters as the independent registered public accounting firm is required to review with the Audit Committee under the standards promulgated by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board. The Audit Committee also discussed with both management and the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm the design and efficacy of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting.

In addition, the Audit Committee received from and discussed with representatives of the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm the written disclosure and the letter required by the applicable requirements of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (regarding the independent registered public accounting firm’s communications with the Audit Committee concerning independence) and considered the compatibility of non-audit services rendered to Arrow with the independence of the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm. The Audit Committee also discussed with the independent registered public accounting firm the matters required to be discussed by the Statement on Auditing Standards No. 61, as amended, and as adopted by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board in Rule 3200T.

The Audit Committee also discussed with the independent registered public accounting firm and Arrow’s corporate audit group the overall scope and plans for their respective audits. The Audit Committee periodically met with the independent registered public accounting firm, with and without management present, to discuss the results of their work, their evaluations of Arrow’s internal controls, and the overall quality of Arrow’s financial reporting.

In reliance on these reviews and discussions, the Audit Committee recommended to the Board that the audited financial statements be included in the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016 for filing with the SEC.

M.F. (Fran) Keeth, Chair

Philip K. Asherman

Andrew C. Kerin

Stephen C. Patrick

PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTING FIRM FEES

The aggregate fees billed by Arrow’s principal accounting firm, Ernst & Young LLP, for auditing the annual financial statements and the Company’s internal control over financial reporting under Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, as amended, and related regulations included in the Annual Report on Form 10‑K, the reviews of the quarterly financial statements included in the Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, statutory audits, assistance with and review of documents filed with the SEC, and consultations on certain accounting and reporting matters for each of the last two fiscal years are set forth as “Audit Fees” in the Table below.

Also set forth for the last two fiscal years are “Audit-Related Fees.” Such fees are for services rendered in connection with business acquisitions, employee benefit plan audits, and other accounting consultations. “Tax Fees” relate to assistance with tax return preparation, tax audits, and compliance in various tax jurisdictions around the world. “Other Fees” refer to advice, planning, and consulting other than as set forth above. Ernst & Young LLP did not provide any services to the Company related to financial information systems design or implementation, nor did it provide any personal tax work or other services for any of the Company’s executive officers or members of the Board.

The amounts in the Table above do not include fees charged by Ernst & Young LLP to Marubun/Arrow, a joint venture between the Company and the Marubun Corporation. Audit fees for Marubun/Arrow totaled $430,088 in 2016 and $375,310 in 2015.

Consistent with the Audit Committee charter, audit, audit-related, tax, and other services were approved by the Audit Committee, or by a designated member thereof. The Audit Committee has determined that the provision of the non-audit services described above is compatible with maintaining Ernst & Young LLP’s independence.

 

PROPOSAL 2: RATIFICATION OF
APPOINTMENT OF AUDITORS

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS A VOTE “FOR” THE RATIFICATION OF THE APPOINTMENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP.

Shareholders are asked to ratify the appointment of Ernst & Young LLP as Arrow’s independent registered public accounting firm for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2017. Arrow expects that representatives of Ernst & Young LLP will be present at the Annual Meeting with the opportunity to make a statement if they desire to do so and that they will be available to answer appropriate inquiries raised at the Annual Meeting. Abstentions and broker non-votes are counted only for purposes of determining whether a quorum is present at the Annual Meeting.

 

PROPOSAL 3: ADVISORY VOTE ON
EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS A VOTE “FOR” THE APPROVAL OF THE EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION AS DISCLOSED IN THIS PROXY STATEMENT.

The Board of Directors has decided that the Company will hold an advisory vote each year in connection with its Annual Meeting, until the next vote on the frequency of shareholder votes on the compensation of the NEOs (which is occurring this year – see Proposal 4 below) or until the Board of Directors otherwise determines that a different frequency for such advisory votes is in the best interests of the shareholders.

Shareholders have an opportunity to cast an advisory vote on compensation of the NEOs. This proposal, commonly known as “say-on-pay,” gives shareholders the opportunity to approve, reject, or abstain from voting with respect to the Company’s executive compensation programs and policies and the compensation paid to the NEOs.

The Company is requesting shareholder approval of the compensation of its NEOs as disclosed in this Proxy Statement. Proposal 3 requires the affirmative vote of a majority of votes cast at the Annual Meeting. For purposes of determining the number of votes cast with respect to this Proposal 3, only those votes cast “FOR” or “AGAINST” are included. Abstentions and broker non-votes are counted only for purposes of determining whether a quorum is present at the Annual Meeting. As required by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, this is an advisory vote, which means that this proposal is not binding on the Company. The Compensation Committee, however, values the opinions expressed by the Company’s shareholders and will carefully consider the outcome of the vote when making future compensation decisions for the Company’s NEOs.

The Company asks that you review in detail the disclosure contained in this Proxy Statement regarding compensation of the Company’s NEOs (including the Company’s Compensation Discussion and Analysis, the compensation tables, and the narrative disclosures that accompany such compensation tables) and indicate your support for the compensation of the Company’s NEOs that is described in this Proxy Statement.

Based on the foregoing, and as a matter of good corporate governance, the Board is asking shareholders to approve the following advisory resolution at the 2017 Annual Meeting:

“RESOLVED that the shareholders of the Company approve, on an advisory basis, the compensation of the Company’s Named Executive Officers disclosed in the Compensation Discussion and Analysis, the Summary Compensation Table and the related compensation tables, notes, and narrative in the Proxy Statement for the Company’s 2017 Annual Meeting.”

PROPOSAL 4: ADVISORY VOTE ON THE FREQUENCY OF SHAREHOLDER VOTES ON EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS A VOTE FOR A FREQUENCY PERIOD OF “ONE YEAR” FOR FUTURE ADVISORY VOTES ON EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION.

The Company is asking its shareholders to cast a non-binding advisory vote on whether future advisory votes to approve the compensation paid to its NEOs should be held annually, biennially, or triennially.

The Board believes that the Company’s shareholders should have the opportunity to vote on the compensation of its NEOs annually. The Company’s executive compensation program is designed to support long-term value creation. While the Company believes that many of its shareholders think that the effectiveness of such programs cannot be adequately evaluated on an annual basis, the Board believes that at present it should receive advisory input from the Company’s shareholders each year. The Board believes that allowing shareholders to provide their input on the Company’s executive compensation philosophy, policies, and practices as disclosed in the Company’s proxy statement every year is a good corporate governance practice. Shareholders may vote on their preferred voting frequency or abstain by selecting from the options of “ONE YEAR,” “TWO YEARS,” “THREE YEARS,” or “ABSTAIN” on the proxy card when voting on this Proposal 4.

 

The frequency that receives the highest number of votes cast by shareholders will be the shareholder-approved frequency selection for the advisory vote on executive compensation. However, because this vote is advisory and not binding on the Board or the Company, the Board may decide that it is in the best interests of shareholders and the Company to hold an advisory vote on executive compensation more or less frequently than the frequency receiving the highest number of votes cast by shareholders.

REPORT OF THE COMPENSATION COMMITTEE

The substantive discussion of the material elements of all of the Company’s executive compensation programs and the determinations by the Compensation Committee with respect to compensation and executive performance for 2016 are contained in the Compensation Discussion and Analysis that follows below. The Compensation Committee has reviewed and discussed the Compensation Discussion and Analysis with the management representatives responsible for its preparation and the Compensation Committee’s advisors. In reliance on these reviews and discussions, the Compensation Committee recommended to the Board that the Compensation Discussion and Analysis be included in the definitive Proxy Statement on Schedule 14A for Arrow’s 2017 Annual Meeting for filing with the SEC and be incorporated by reference in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

 

John N. Hanson, Chair

Philip K. Asherman

Richard S. Hill

Barry W. Perry

 

COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS (“CD&A”)

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

This CD&A explains the executive compensation program for the Company’s NEOs listed below. The CD&A also describes the Compensation Committee’s process for making pay decisions, as well as its rationale for specific decisions related to fiscal 2016.

*Mr. Stansbury was named Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer effective May 11, 2016. Mr. Stansbury succeeds Mr. Reilly, who retired from the Company effective January 31, 2017.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

2016 Business Strategy and Highlights

It was a record-breaking year for the Company. Full-year sales, gross profit and earnings per share (“EPS”) reached all-time record levels. The Company delivered on its financial objectives to grow sales faster than the market, increase markets served, and grow profits faster than sales. Sales grew 2% and EPS on a diluted basis grew 8% compared to 2015. In terms of increasing the Company’s global presence, the number of countries served expanded to more than 90 in 2016 from approximately 85 in 2015.

 

The Company believes that a non-GAAP EPS calculation is appropriate in assessing and understanding the company’s operating performance and trends in the company’s business because it removes financial information outside the company’s core operating results.  As a result, all references to EPS in this Proxy Statement are to non-GAAP EPS.

Financial Performance Achievements

The Company’s organic investments, acquisitions, and strong execution resulted in 32% three-year adjusted EPS growth. This growth was third highest among the nine companies in the Arrow defined Peer Group. Three-year average return on invested capital (“ROIC”) was 2.4% above the three-year weighted average cost of capital (“WACC”). Total shareholder return for the three-year period was 31% compared to 29% for the S&P 500 stock index.

Strategic Performance Achievements

Over the past three years, the Company completed 18 strategic acquisitions to broaden its product and service offerings, to further expand its geographic reach in the Asia Pacific region, and to increase its digital capabilities to meet the evolving needs of customers and suppliers. Aligned with the vision of guiding innovation forward, the Company is investing in emerging and adjacent markets. Further, during 2016, the Company made significant progress in its effort to attain its goal of sustaining strong financial performance on a long-term basis. It entered into new distribution agreements intended to help the Company maintain its leadership position in the electronic component and information technology solutions markets. These agreements include relationships with semiconductor, passive electromechanical component, information technology hardware and software, and cloud-based solution providers. Arrow believes the semiconductor and information technology industries are rapidly converging, driven by the adoption of Internet of Things products and solutions. To be a leader amidst this rapid pace of change, the Company believes it needs to broaden its capabilities and offer more complete solutions than the competition. It is also fostering innovation with early stage companies by establishing an exclusive agreement with crowd-funding leader Indiegogo to help innovators and inventors scale faster and bring products more quickly to the market. The Company has globally expanded this initiative through such efforts as establishing a new Asia-region headquarters in the Hong Kong Science Park, the center of innovation for the region.

2016 Shareholder Engagement and Say-On-Pay

In 2016, the Company’s executive compensation program for 2015 was submitted to an advisory vote of the shareholders and it received the support of approximately 90% of the total votes cast at the Annual Meeting. Based on the high level of approval received from shareholders and the Compensation Committee's determination that the Company’s existing programs were operating properly, the Company made no significant changes to its executive compensation programs in 2016. The Compensation Committee continues to carefully consider any shareholder feedback in its executive compensation decisions.

Best Compensation Practices and Policies

2016 Compensation Actions

The Compensation Committee took several actions in 2016 to ensure market-competitive NEO compensation, emphasizing performance-based compensation programs tied directly to value creation for the Company’s shareholders.    

Base Salary

The Committee targets a competitive positioning of NEO salaries relative to the defined Peer Group, the larger general industry, and individual professional development. As such, Ms. Zech and Mr. Kerins were both provided with salary increases to align them with a competitive market position based on their performance. Mr. Stansbury and Mr. King received base salary increases due to their promotions.

Annual Cash Incentives (“MICP”)

Annual cash incentives are based on the achievement of two key performance measures: EPS and strategic goals. For 2016, the Company’s EPS grew by 8%, accounting for the majority of the annual cash incentive payout. Achievement on strategic goals varied from 25% to 101%, depending on each individual NEO’s performance. This resulted in awards that were below target levels for some of the NEOs and above target levels for other NEOs.

Long-Term Incentive Plan (“LTIP”)

The majority of the compensation delivered to the NEOs continues to be in the form of equity under the LTIP. In 2016, the NEOs were awarded an LTIP grant with a mixture of 50% performance stock units (“PSUs”), 25% RSUs, and 25% stock options. The Committee believes the use of these equity vehicles creates strong alignment with the Company’s shareholders by linking NEO compensation closely to stock performance and the effective use of capital.

 

The performance period for the 2014 PSU awards concluded at the end of fiscal year 2016. The Company’s EPS growth relative to its peer companies and efficient use of capital resulted in a payout at 140% of target. Mr. King and Ms. Zech were also awarded one-time grants of RSUs in 2016 that vest in their entirety at the end of four years. The Company occasionally provides such grants as part of a promotion or for retention.

WHAT GUIDES THE COMPANY’S PROGRAM

As a large global provider of technology solutions operating in a highly competitive market, the Company views its people as critical assets and key drivers of its success. The Company’s executive compensation program is designed to motivate, attract, and retain talented executives who are capable of successfully leading the Company’s complex global operations and creating long-term shareholder value.

The program is structured to support Arrow’s strategic goals and reinforce high performance with a clear emphasis on accountability and performance-based pay for achievement of stated goals. As such, a significant portion of total direct compensation (“TDC”) is directly linked to the Company’s short- and long-term performance in the form of cash and equity-based incentive awards. This provides executives with an opportunity to earn above median compensation if the Company delivers superior results or below median when performance targets are not achieved. The portion of pay tied to performance is consistent with Arrow’s executive compensation philosophy and market practices.

The Principal Elements of Pay: Total Direct Compensation

The Company’s compensation philosophy is supported by the following principal elements of pay:

 

 

 

The Company’s Decision-Making Process

The Role of the Compensation Committee

The Compensation Committee is comprised of independent, non-management members of the Board. The Compensation Committee works very closely with its independent consultant and management to examine the effectiveness of the Company’s executive compensation program throughout the year. Details of the Compensation Committee’s authority and responsibilities are specified in its charter, a copy of which is available at the “Leadership & Governance” sublink of investor.arrow.com.  

The Compensation Committee is responsible for developing and reviewing Arrow’s executive compensation philosophy. It implements that philosophy through compensation programs and plans designed to further Arrow’s strategy; drive long-term, profitable growth; and increase shareholder value. The Compensation Committee reviews and approves the corporate goals and objectives relevant to executive compensation and, subject to review and ratification by the other non-management members of the Board, reviews and approves the compensation and benefits for the CEO and the Company’s other NEOs. In making its decisions, the Compensation Committee also reviews the performance of each of the NEOs and the Company as a whole. It also considers the compensation of other Company executives, levels of responsibility, prior experience, breadth of knowledge, and job performance in reviewing target total compensation levels.

The Compensation Committee considers performance reviews prepared by the CEO for his direct reports and conducts its own performance review of the CEO. The Compensation Committee reviews the Company’s performance on the metrics relevant to the execution of its strategy and evaluates the CEO’s performance in light of that execution. For NEOs other than the CEO, the Compensation Committee’s review includes input provided by the CEO. The CEO’s compensation is evaluated in executive session without the CEO present. All decisions regarding NEO compensation are ultimately made by the Compensation Committee (subject to ratification by the Board in the case of the CEO’s compensation).

The Role of Management

Compensation Committee meetings are regularly attended by the Company’s CEO, the General Counsel, the Senior Vice President of Global Human Resources, and the CFO. Each of the management attendees provides the Compensation Committee with his or her specific expertise and the business and financial context necessary to understand and properly target financial and performance metrics. None of the members of management are present during the Compensation Committee’s deliberations regarding their own compensation, but the Company’s independent compensation consultant, Pearl Meyer & Partners, may participate in those discussions.

The Role of the Independent Compensation Consultant

The Compensation Committee has selected and engaged Pearl Meyer & Partners as its independent compensation consultant to provide the Compensation Committee with expertise on various compensation matters, including competitive practices, market trends, and specific program design. Additionally, Pearl Meyer & Partners provides the Compensation Committee with competitive data regarding market compensation levels at the 25th, 50th, and 75th percentiles for total compensation and for each major element of compensation.

Pearl Meyer & Partners reports directly to the Compensation Committee and does not provide any other services to the Company or its management. The Compensation Committee annually assesses the independence and any potential conflicts of interest of compensation advisors in accordance with applicable law and New York Stock Exchange listing standards. Pearl Meyer & Partners’ services to the Compensation Committee have not raised any conflicts of interests between the Compensation Committee, Arrow, and Arrow management.

The Role of Peer Companies

To ensure that executive compensation plans and levels are appropriate and competitive, the Compensation Committee reviews analyses on peer company practices at various times throughout the year. Information on total compensation levels is considered in the context of peer performance analyses in order to effectively link compensation to absolute and relative performance. Through this process, and with input from its independent compensation consultant and management, the Compensation Committee determines appropriate benchmarking targets each year.

The Compensation Committee believes targeting TDC at the market 50th percentile is appropriate. For the purpose of Arrow’s annual competitive benchmarking study, Pearl Meyer & Partners reviews compensation data of the Peer Group (as defined below), as well as general industry survey data published by third parties. General industry survey data serves as a broader reference point for specific business units where the breadth and relevance of Peer Group data is not as comprehensive as desired, and in cases where the NEO’s position and responsibilities are broader than the typical benchmarks.

The Compensation Committee evaluates the appropriateness of each NEO’s compensation as positioned against the market 50th percentile based on factors that include Company and business unit performance, job scope, individual performance, time in position, and other relevant factors. To the extent the Compensation Committee deems that the compensation level associated with an NEO’s position versus the market is not aligned with the relevant factors, the Compensation Committee may choose to modify one or more of the NEO’s compensation components.

The Compensation Committee, with input from its independent compensation consultant, annually reviews and approves the compensation Peer Group to ensure it continues to meet the Company’s objectives. At the Compensation Committee’s request, Pearl Meyer & Partners conducted a comprehensive review of the Peer Group used in 2015, and no changes were made for 2016. The Peer Group companies reflect a combination of direct and broader industry peers and are as follows:

 

 

 

The Compensation Committee also reviews other benchmarking data when deemed necessary and appropriate. This data can cover a variety of areas such as equity vesting practices, the prevalence of performance metrics among peer companies, types of equity vehicles used by peer companies, severance practices, equity burn rates, and any other market data the Compensation Committee believes it needs to consider when evaluating the Company’s executive compensation program.

THE 2016 EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION PROGRAM IN DETAIL

This section of the CD&A provides details about the three principal elements of pay ― base salary, annual cash incentive awards, and long-term incentive awards. Arrow’s pay-for-performance focus is evident in the substantially greater weight given to incentive-based compensation versus fixed compensation.

Base Salary

Base salary represents annual fixed compensation and is a standard element of compensation necessary to attract and retain talent. To attract the necessary executive talent and maintain a stable executive team, the Compensation Committee generally targets executive officer base salaries at approximately the 50th percentile for comparable jobs at similar companies. In making base salary decisions, the Committee considers the CEO’s recommendations, each NEO’s position and level of responsibility within the Company, as well as a number of other factors, including:

>    Individual performance;

 

>    Company or business unit performance;

 

>    Job responsibilities;

 

>    Relevant benchmarking data; and

 

>    Internal budget guidelines.

Subject to ratification by the Board, the CEO’s base salary is determined by the Compensation Committee in executive session based on its evaluation of his individual performance, the Company’s performance, and relevant benchmarking data. The Compensation Committee, in consultation with its independent compensation consultant, met in December 2015 to conduct its annual review of base salaries and determined the appropriate annual base salary rate for each then current NEO to be as follows:

* Messrs. Stansbury and King were not NEOs during 2015. Therefore, their base salaries for 2015 are not reflected in this chart. Mr. Stansbury’s base salary for 2016 was effective May 11, 2016, the date of his promotion to Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer.

In 2016, Mr. Kerins and Ms. Zech received salary increases of 10% and 8%, respectively. These increases were intended to keep salaries competitive and consistent with the Company’s compensation philosophy and the performance of the incumbent. Messrs. Stansbury’s and King’s base salaries were each set at $500,000 as a result of their promotions and are representative of their increased responsibilities in each of their new roles.

Annual Cash Incentives: The Management Incentive Compensation Plan (“MICP”)

Arrow’s annual cash incentives are designed to reward individuals for performance against pre-established targets that are set by the Compensation Committee at the beginning of the year. Each of the Company’s NEOs is assigned an annual cash incentive target. Annual cash incentive targets are established based on market compensation analysis within the context of targeting TDC at the 50th percentile, provided that the actual incentive levels may be higher or lower than the 50th percentile based upon a number of factors, such as Company and individual performance. Actual award payouts depend on the achievement of pre-established performance objectives and can range from 0% to 200% of target award amounts. Target annual award opportunities were established by the NEO’s level of responsibility and his or her ability to impact overall results. The Compensation Committee also considers market data in setting target award amounts.

2016 MICP Performance Objectives and Results

The annual cash incentive for each of the NEOs follows the structure of the Company’s MICP, which is based on a combination of financial and strategic goals. The financial goals account for 70% and the strategic goals account for 30% of the total annual cash incentive award.

The 2016 annual cash incentive metrics and results against those metrics were as follows: 

**     Achievement of each performance metric at the midpoint of the performance range would result in a payout of 100% of the target opportunity for such metric and all other payments are interpolated based on the applicable performance range. For example, with respect to the EPS metric, if EPS equals $6.17, the resulting payout would be 100% of the target opportunity. Achievement below $4.63 or above $7.71 would result in payouts of 0% or 200% of the target opportunity, respectively, on that performance metric.

The Company attained an EPS performance of $6.23, resulting in an achievement percentage of 103.9% for each of the NEO’s financial goals, except for Mr. Stansbury, whose financial achievement percentage was 101.79%. The NEOs can also earn between 0% and 200% of the 30% strategic component of the MICP based on the Compensation Committee’s evaluation of each individual’s performance against his or her pre-established, strategic goals. The strategic goals are designed to be specific and measurable and to further the objectives of the Company. For 2016, the strategic component of the MICP was based on individual and/or team performance goals.

 

In regards to Mr. Long, the Compensation Committee applied the same basic methodology described above, including the same 70% financial component based on the above EPS performance range, and as stated in the table above he attained 103.9% achievement on his financial goal. The Compensation Committee tied the 30% strategic component for Mr. Long’s annual cash incentive to individual contributions made relative to the Company’s strategic business imperatives. Based on the Compensation Committee's assessment of Mr. Long’s successful performance on his strategic objectives, it awarded him 100.7% on his individual performance and team goals. This resulted in a total weighted achievement percentage of 102.9% for Mr. Long and an annual cash incentive of $1,750,000. The performance goal details under the requirements of Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code are discussed under the heading “Tax and Accounting Considerations.”

The table below provides a summary of the awards earned for EPS and strategic goal performance by each NEO:

*Mr. Stansbury was promoted to Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer effective May 11, 2016. The amounts in the table above reflect a prorated payment of $98,458 from his prior role, and $329,815 as Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer.