Symantec 2010 Annual Report Download - page 55

the achievement of performance goals for fiscal 2010, the Compensation Committee made adjustments for several
acquisitions made during the year. The determination of awards for named executive officer incentives is formulaic,
although the Compensation Committee has the discretion to adjust awards as appropriate. The Compensation
Committee did not exercise such discretion for fiscal 2010.
The performance measures in the Fiscal Year 2010 Executive Annual Incentive Plans for the named executive
officers included as reported non-GAAP earnings per share (“EPS”) and non-GAAP revenue achievement. For our
CEO, these two performance measures were weighted equally. For all named executive officers other than the CEO,
the Fiscal Year 2010 Executive Annual Incentive Plans also included business unit performance against budget as a
performance metric. For Messrs. Beer, Hughes, Robbins and Thompson, their respective group performance against
budget metric had a 30% weighting, with the revenue metric weighted at 50% and EPS metrics weighted at 20%.
We used the above performance metrics because:
• Over time, EPS and revenue measures have strongly correlated with stockholder value creation for
Symantec;
• Improvement in EPS and revenue measures aligns with our overall growth strategy;
• The EPS and revenue measures are transparent to investors and are included in our quarterly earnings
releases;
• The EPS and revenue measures balance growth and profitability; and
• The business unit performance metrics drive behavior in a manner that aligns enterprise and business unit
results.
For the non-GAAP revenue and non-GAAP EPS metrics for fiscal 2010, the Compensation Committee
established a threshold and target performance level that represented 70% and 100% of target funding levels,
respectively. Target performance objectives are established based on a range of inputs, including external market
economic conditions, growth outlooks for our product portfolio, the competitive environment, our internal budgets,
and market expectations. If results for a goal are below threshold, the funding level for that goal is 0%, and
participants will be paid no incentive compensation for that goal. At threshold, the goal is funded at the 70% level.
At target, the goal is funded at the 100% level. Below target, the payout for revenue achievement decreases by 5% of
the target opportunity for each additional 1% below target revenue achievement levels (assuming the threshold is
met). Above target, the payout for revenue achievement increases by 10% of the target opportunity for each
additional 1% above target achievement levels up to 10% over target, and then beyond that increases by 15% for
each additional 1% above 110% achievement. Below target, the payout for EPS achievement decreases by 5% of the
target opportunity for each additional 1% below target EPS achievement levels (assuming the threshold is met).
Results above target EPS provide an additional 5% payout for each additional 1% above target EPS achievement
levels.
Fiscal Year 2010 Results
For fiscal 2010, our non-GAAP revenue target was $6,238 million and our non-GAAP EPS target was $1.50
per share. The Company performed at 91.9% of the revenue goal, resulting in no payout for that portion of the plan
based on the plan target amount, and performed at 95.7% of the non-GAAP EPS goal, resulting in a payout for that
portion of the plan at 75% of the plan target amount. For purposes of calculating achievements under these goals,
foreign exchange movements were held constant at plan rates, pursuant to the terms of the plans. These levels of
achievement compare to our reported decreases in non-GAAP revenue and non-GAAP EPS of approximately 3%
and 4%, respectively, from fiscal 2009 to fiscal 2010. The Company does not intend to disclose the specific targets
for the business unit performance against budget, as its segment-level business plan is highly confidential and not
reported publicly. Disclosing specific business unit-level spending objectives would provide competitors and third
parties with insights into the Company’s internal planning processes which might allow our competitors to predict
certain business strategies and cause us competitive harm. The amounts paid out with respect to the business unit
metrics applicable to Messrs. Beer, Hughes, Robbins and Thompson, as a percentage of the target payout amounts
relating to business unit performance were 130%, 0%, 100% and 75%, respectively. The Compensation Committee
43