Autodesk 2012 Annual Report Download - page 28

22
Against this backdrop, our Compensation Committee set our Named Executive Officers’ compensation
as follows:
• Executiveofficers’basesalaries,includingourNamedExecutiveOfficers’salaries,wereincreased
an average of 8%. This was done to reward the performance of the Company through the March 2011
timeframe and in recognition that base salaries for executive officer salaries had been frozen since
fiscal 2009, even though our stock price had more than doubled during the period between March
2009 and March 2011.
• Ourshort-termcashincentiveplan(acashbonusplanknownasourExecutiveIncentivePlanorEIP)
was set to fund at 100% of aggregate employee target payouts if we met our revenue growth and
operating margin financial plan, and to fund at 100% (or more) of aggregate employee target payouts
only if we meaningfully exceeded our plan.
• InMarch2011,stockgrantstoexecutiveofficerswerecomprisedofabalancedcombinationofstock
options with standard four year vesting and time-based RSUs with three year vesting. These grants
were made to encourage executive retention and to further align our executive officers interests
with stockholder interests. At the time stock grants were made to our executives officers, we were
experiencing strong stock performance and overall financial performance, and the Compensation
Committee evaluated individual performance and the grant value of our peer group in determining the
sizes of the grants made.
• InSeptember2011,additionalspecialretentionRSUgrantsweremadetoseveralofourexecutive
officers, other than our CEO. These additional grants were made in light of the highly volatile
macroeconomic conditions that increased retention risks, as well as to ensure stability in our senior
leadership team as the Company embarked on planning through the remainder of the year for major
transformation actions and related reorganization.
Given our performance through a complicated economic environment, the Compensation Committee
sought to reward management while also providing meaningful incentives to achieving our financial goals and
retaining key talent. Additionally, given the shift in the practice of our peer companies to greater use of RSUs,
while base salary and short-term incentives were generally consistent with the elements of our programs in
previous fiscal years, long term incentives shifted during the year to a greater use of RSUs, as described in
greater detail, below.
Financial Performance in Fiscal 2012 and its Effect on Executive Compensation Earned for Fiscal 2012
We experienced an increase in demand for our products and services in all of the geographies and the
majority of industries we serve during fiscal 2012 as compared to fiscal 2011. This positively impacted our
financial results for the fiscal year and our stock price for the first half of the fiscal year. In addition, we
continued to make progress in controlling our operating costs, which led to year over year improvements in our
non-GAAP operating margin. We believe that the improvements in these areas are indications of a broad-based
stabilization of our business – even though our stock price in the latter half of the year was heavily burdened by
the uncertainty resulting from the domestic and European sovereign debt crises.
The table below sets forth the improvements in our revenue, non-GAAP income from operations and
non-GAAP operating margin from fiscal 2011 to fiscal 2012:*
Fiscal 2012 Fiscal 2011 Change
(in millions of dollars)
Revenue ............................................. $2,215.6 $1,951.8 14%
Non-GAAP income from operations ...................... $ 533.4 $ 418.8 27%
Non-GAAP operating margin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24% 21% 12%
* A reconciliation of GAAP to non-GAAP results is available in Appendix A.