UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549

SCHEDULE 14A INFORMATION

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:


Preliminary Proxy Statement
Confidential, for Use of the Commission Only (as permitted by Rule 14a-6(e)(2))
Definitive Proxy Statement
Definitive Additional Materials
Soliciting Material Pursuant to §240.14a-12
  
NU SKIN ENTERPRISES, INC.
(Name of Registrant as Specified In Its Charter)
 
(Name of Person(s) Filing Proxy Statement, if other than the Registrant)

Payment of Filing Fee (Check the appropriate box):
No fee required.
Fee computed on table below per Exchange Act Rules 14a-6(i)(1) and 0-11.
 
(1)
Title of each class of securities to which transaction applies:
 
(2)
Aggregate number of securities to which transaction applies:
 
(3)
Per unit price or other underlying value of transaction computed pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 0-11 (set forth the amount on which the filing fee is calculated and state how it was determined):
 
(4)
Proposed maximum aggregate value of transaction:
(5)
Total fee paid:
  (5)
Total fee paid:


Fee paid previously with preliminary materials.


Check box if any part of the fee is offset as provided by Exchange Act Rule 0-11(a)(2) and identify the filing for which the offsetting fee was paid previously. Identify the previous filing by registration statement number, or the Form or Schedule and the date of its filing.
 
(1)
Amount Previously Paid:
 
(2)
Form, Schedule or Registration Statement No.:
 
(3)
Filing Party:
 
(4)
Date Filed:



NOTICE OF ANNUAL MEETING OF STOCKHOLDERS OF
NU SKIN ENTERPRISES, INC.
 


NOTICE OF ANNUAL MEETING OF STOCKHOLDERS OF

NU SKIN ENTERPRISES, INC.
May 11, 2017



NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Annual Meeting of Stockholders (the "Annual Meeting"“Annual Meeting”) of Nu Skin Enterprises, Inc., a Delaware corporation, will be held at 11:00 a.m., Mountain Daylight Time, on May 11, 2017, at our corporate offices, 75 West Center Street, Provo, Utah 84601, forJune 2, 2021. At the Annual Meeting, you will be asked to consider and vote on the following purposes,matters, which are more fully described in the Proxy Statement:proxy statement:

1.To elect the nine directors named in the Proxy Statement;proxy statement;
2.    To hold an advisory vote to approve our executive compensation;
3.
2.To hold an advisory vote on the frequency of future stockholder advisory votes onto approve our executive compensation;
4.
3.To ratify the selection of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP as our independent registered public accounting firm for 2017;2021; and
5.
4.To transact such other business as may properly come before the Annual Meeting.

The Board of Directors has fixed the close of business on March 16, 2017,April 5, 2021, as the record date for determining the stockholders entitled to receive notice of and to vote at the Annual Meeting or any adjournment or postponement thereof.
Attending and Voting at the Annual Meeting

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Annual Meeting will be held virtually, with attendance via live audio webcast. You will not be able to attend the Annual Meeting in person.

To attend the virtual Annual Meeting, you must pre-register by visiting register.proxypush.com/nus and following the registration instructions on that website before the meeting begins. You will need to enter the control number that is provided on your proxy card or Notice of Internet Availability of Proxy Materials to be able to pre-register. Upon pre-registering, you will receive a confirmation email.

Approximately one hour before the Annual Meeting, all those who have pre-registered will receive an email with a unique website link that will allow them to access and participate in the meeting, including listening to the full webcast, submitting questions, voting and viewing a list of stockholders entitled to vote at the meeting. To view this list of stockholders during the meeting, you will need to enter your control number. You will also have the opportunity to submit questions during the pre-registration process. We plan to respond to all appropriate questions during the webcast.

Entrance to the Annual Meeting will open 15 minutes before the designated start time. We recommend that you access the meeting website prior to the designated start time to ensure that you are logged in when the meeting begins. Technical support will be available before and during the virtual Annual Meeting; if you encounter any technical difficulties accessing or participating in the meeting, please call the technical support number that will be provided in the email that will be sent approximately one hour before the meeting. The pre-registration website will also include an email address for technical support.


You are cordially invited to attend the virtual Annual Meeting in person.Meeting. However, to ensure your representation at the Annual Meeting, please mark, sign, date and return the accompanying proxy card as promptly as possible in the enclosed postage‑prepaid envelope.postage-paid envelope, or use the internet or telephone methods that are described on the proxy card. If you attend the virtual Annual Meeting, you may, if you wish, withdraw your proxy and vote in person.at the meeting.
Important Notice Regarding the Availability of Proxy Materials for the Stockholder Meeting to be Held on May 11, 2017: June 2, 2021:The proxy statement and annual report to stockholders are available at www.astproxyportal.com/ast/08684.www.proxydocs.com/NUS.
By Order of the Board of Directors,
STEVEN J. LUND
Chairman of the Board
Provo, Utah
April 12, 2021

By Order


PROXY SUMMARY
The following summary provides quick information for purposes of Nu Skin’s 2021 Annual Meeting. It does not contain all of the Boardinformation provided elsewhere in the proxy statement; therefore, you should read the entire proxy statement carefully before voting. This proxy statement and form of Directors,proxy are first being sent or given to our stockholders on or about April 21, 2021.

STEVEN J. LUND
Chairman of the Board
Provo, Utah, March 17, 2017ANNUAL MEETING INFORMATION
Date:June 2, 2021
Time:11:00 a.m., Mountain Daylight Time
Access:Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Annual Meeting will be held virtually, with attendance via live audio webcast. You will not be able to attend the Annual Meeting in person. Details for accessing the meeting are provided in this proxy statement.
Record date:April 5, 2021
PROPOSALS
Proposal
Board
Recommendation
More
Information
1.Election of the nine directors named in this proxy statementFor each director nomineePage 3
2.Approval of our executive compensation*ForPage 47
3.Ratification of the selection of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP as our independent registered public accounting firm for 2021*ForPage 49

* Advisory vote
CORPORATE GOVERNANCE AND COMPENSATION HIGHLIGHTS
See pages 8 and 21, respectively.
 

DIRECTOR NOMINEES

Skills and Experience         
Other public company board/exec. experience   
Corporate finance/transactions    
International experience/global operations  
Government relations        
Regulatory       
Risk management     
Sales/marketing    
Online or digital marketing      
Strategic planning  
Current Nu Skin Committee Service         
Audit Committee      
Executive Compensation Committee     
Nominating and Corp. Governance Committee     
Other Characteristics         
Independence  
Gender diversity      
Racial/ethnic diversity       
Age606669674763764169
Tenure (years)0242225021356

BOARD COMPOSITION
  Current DirectorsDirector Nominees
Average Tenure 13 years11 years
Average Age 6362
Independence 
Committee Independence 
Gender Diversity 
Racial/Ethnic Diversity 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1
1
2
3
78
 
78
89
89
89
10
11
911
912
14
1114
1114
1215
12
15
14
16
1618
18
22
23
29
31
3533
3634
45
 45
45
47
49
49
50
51
52
5453
 
55
58
58
60
60
6153
 54
6255
55
56
56

 
62
63
63
 



PROXY STATEMENT
NU SKIN ENTERPRISES, INC.
ANNUAL MEETING OF STOCKHOLDERS
TO BE HELD ON MAY 11, 2017

SOLICITATION OF PROXIES
 
The accompanying proxy is solicited on behalf of the Board of Directors of Nu Skin Enterprises, Inc. ("(“Nu Skin," "we," "us,"” “we,” “us,” or "the company"“the company”) for use at the Annual Meeting of Stockholders (the "Annual Meeting"“Annual Meeting”) at our corporate offices, 75 West Center Street, Provo, Utah 84601, on May 11, 2017,June 2, 2021, at 11:00 a.m., Mountain Daylight Time, and at any adjournment or postponement thereof, forthereof. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Annual Meeting will be held virtually, with attendance via live audio webcast. You will not be able to attend the Annual Meeting in person.
At the Annual Meeting, you will be asked to consider and vote on the following purposes,matters, which are more fully described in this Proxy Statement:proxy statement:

1.To elect the nine directors named in the Proxy Statement;this proxy statement;
2.    To hold an advisory vote to approve our executive compensation;
3.
2.To hold an advisory vote on the frequency of future stockholder advisory votes onto approve our executive compensation;
4.
3.To ratify the selection of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP as our independent registered public accounting firm for 2017;2021; and
5.
4.To transact such other business as may properly come before the Annual Meeting.

This proxy statement and form of proxy are first being sent or given to our stockholders on or about April 21, 2021. We will bear the cost of solicitation of proxies. Expenses include reimbursements paid to brokerage firms and others for their expenses incurred in forwarding solicitation material regarding the Annual Meeting to beneficial owners of our voting stock. Our regular employees may further solicit proxies by telephone, by mail, in person or by electronic communication and will not receive additional compensation for such solicitation.
VOTING PROVISIONS
Record Date; Shares Outstanding. Only stockholders of record at the close of business on April 5, 2021 are entitled to vote at the Annual Meeting. As of this record date, 50,134,073 shares of our Class A Common Stock were issued and outstanding. Each outstanding share of Class A Common Stock will be entitled to one vote on each matter submitted to a vote of the stockholders at the Annual Meeting.
How Proxies Will Be Voted.All shares represented by each properly executed, unrevoked proxy received in time for the Annual Meeting will be voted as directed by the stockholder. Each stockholder may appoint only one proxy holder or representative to attend the meeting on his or her behalf. In the absence of specific instructions, proxies will be voted in accordance with the Board of Directors'Directors’ recommendations "FOR"“FOR” the election of each director nominee "FOR" Proposaland “FOR” Proposals 2 "1 YEAR" for Proposal 3 and "FOR" Proposal 4. 3. Although it is anticipated that each nominee will be able to serve as a director, should any nominee become unavailable to serve, proxies will be voted for such other person or persons as may be designated by the Board of Directors. If any other matters properly come before the Annual Meeting, including, among other things, consideration of a motion to adjourn the Annual Meeting to another time or place, the persons named in the accompanying proxy will vote on such matters in accordance with their best judgment.
This proxy statement and form
Revocability of solicitation of proxies. Expenses include reimbursements paid to brokerage firms and others for their expenses incurred in forwarding solicitation material regarding the Annual Meeting to beneficial owners of our voting stock. Our regular employees may further solicit proxies by telephone, by mail, in person or by electronic communication and will not receive additional compensation for such solicitation. In addition, we have retained Innisfree M&A Incorporated to assist in the solicitation of proxies for a fee estimated to be approximately $20,000, plus reasonable out-of-pocket expenses.
Proxy.Any proxy duly given pursuant to this solicitation may be revoked by the person or entity giving it at any time before it is voted by delivering a written notice of revocation to our Corporate Secretary, by executing a later‑datedlater-dated proxy and delivering it to our Corporate Secretary, or by attendingvoting at the Annual Meeting and voting in person (although attendance at the Annual Meeting will not in and of itself constitute a revocation of the proxy). If you hold shares through a broker, bank or other nominee, you must follow the instructions of your broker, bank or other nominee to change or revoke your voting instructions
Attending and if you wish to vote in personVoting at the Annual Meeting. To attend the virtual Annual Meeting, you must pre-register by visiting register.proxypush.com/nus and following the registration instructions on that website before the meeting begins. You will need to enter the control number that is provided on your proxy card or Notice of Internet Availability of Proxy Materials to be requiredable to presentpre-register. Upon pre-registering, you will receive a legal proxy from your broker, bank or other nominee. Directions to our Annual Meeting may be obtained by calling (801) 345-1000.confirmation email.
 
1

OUTSTANDING SHARES AND VOTING RIGHTS
OnlyApproximately one hour before the Annual Meeting, all those who have pre-registered will receive an email with a unique website link that will allow them to access and participate in the meeting, including listening to the full webcast, submitting questions, voting and viewing a list of stockholders of record at the close of business on March 16, 2017 are entitled to vote at the meeting. To view this list of stockholders during the meeting, you will need to enter your control number. You will also have the opportunity to submit questions during the pre-registration process. We plan to respond to all appropriate questions during the webcast.
Entrance to the Annual Meeting. As of this record date, approximately 52,821,988 shares of our Class A Common Stock were issued and outstanding. Each outstanding share of Class A Common StockMeeting will open 15 minutes before the designated start time. We recommend that you access the meeting website prior to the designated start time to ensure that you are logged in when the meeting begins. Technical support will be entitled toavailable before and during the virtual Annual Meeting; if you encounter any technical difficulties accessing or participating in the meeting, please call the technical support number that will be provided in the email that will be sent approximately one vote on each matter submitted to a vote ofhour before the stockholders atmeeting. The pre-registration website will also include an email address for technical support.
Please note that recording the Annual Meeting.Meeting will not be permitted.
Quorum.In order to constitute a quorum for the conduct of business at the Annual Meeting, a majority of the issued and outstanding shares of the Class A Common Stock entitled to vote at the Annual Meeting must be represented, either in person or by proxy, at the Annual Meeting. Under Delaware law, shares represented by proxy that reflect abstentions or "broker non‑votes"“broker non-votes” (which are shares held by a broker or nominee that are represented at the Annual Meeting, but with respect to which such broker or nominee is not empoweredpermitted to vote on a particular proposal)proposal without instructions from the beneficial owner and instructions are not given) will be counted as shares that are present and entitled to vote for purposes of determining the presence of a quorum. However, broker non‑votesnon-votes will not be voted on proposals on which your broker or other nominee does not have discretionary authority to vote under the rules of the New York Stock Exchange (the "NYSE"“NYSE”), including Proposals 1 2 and 3.2.
The voting standards
Voting Standards and Effects. Pursuant to our Bylaws, for a director nominee to be elected or for a proposal to be approved, such director nominee or proposal must receive more “for” votes than “against” votes. Shares not represented in person or by proxy at the fourAnnual Meeting, abstentions and broker non-votes will have no effect on the determination of any of the proposals. Additional provisions applying to the matters to be acted upon at the meetingAnnual Meeting are as follows:
·
Proposal 1. To be elected in an uncontested election, such as at the 2017 Annual Meeting, director nominees must receive a majority of the votes cast, meaning a nominee must receive more "for" votes than "against" votes. If an incumbent director does not receive the required majority, the director shall resign pursuant to an irrevocable resignation that was required to be tendered prior to his or her nomination and effective upon (i) such person failing to receive the required majority vote and (ii) the Board'sBoard’s acceptance of such resignation. Within 90 days after the date of the certification of the election results, the Board will determine whether to accept or reject the resignation or whether other action should be taken, and the Board will publicly disclose its decision.
·
Proposals 2 and 4.3. Pursuant to our bylaws, approval of Proposals 2 and 43 are stockholder advisory votes and will require the affirmative vote of a majority of the votes cast affirmatively or negatively.
·
Proposal 3. Proposal 3 willnot be determined by a plurality of the votes cast. The frequency that receives the most votes will be recommended by the stockholders tobinding on the Board of Directors.
Shares not represented in person or by proxy at the Annual Meeting, abstentions and broker non-votes will have no effect on the determination of any of the proposals. In addition, Proposals 2 and 3 are stockholder advisory votes and will not be binding on the Board of Directors.
 

PROPOSAL 1:
ELECTION OF DIRECTORS

Directors are elected at each annual meeting of stockholders and hold office until their successors are duly elected and qualified at the next annual meeting of stockholders or until their earlier death, resignation or removal. Our Bylaws provide that the Board of Directors will consist of a minimum of three and a maximum of fifteen directors, with the number being designated by the Board. The current number of authorized directors is nine.
Eacheight, but it will increase to nine at the time of the nine director nominees listed below is a current director and was elected at our 2016 annual meeting of stockholders, except for Zheqing (Simon) Shen, whom the Board of Directors appointed to the Board in July 2016, and Ritch N. Wood, our current Chief Executive Officer.
As previously disclosed, M. Truman Hunt has accepted a three-year leadership assignment for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and will therefore not stand for reelectionelections at the 2017 Annual Meeting of Stockholders. Our Board extends gratitude to Mr. Hunt for his many years of service on our Board and as the company's Chief Executive Officer.Meeting.
Set forth below are the name, age as of MarchApril 1, 2017,2021, business experience and other qualifications of each of our nine director nominees, listed in alphabetical order.
Nevin N. Andersen, 76, has served as a director Each of our company since 2008. Mr. Andersen is currently retired. Mr. Andersen previously served in various positions, including Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Vice President and Corporate Controller, and Director of Internal Audit, at Shaklee Corporation, a direct selling company, from 1979 to 2003, when he retired. He was asked to return to Shaklee Corporation for a period of time to serve as the Interim Chief Financial Officer and to help in the transition with a new Chief Financial Officer, which role he fulfilled from 2005 to 2008. Prior to initially working at Shaklee Corporation in 1979, he worked for Price Waterhouse & Co. and served as an officer in the U.S. Army Finance Corps. He received M.Acc. and B.S. degrees from Brigham Young University.
Mr. Andersen is an experienced financial professional. His ten years as a CPA with Price Waterhouse provided him with valuable experience in the areas of audit, internal control and financial reporting, and his more than 25 years with Shaklee Corporation added to that knowledge and expertise by allowing him to focus on those issues directly related to the operations of a public company in the direct selling industry. Mr. Andersen's areas of expertise include corporate strategy, risk management, succession planning, executive compensation, stockholder communication and regulatory compliance.
Daniel W. Campbell, 62, has served as a director of our company since 1997 and currently serves as our Lead Independent Director. Mr. Campbell has been a Managing General Partner of EsNet, Ltd., a privately held investment company, since 1994. He has served on the Utah State Board of Regents for Higher Education since 2010 and currently serves as its Chair. From 1992 to 1994, Mr. Campbell was the Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of WordPerfect Corporation, a software company, and prior to that was a partner of Price Waterhouse LLP. He received a B.S. degree from Brigham Young University.
Mr. Campbellnominees is a recognized business leader with expertise in the areas of finance, accounting, transactions, corporate governance and management. In addition, through his experience as a partner of an international accounting firm, and later as Chief Financial Officer of a large technology company, Mr. Campbell has developed deep insight into the management, operations, finances and governance of public companies.
Andrew D. Lipman, 65, has served as a director of our company since 1999. Mr. Lipman is a partner and head of the Telecommunications, Media and Technology Group at Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, an international law firm that he joined in 2014. He previously held similar positions with Bingham McCutchen LLP from 2006 to 2014 and Swidler Berlin LLP from 1988 to 2006. From 2000 to 2013, Mr. Lipman served as a member of the board of directors of The Management Network Group, Inc., a telecommunications related consulting firm, and from 2007 to 2013, he served as a member of the board of directors of Sutron Corporation, a provider of hydrological and meteorological monitoring products. He received a B.A. degree from the University of Rochester and a J.D. degree from Stanford Law School.
3

Mr. Lipman is a highly experienced senior lawyer and business advisor with over 35 years of experience dealing with international regulatory, technology and marketing issues in multiple countries. In addition, he has extensive experience in corporate governance and related legal and transactional issues. Mr. Lipman has worked closely with dozens of public companies, including service on the boards of a variety of companies in several industries. His experience also includes managing and implementing strategic initiatives and launching new products and markets globally in competitive industries.
Steven J. Lund, 63, has served as the Chairman of the Board since 2012. Mr. Lund previously served as Vice Chairman of the Board from 2006 to 2012. Mr. Lund served as President, Chief Executive Officer and a director of our company from 1996, when our company went public, until 2003, when he took a three-year leave of absence. Mr. Lund was a founding stockholder of our company. Mr. Lund is a trustee of the Force for Good Foundation, a charitable organization that our company established in 1996 to help encourage and drive the philanthropic efforts of our company, its employees, its sales force and its customers to enrich the lives of others. Mr. Lund worked as an attorney in private practice prior to joining our company as Vice President and General Counsel. He received a B.A. degree from Brigham Young University and a J.D. degree from Brigham Young University's J. Reuben Clark Law School.
Mr. Lund brings to the Board over 30 years of company and industry knowledge and experience as a senior executive, including service as our General Counsel, Executive Vice President, and President and Chief Executive Officer. He played an integral role in managing our growth from start-up through his term as President and Chief Executive Officer. Mr. Lund also served on the executive board of the United States Direct Selling Association. A respected business and community leader, he currently serves on the Utah State Board of Regents for Higher Education and previously served as chairman of the board of trustees of Utah Valley University.
Neil H. Offen, 72, has served as a director of our company since 2011. Mr. Offen previously served as President and Chief Executive Officer of the United States Direct Selling Association from 1978 through 2011, when he retired. In addition, he served as secretary of the World Federation of Direct Selling Associations from 1978 to 2012 and as Vice Chairman of the Direct Selling Education Foundation from 1990 to 2011. Before joining the Direct Selling Association as a staff attorney in 1971, Mr. Offen was legislative and administrative assistant to a United States Congressman and, prior to that, served with the U.S. Department of State's Agency for International Development. Mr. Offen has published both legal and non-legal articles and has lectured on a variety of topics at numerous universities. Mr. Offen received a B.A. from Queens College and a J.D. degree from George Washington University. He is a member of the District of Columbia Bar.
With over 45 years of service and leadership in the direct selling industry, Mr. Offen has an extensive understanding of the opportunities and challenges of our industry. In addition, Mr. Offen has developed relationships with many other leaders both inside and outside our industry. Mr. Offen serves on the board of directors and the Finance, Audit and Governance Committee of Christel House International and previously served on the Advisory Board of Queens College. Mr. Offen has also served as Vice Chair of the board of directors of the Inter-American Foundation, on the board of trustees of the Hudson Institute and the boards of directors of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Foundation, the Council of Better Business Bureaus, the National Retail Federation, the Small Business Legislative Council, the Ethics Resource Center, the American Society of Association Executives, and as co-chair of the Democratic Business Council.
4

Thomas R. Pisano, 72, has served as a director of our company since 2008. He served as Chief Executive Officer and a director of Overseas Military Sales Corp., a marketer of motor vehicles, from 2005 until his retirement in 2010. From 1998 to 2004, he served as the Chief Operating Officer and a director of Overseas Military Sales Corp. From 1995 to 1997, he served as Vice President and Head of the International Division for The Topps Company, Inc., a sports publications and confectionery products company. Prior to that, he served in various positions, including Vice President of Global New Business Development, for Avon Products, Inc., a direct seller of personal care products, from 1969 to 1994. He received a B.S. from the Georgia Institute of Technology and an M.B.A. from Dartmouth College.
Mr. Pisano is an experienced senior executive who is an expert in the direct selling, personal care, beauty products and other consumer goods industries. During his 25-year career at Avon Products, Inc., he was responsible for global new business development, which included new geographic market openings and launching new product lines globally. He was also responsible for the operation of international businesses in Latin America, Europe and Asia. During his international business career at Avon, Topps and OMSC, he traveled to and conducted business in 50 countries.
Zheqing (Simon) Shen, 37, has served as a director of our company since July 2016. Mr. Shen is the founding member of ZQ Capital Limited, a boutique investment and advisory firm. Prior to founding ZQ Capital in 2015, Mr. Shen was managingcurrent director and headwas elected at our 2020 annual meeting of the China Financial Institutions Business at Barclays from 2011 to 2015. From 2004 to 2010, he worked with Goldman Sachs as an investment banker in its New Yorkstockholders, except for Emma S. Battle and Hong Kong offices. In addition to his service on our Board, Mr. Shen has also served as a director of KFM Kingdom Holdings Limited, a company on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange, since 2016. Mr. Shen has a B.A. in mathematics and economics from Wesleyan University.
Mr. Shen brings to the Board valuable expertise in helping global companies realize their growth potential in China, which isRyan S. Napierski. Ms. Battle was recommended by Edwina D. Woodbury, one of our company's key markets. He has spent much of his career working in Asia capital markets, and he has a strong network in China and valuable local knowledge of China. His depth of experience with financial and investment matters is also valuable to the Board.
Ritch N. Wood, 51, was appointed to serve as our Chief Executive Officer effective as of March 7, 2017. He previously served as our Chief Financial Officer from November 2002 to March 2017. He was named CFO of the Year by Utah Business Magazine in 2010. Prior to his appointment as Chief Financial Officer, Mr. Wood served as Vice President, Finance from July 2002 to November 2002 and Vice President, New Market Development from 2001 to 2002. He joined our company in 1993 and has served in various capacities. Mr. Wood is a trustee of the Force for Good Foundation, a charitable organization that our company established to help drive our philanthropic efforts. Prior to joining us, he worked for the accounting firm of Grant Thornton LLP. Mr. Wood earned a B.S. and a Master of Accountancy degree from Brigham Young University.
Mr. Wood brings to the Board expertise in accounting, finance, investor relations and management. With his service as our Chief Executive Officer and as our Chief Financial Officer for 14 years, Mr. Wood also has a deep understanding of our business globally, including our markets, financial matters, products and product development, personnel, compensation plans and sales force. He has played an important role in managing the growth of our business while prioritizing profitability and stockholder value; during his tenure as Chief Financial Officer from 2002 to 2017, our revenue more than doubled, our earnings per share tripled and our stock price increased fourfold. Mr. Wood's leadership has been integral to the success of several of our key initiatives in recent years.
Edwina D. Woodbury, 65, has served as a director of our company since 2015. Ms. Woodbury has been President and Chief Executive Officer of The Chapel Hill Press, Inc., a publishing services company, since 1999. Ms. Woodbury has over 20 years of experience in the direct selling and personal care products industries, having served at Avon Products, Inc. as Chief Financial and Administrative Officer and in other finance and operations positions from 1977 to 1998. From 1997 to 2015, Ms. Woodbury served as a member of the board of directors of RadioShack Corporation, a retail consumer electronics company. In addition, from to 2005 to 2010, Ms. Woodbury served as a member of the board of directors of R.H. Donnelley Corporation, a publishing and marketing company, and from 2000 to 2005, she served as a director of Click Commerce, Inc., a research solutions company. Ms. Woodbury has also served on the board of directors at the nonprofit Medical Foundation of North Carolina since 2009. She received a B.S.B.A from the University of North Carolina.
5

Ms. Woodbury has extensive experience and understanding of our industry. While serving in various roles of increasing responsibility during her 21 years at Avon Products, Inc., she gained an in-depth understanding of the financial and internal control-related issues associated with global companies in our industry. She also brings to the Board valuable perspective from her service on other public company boards. While serving on the boards at Click Commerce, R.H. Donnelley and RadioShack, she (1) served on and chaired each board's audit committee; (2) served on the compensation committee at R.H. Donnelley and chaired it at RadioShack; and (3) served on the nominating and governance committee at Click Commerce and RadioShack.
independent directors. We are not aware of any family relationships among any of our directors, director nominees or executive officers. Our Certificate of Incorporation contains provisions eliminating or limiting the personal liability of directors
As previously disclosed, in February 2021, Ritch N. Wood notified our Board that he will step down as our Chief Executive Officer, effective September 1, 2021, and will therefore not stand for violations of a director's fiduciary dutyreelection to the extent permittedBoard at the Annual Meeting. Our Board extends gratitude to Mr. Wood for his many years of service to our company in several roles, including Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and a member of our Board. Upon Mr. Wood's retirement, Mr. Napierski will become our Chief Executive Officer.
Emma S. Battle
Director nominee

Emma S. Battle, 60, has served as the President and Chief Executive Officer of Market Vigor, LLC, a business services company focused on strategic consulting and digital and online marketing, since she founded the company in 2003. From 2015 to 2017, Ms. Battle was Vice President of Client Success at Windsor Circle, an e-commerce marketing company. Previously, she served in executive and senior marketing and sales roles at Three Ships Media, Red Hat, Art.com, 1 Sync and Sara Lee Branded Apparel (now known as Hanesbrands Inc.). Ms. Battle has served on the board of directors of Unifi, Inc., a global textile solutions provider listed on the NYSE, since January 2021 and of Bassett Furniture Industries, Inc., a manufacturer and marketer of home furnishings listed on the Nasdaq Global Select Market, since October 2020. From 2019 to 2020, she was on the board of directors of Primo Water Corporation, a provider of drinking water products that was listed on the Nasdaq Global Market until the company was acquired in 2020. Ms. Battle pursues continuing education through online classes and membership in professional organizations like Brentwood Advisory Group, and supports and collaborates with current and aspiring board directors through UNC's Director Diversity Initiative, Onboard NC, Santa Clara University's Black Corporate Board Readiness program and the newly established Take Your Seat initiative. Ms. Battle also devotes time to charitable and civic causes; since 2017 she has served as the President and Chief Executive Officer of Higher Ed Works, a charitable organization that supports public higher education in North Carolina, and she also serves on the boards of FPG Child Development Institute, Southeastern Wind Coalition, and Elon University's School of Business. She received a B.A. degree from Duke University and a M.B.A. degree from Harvard Business School.

Ms. Battle is a successful businessperson with an extensive background in digital and online marketing, marketing analytics, and business and marketing strategy, which the Board believes will be valuable as we continue to build our digital business. She also brings to the Board her perspective from working with other large corporations and on other public company boards. In addition, the Board believes that her experience managing and consulting with smaller, entrepreneurial businesses will provide a valuable perspective in managing our business in a manner that is effective for our independent sales force. The Board also values Ms. Battle’s commitment to sustainability and social responsibility, which are two areas of focus for our company and many stockholders.

Daniel W. Campbell
Director since 1997Lead Independent Director
Audit Committee
Executive Compensation Committee

Daniel W. Campbell, 66, has been a Managing General Partner of EsNet, Ltd., a privately held investment company, since 1994. He served on the Utah State Board of Regents for Higher Education from 2010 to 2019, having served as its Vice Chair from 2012 to 2014 and as Chair from 2014 to 2018. From 1992 to 1994, Mr. Campbell was the Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of WordPerfect Corporation, a software company, and prior to that was a partner of Price Waterhouse LLP. He received a B.S. degree from Brigham Young University.

Mr. Campbell is a recognized business leader with expertise in the areas of finance, accounting, transactions, corporate governance and management. He has served on the boards of several other private and public companies. In addition, through his experience as a partner of an international accounting firm, and later as Chief Financial Officer of a large technology company, Mr. Campbell has developed deep insight into the management, operations, finances and governance of public companies.

Andrew D. Lipman
Director since 1999Executive Compensation Committee
Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee (Chair)
Andrew D. Lipman, 69, is a partner and head of the Telecommunications, Media and Technology Group at Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, an international law firm that he joined in 2014. He previously held similar positions with Bingham McCutchen LLP from 2006 to 2014 and Swidler Berlin LLP from 1988 to 2006. From 2000 to 2013, Mr. Lipman served as a member of the board of directors of The Management Network Group, Inc., a telecommunications related consulting firm, and from 2005 to 2013, he served as a member of the board of directors of Sutron Corporation, a provider of hydrological and meteorological monitoring products. He received a B.A. degree from the University of Rochester and a J.D. degree from Stanford Law School.

Mr. Lipman is a highly experienced senior lawyer and business advisor with over 40 years of experience dealing with international regulatory, technology and marketing issues in multiple countries. In addition, he has extensive experience in corporate governance and related legal and transactional issues. Mr. Lipman has worked closely with dozens of public companies, including service on the boards of a variety of companies in several industries. His experience also includes managing and implementing strategic initiatives and launching new products and markets globally in competitive industries.

Steven J. Lund
Director since 1996
(includes three-year leave
of absence)
Executive Chairman of the Board

Steven J. Lund, 67, has served as the Chairman of the Board since 2012. Mr. Lund previously served as Vice Chairman of the Board from 2006 to 2012. Mr. Lund served as President, Chief Executive Officer and a director of our company from 1996, when our company went public, until 2003, when he took a three-year leave of absence. Mr. Lund was a founding stockholder of our company. Mr. Lund is a trustee of the Force for Good Foundation, a charitable organization that our company established in 1996 to help encourage and drive the philanthropic efforts of our company, its employees, its sales force and its customers to enrich the lives of others. Mr. Lund worked as an attorney in private practice prior to joining our company as Vice President and General Counsel. He received a B.A. degree from Brigham Young University and a J.D. degree from Brigham Young University’s J. Reuben Clark Law School.

Mr. Lund brings to the Board over 35 years of company and industry knowledge and experience as a senior executive, including service as our General Counsel, Executive Vice President, and President and Chief Executive Officer. He played an integral role in managing our growth from start-up through his term as President and Chief Executive Officer. Mr. Lund also served on the Executive Board of the United States Direct Selling Association. A respected leader in his business, religious and civic communities, he currently serves as a general officer of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and serves on this Church's Board of Education with oversight of its institutions of higher education, including Brigham Young University. He previously served on the Utah State Board of Regents for Higher Education and as Chairman of the Board of Trustees of Utah Valley University.

Ryan S. Napierski
Director nominee
Ryan S. Napierski, 47, has served as our company’s President since 2017. Previously, he served as President of Global Sales and Operations from 2015 to 2017. Prior to serving in that position, he served as both President of our North Asia region since 2014 and President of Nu Skin Japan since 2010. Mr. Napierski has fulfilled multiple leadership positions for Nu Skin since joining our company in 1995, including Vice President of Business Development for Nu Skin EMEA and General Manager of the United Kingdom. Mr. Napierski has a Bachelor’s degree in business, a Master's degree in business administration from Duke University and a Master's degree in international business from Goethe Universitat in Germany.

Mr. Napierski brings to the Board a strong expertise in direct sales, including through digital and social media platforms. With his service as our President, President of Global Sales and Operations, and other management roles in our markets, Mr. Napierski also has a deep understanding of our business globally, including our sales force, products and product development, markets and compensation plans. Mr. Napierski’s leadership has been integral to the success of several of our key initiatives in recent years. Mr. Napierski is also recognized as a leader in the direct selling industry and has served in a variety of industry trade association leadership roles; he currently serves as both Chairman of the United States Direct Selling Association and Chairman of the Advocacy Committee for the World Federation of Direct Selling Associations.

Laura Nathanson
Director since 2019Executive Compensation Committee
Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee
Laura Nathanson, 63, retired from The Walt Disney Company in 2019 after 21 years of service in sales and advertising positions. From 2017 to 2019, she served as Executive Vice President of Revenue and Operations at Disney Advertising Sales, and from 2002 to 2017, she served as Executive Vice President of Sales and Marketing at ABC Family/Freeform. Prior to 2002, she served in various other sales and advertising positions with ABC Network Sales, Fox Broadcasting and media agencies. She received a B.A. degree from Wesleyan University.

Ms. Nathanson is an experienced leader who brings to the Board her expertise in sales and advertising, as well as a strong customer focus that is built on a 40-year career in connecting with and communicating with customers. Business strategy is also one of Ms. Nathanson’s strengths; during her career, she has recognized and understood shifts in the business landscape, such as the rise of the millennial demographic and the trend toward digital advertising, and has quickly adapted to these shifts, enabling her companies to capitalize on them at an early stage. She also has experience in streamlining business processes and in promoting sales through digital and social media.

Thomas R. Pisano
Director since 2008
Audit Committee
Executive Compensation Committee (Chair)
Thomas R. Pisano, 76, served as Chief Executive Officer and a director of Overseas Military Sales Corp. ("OMSC"), a marketer of motor vehicles, from 2005 until his retirement in 2010. From 1998 to 2004, he served as the Chief Operating Officer and a director of OMSC From 1995 to 1997, he served as Vice President and Head of the International Division for The Topps Company, Inc., a sports publications and confectionery products company. Prior to that, he served in various positions, including Vice President of Global New Business Development, for Avon Products, Inc., a direct seller of personal care products, from 1969 to 1994. He received a B.S. from the Georgia Institute of Technology and a M.B.A. from Dartmouth College.

Mr. Pisano is an experienced senior executive who is an expert in the direct selling, personal care, beauty products and other consumer goods industries. During his 25-year career at Avon, he was responsible for global new business development, which included new geographic market openings and launching new product lines globally. He was also responsible for the operation of international businesses in Latin America, Europe and Asia. During his international business career at Avon, Topps and OMSC, he traveled to and conducted business in 50 countries.

Zheqing (Simon) Shen
Director since 2016Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee
Zheqing (Simon) Shen, 41, is the founding member of ZQ Capital Limited, a boutique investment and advisory firm. Prior to founding ZQ Capital in 2015, Mr. Shen was managing director and head of the China Financial Institutions Business at Barclays from 2011 to 2015. From 2004 to 2010, he worked with Goldman Sachs as an investment banker in its New York and Hong Kong offices. In addition to his service on our Board, Mr. Shen has also served since 2016 on the board of directors and the Audit, Remuneration and Nomination Committees of KFM Kingdom Holdings Limited, a precision metals engineering and manufacturing company listed on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange. Mr. Shen has a B.A. in mathematics and economics from Wesleyan University.

Mr. Shen brings to the Board valuable expertise in helping global companies realize their growth potential in Mainland China, which is one of our company’s key markets. He has spent much of his career working in Asia capital markets, and he has a strong network in Mainland China and valuable local knowledge of Mainland China. His depth of experience with financial and investment matters is also valuable to the Board.

Edwina D. Woodbury
Director since 2015Audit Committee (Chair)
Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee
Edwina D. Woodbury, 69, has been President and Chief Executive Officer of The Chapel Hill Press, Inc., a publishing services company, since 1999. Ms. Woodbury has over 20 years of experience in the direct selling and personal care products industries, having served at Avon Products, Inc. as Chief Financial and Administrative Officer and in other finance and operations positions from 1977 to 1998. From 1998 to 2015, Ms. Woodbury served as a member of the board of directors of RadioShack Corporation, a retail consumer electronics company. In addition, from 2005 to 2010, Ms. Woodbury served as a member of the board of directors of R.H. Donnelley Corporation, a publishing and marketing company, and from 2000 to 2005, she served as a director of Click Commerce, Inc., a research solutions company. Ms. Woodbury also served on the board of directors at the nonprofit Medical Foundation of North Carolina from 2009 to 2018. She received a B.S.B.A from the University of North Carolina.

Ms. Woodbury has extensive experience and understanding of our industry. While serving in various roles of increasing responsibility during her 21 years at Avon, she gained an in-depth understanding of the financial and internal control-related issues associated with global companies in our industry. She also brings to the Board valuable perspective from her service on other public company boards. While serving on the boards at Click Commerce, R.H. Donnelley and RadioShack, she (1) served on and chaired each board’s audit committee; (2) served on the compensation committee at R.H. Donnelley and chaired it at RadioShack; and (3) served on the nominating and governance committee at Click Commerce and RadioShack.

———————————————

Each nominee was recommended by the Delaware General Corporation Law.Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee for election and has consented to being named in this proxy statement and to serve if elected. Although we do not know of any reason for which any nominee might become unavailable to serve on the Board, if that should happen, the Board may designate a substitute nominee. Shares represented by proxies will be voted for any substitute nominee so designated.

THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS RECOMMENDS THAT STOCKHOLDERS VOTE "FOR"“FOR” EACH OF THE NINE NOMINEES TO OUR BOARD OF DIRECTORS.

67

CORPORATE GOVERNANCE

Corporate Governance Highlights
The following are some highlights of our corporate governance practices and policies:
Board of Directors Independence and Committee Structure
·
Separate Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer.CEO. The positions of Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive OfficerCEO are filled by Mr. Lund and Mr. Wood, respectively.
·
Lead Independent Director. Our independent directors have designated Mr. Campbell as Lead Independent Director.
·
Limitation on management directors.Management Directors. All of our current directors are independent of the company and management except for Mr. Lund, who is one of our company'scompany’s founders, and Mr. Hunt,Wood, our former Chief Executive Officer.CEO. If elected, Mr. Wood, our current Chief Executive Officer,Napierski will not be independent.
·
Meetings of independent directors.Independent Directors. All independent directors meet regularly in executive session. Mr. Campbell, the Lead Independent Director, chairs these sessions.
·
Independent committees.Committees. Only independent directors serve on our Audit, Executive Compensation, and Nominating and Corporate Governance Committees.
·
Annual Board and committee performance evaluations.Committee Performance Evaluations. The performance of the Board and each Board committee is evaluated at least annually.
Election of Directors
·
Annual electionElection of directors.Directors. All of our directors are elected annually; we do not have a staggered board.
·
Majority votingVoting in uncontested director elections.Uncontested Director Elections and Resignation Policy. Our Bylaws provide that director nominees must be elected by a majority of the votes cast in uncontested elections. For an incumbent director to be nominated for re-election, she or he must tender an irrevocable resignation that will be effective upon (i) the failure to receive the required vote for director election at the next annual meeting at which they face re-election and (ii) Board acceptance of such resignation.
Stock-Related Matters
·
Stock ownership requirements.Equity Retention Requirements. We have stock ownershipequity retention requirements that apply to our directors and executive officers, designed to align directors'directors’ and executive officers'officers’ interests with those of stockholders. For a description of these requirements, see "Additional Corporate Governance Information" and "Compensation“Executive Compensation: Compensation Discussion and Analysis—Stock OwnershipEquity Retention Guidelines."
·
Hedging policy.Policy. Our directors and employees, including officers, are prohibited from engaging in any hedging transactions with respect to our securities, including through the use of short sales, put options and financial instruments such as prepaid variable forward contracts, equity swaps, collars and exchange funds. This prohibition applies regardless of whether the director'sdirector’s or employee'semployee’s securities were granted as compensation and regardless of whether the director or employee holds the securities directly or indirectly.
·
Pledging policy.Policy. Our directors and employees, including officers, are prohibited from pledging their securities in our company.
 
78

Director Independence
The Board of Directors has determined that each of the current directors listed below is an "independent director"“independent director” under the listing standards of the NYSE.
Nevin N. AndersenDaniel W. CampbellAndrew D. LipmanNeil H. OffenLaura Nathanson
Thomas R. PisanoZheqing (Simon) Shen
Edwina D. Woodbury

The Board also has determined that Emma S. Battle, who is a nominee not currently on the Board, will be an “independent director” under the listing standards of the NYSE if elected.
 
In assessing the independence of the directors, the Board determines whether or not any director has a material relationship with us (either directly or as a partner, stockholder or officer of an organization that has a relationship with us). The Board considers all relevant facts and circumstances in making independence determinations, including the existence and scope of any commercial, industrial, banking, consulting, legal, accounting, charitable and familial relationships. For information about the Board's assessment of Mr. Shen's independence, see "Related Person Transactions."
Board Leadership Structure
 
We currently separate the roles of Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer.CEO. However, the Board has not adopted a policy with regard to whether the same person should serve as both the Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive OfficerCEO or, if the roles are separate, whether the Chairman of the Board should be selected from the non-employee directors or should be an employee. The Board believes it is most appropriate to retain the discretion and flexibility to make such determinations at any given point in time in the way that it believes best to provide appropriate leadership for the company at that time. We have determined that our current separation of the roles of Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive OfficerCEO is appropriate given the differences in the roles and duties of the two positions and the individuals currently serving in these positions.
The Board has created the Lead Independent Director position to provide independent leadership of the Board'sBoard’s affairs on behalf of our stockholders and to promote open communication among the independent directors. Our Corporate Governance Guidelines provide that the Lead Independent Director (i) is designated by the non-management directors; (ii) consults with the Chairman of the Board and the Chief Executive OfficerCEO regarding agenda items for Board meetings; (iii) chairs executive sessions of the Board'sBoard’s independent directors; and (iv) performs such other duties as the Board deems appropriate.
Risk Oversight
Our Board of Directors has primary responsibility for risk oversight. Except with regard to certain strategically significant risks, the Board administers its risk oversight function through the Audit Committee, Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee and Executive Compensation Committee. The committee charters include the following subject-matter parameters for risk oversight:
Audit Committee
Nominating and Corporate
Governance Committee
Executive Compensation
Committee
-
Major financial risk exposures
-
Corporate governance risks
-
Compensation practices related risks
-
Operational risks related to information systems and facilities
-
Operational risks not assigned to the Audit Committee
-
Human resources risks
-
Public disclosure and investor related risks
-
Compliance and regulatory risks
-
Reputational risks

The committees, or the Board in the case of risks it determines to oversee directly, are responsible for overseeing and discussing with management our risk assessment and risk management programs and plans relatedplans. Management periodically reports to the following risk areas:
Board or applicable committee on our risks and the internal processes, practices and controls attendant to the risks. Following these reports by management, the Audit Committee:
·
major financial risk exposures;
·
operational risks related to information systems and facilities; and
·public disclosure and investor related risks.
8


Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee:
·
corporate governance risks;
·
operational risks not assigned to the Audit Committee;
·
compliance and regulatory risks; and
·
reputational risks.
Executive Compensation Committee:
·
compensation practices related risks; and
·
human resources risks.
The chairs ofCommittee periodically receives reports regarding the Nominating and Corporate Governance CommitteeCommittee’s and Executive Compensation Committee reportCommittee’s risk-oversight efforts.
Our Board directly oversees cyber and privacy-related risks and periodically receives reports from management on these risks. Because the Board and management recognize the importance of maintaining the trust and confidence of our employees, sales force, customers, vendors and other business partners, we have established an Information Security and Privacy group that has responsibility for executing a program to protect our data. This group identifies, tracks, and monitors risks in this area, and they follow standardized cybersecurity frameworks, including CIS and NIST-CSF, in measuring our security risks. We also have implemented a training program: all employees receive annual training, which is translated into multiple languages, and employees in elevated roles participate in more-frequent monthly training sessions. We also conduct unannounced phishing simulation exercises to help our employees remain vigilant against cybersecurity threats.
Human Capital Management
Our Board’s committees engage with our senior management and head of Human Resources regarding human capital management on a regular basis. Working with management, our Board’s committees oversee and receive reports on matters including culture, compensation, benefits, key talent succession planning, employee engagement, and diversity, equity and inclusion. Each year, our management also reports to the AuditExecutive Compensation Committee regardingon management’s annual assessment of risks related to our compensation policies and practices. In addition, our Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee conducts annual performance reviews for our key executive officers, and these performance reviews include their respective risk oversight responsibilities.performance on human capital management initiatives.
All employees are responsible for upholding the Nu Skin Code of Conduct and for striving to perpetuate the Nu Skin Way, our global culture aspiration, which includes the following principles:
−          A force for good
−          Accountable and empowered
−          Bold innovators
−          Customer obsessed
−          Direct and decisive
−          Exceptional
−          Fast speed
−          One global team

The Nu Skin Way forms the foundation of our human capital strategy and objectives. The three primary objectives of our human capital strategy are:

1.Support the transformation of our business and culture to align with our business strategies and the Nu Skin Way;

2.Leverage global diversity and build inclusion; and

3.Simplify the employee experience through global alignment and optimization.
To measure our progress in achieving these objectives, we conduct a quarterly global employee survey, which also gathers employee feedback for purposes of designing our talent programs, rewards and benefits. Averaging an approximately 90% response rate during 2020, this survey generates valuable information for us to analyze and to act upon when appropriate. This survey yielded more than 60,000 data points each quarter, consisting of employee responses to each survey question. We also conducted focus groups with our employees to gather their feedback on the employee experience, including diversity, equity and inclusion matters.
We regularly review our employees' feedback to better align our human capital initiatives to the needs of our employees. For example, after receiving employee feedback that pointed toward a need to establish a more comprehensive diversity, equity and inclusion strategy, we hired a global head of diversity and inclusion and began conducting a periodic "Listen and Learn" series of employee panels to bring our workforce into a more inclusive experience. These and other diversity-related initiatives have helped us to achieve employee engagement scores in the top quintile of global companies of a similar size.
Evidencing the success of our human capital management initiatives, in 2020 we were recognized by the Direct Selling News as one of the best places to work in direct selling, the fifth consecutive year we have received this honor.
Sustainability
Our Board and senior management are engaged in our sustainability initiatives, and we endeavor to integrate sustainability-related risks and opportunities into our business strategy and operations. Our sustainability team reports annually to our Board and quarterly to our senior management. Focusing on three key areas—product, planet and people—some of our sustainability initiatives are as follows:
Product

Assess, score and improve the environmental impact score of all of our products by 2023

Change all of our packaging to be recycled, recyclable, reusable, reduced or renewable by 2030
Planet
Reduce waste at our facilities through programs that encourage reducing, reusing and recycling, as well as initiatives to reduce electricity usage
PeopleInvest at least 50% of our Force for Good Foundation’s giving in communities and people that are providing essential resources to our planet and its inhabitants

Our 2020 sustainability accomplishments include the following:


Completing our previously announced goal of assessing, scoring and improving the environmental impact score of our top 20 products, as identified when we set this goal during 2019, saving an estimated 16.5 tons of paper and 21 tons of plastic during 2020;

Offering new bottles for our Nutricentials® line made from 100% post-consumer recycled plastic and tubes made from approximately 34% post-consumer recycled plastic;

Reducing by 70% the packaging materials for our Epoch® Baobab Body Butter by switching the packaging from jars to an environmentally friendly tube;

Winning nine sustainability awards for clean beauty products, sustainable sales leader efforts, and waste and packaging reductions; and

Helping build the Utah Sustainable Business Coalition as a founding member.
Board of Directors Meetings
The Board of Directors held nineeight meetings during the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.2020. Each incumbent director attended more than 75% of the total number ofBoard and respective committee meetings offor the Board that were held while they wereperiod in office and the total number of meetings of all committees of the Board on which they served during the period.2020. Although we encourage Board members to attend our annual meetings of stockholders, we do not have a formal policy regarding director attendance at annual stockholder meetings. All eight of our current directors who were in office at the time of our 20162020 annual meeting of stockholders attended that meeting.
At our 2020 annual meeting of stockholders, the proposal to re-elect Mr. Shen to our Board was approved by 68% of the votes cast "for" and "against." We understand that many of the "against" votes were due to Mr. Shen's 2019 Board and committee meeting attendance being 73%, which is below the 75% threshold  required by many of our investors' voting policies. Mr. Shen lives in Hong Kong, and although he attended all regularly scheduled meetings during 2019, he was unable to attend three special meetings that had not been on the planned meeting calendar set out for 2019 Board service. In all three cases, time zone differences and prior commitments prevented him from attending.
Our Board agrees that attendance is important. In response to the vote at our 2020 annual meeting, our Board took action to ensure it could serve the best interests of our stockholders, uphold its high standards of director responsibility and address the underlying reasons for the 2020 election result. In particular, our Board and committees have made it a higher priority to schedule meetings at times that are more compatible with the Hong Kong time zone, and have actually scheduled an increased proportion of meetings at such times. Mr. Shen informed us during 2020 that he plans to have at least 75% attendance going forward, and his 2020 attendance and 2021 attendance to date have exceeded that level.
Our Board continues to view Mr. Shen as a strong and valuable Board member. His knowledge of Mainland China, our largest market, and his depth of experience with financial and investment matters are very beneficial to the Board. In nominating Mr. Shen for re-election at our Annual Meeting, our Board specifically considered Mr. Shen's attendance and the 2020 election results and determined that re-nominating him is in the best interests of our stockholders due to the value he adds to the Board.
Board Committees
We have standing Audit, Executive Compensation, and Nominating and Corporate Governance Committees. Each member of the committees is independent within the meaning of the listing standards of the NYSE. In addition, the Audit Committee and the Executive Compensation Committee are composed solely of directors who meet additional, heightened independence standards applicable to members of audit committees and compensationthese committees under the NYSE listing standards and rules of the Securities and Exchange Commission's rules.Commission ("SEC").
The following table identifies the current membership of the committees and states the number of committee meetings held during 2016.

DirectorAuditExecutive Compensation
Nominating and Corporate
Governance
Nevin N. Andersen 
Daniel W. Campbell 
Andrew D. Lipman Chair
Neil H. Offen 
Thomas R. PisanoChair 
Edwina WoodburyChair 
    
Number of Meetings in 2016101111

2020.
 
DirectorAudit
Executive
Compensation
Nominating and
Corporate Governance
Daniel W. Campbell 
Andrew D. Lipman  Chair
Laura Nathanson 
Thomas R. PisanoChair 
Zheqing (Simon) Shen  
Edwina WoodburyChair 
2020 Meetings151212
9


The Board has adopted a written charter for each of the committees, which are available in the "Corporate Governance"“Corporate Governance” section of our Investor Relations website at nuskinenterprises.com.ir.nuskin.com.
Audit Committee
The Audit Committee'sCommittee’s responsibilities include, among other things:
·
selecting
Selecting our independent auditor;
 

Overseeing the performance of our internal audit function and independent auditor;
·
reviewing
Reviewing the activities and the reports of our independent auditor;
 
·
approving
Approving in advance the audit and non-audit services provided by our independent auditor;
 
·
reviewing
Reviewing our quarterly and annual financial statements and our significant accounting policies, practices and procedures;
 
·
reviewing
Reviewing the adequacy of our internal controls and internal auditing methods and procedures;
 
·
overseeing
Overseeing our compliance with legal and regulatory requirements;
·
overseeing
Overseeing our risk assessment and risk management programs and plans related to our major financial risk exposures, operational risks related to information systems and facilities, and public disclosure and investor related risks; and
 
·
conferring
Conferring with the chairs of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee and Executive Compensation Committee regarding their respective oversight of our risk assessment and risk management programs and our related guidelines and policies.
The Board has determined that Messrs. AndersenMs. Woodbury and Mr. Campbell and Ms. Woodbury are Audit Committee financial experts as such term is defined in Item 407(d)(5) of Regulation S-K promulgated by the Securities and Exchange Commission.SEC.
Executive Compensation Committee
The Executive Compensation Committee'sCommittee’s responsibilities include, among other things:
·
establishing
Establishing and administering our executive compensation strategy, policies and practices;
 
·
reviewing
Reviewing and approving corporate goals and objectives relevant to the compensation to be paid to our Chief Executive Officer and ourCEO, Executive Chairman of the Board and other executive officers, evaluating the performance of these individuals in light of those goals and objectives, and determining and approving the forms and levels of compensation based on this evaluation;
 
·
reviewing and acting on the Chief Executive Officer's evaluations and recommendations;
·
administeringAdministering our equity incentive plans;
 
·
overseeing regulatory compliance with respect to executive compensation matters; and
·
overseeingOverseeing our risk assessment and risk management programs and plans related to our compensation practices and human resources.
resources; and
 

Overseeing the reporting of executive compensation information in accordance with applicable rules and regulations.
Pursuant to its charter, the Executive Compensation Committee may delegate its authority to a subcommittee or subcommittees and may delegate authority to the Chief Executive OfficerCEO and Chairman of the Board to approve the level of incentive awards to be granted to specific non-executive officers, employees or other grantees subject to such limitations as may be established by the Executive Compensation Committee. For a discussion of the processes and procedures for determining executive and director compensation and the role of compensation consultants in determining or recommending the amount or form of compensation, see "Compensation“Executive Compensation: Compensation Discussion and Analysis"Analysis” and "Director“Director Compensation."
 
10

Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee
 
The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee'sCommittee’s responsibilities include, among other things:
·
making
Making recommendations to the Board of Directors about the size and membership criteria of the Board or any committee thereof;
 
·
identifying
Identifying and recommending candidates for the Board and committee membership, including evaluating director nominations received from stockholders;
 

Annually reviewing CEO succession planning as well as succession planning and management development for other executive officer positions;
·
leading
Leading the process of identifying and screening candidates for a new Chief Executive OfficerCEO when necessary, and evaluating the performance of the ChiefCEO and Executive Officer;Chairman;
 
·
making
Making recommendations to the Board regarding changes in compensation of non-employee directors and overseeing the evaluation of the Board and management;
 
·
developing
Developing and recommending to the Board a set of corporate governance guidelines and reviewing such guidelines at least annually;
·
overseeing
Overseeing our risk assessment and risk management programs and plans related to our corporate governance risks, operational risks not assigned to the Audit Committee, compliance and regulatory risks, and reputational risks; and
 
·
overseeing
Overseeing our regulatory, legal and compliance obligations in the foreign countries in which we operate, as well as individual compliance withprograms developed to address specific legal and regulatory issues in the United States laws that address operations outside the United States.and foreign countries.
Board and Committee Evaluations
Our Board believes that a strong and constructive evaluation process is an important component of good corporate governance and helps to promote Board effectiveness. Our annual evaluation process, which is led by our Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee, focuses on both the Board and the Board committees.
The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee reviews the format of our evaluation process each year to ensure that it remains robust and relevant. In 2020, we used a third-party facilitator to assist in conducting the evaluation in order to receive fresh perspectives on Board effectiveness and corporate governance practices and to encourage candor in the evaluation process. The facilitator collected feedback from each director and then led a discussion at an in-person meeting.
 
Compensation Committee Interlocks and Insider Participation
None of the directors who served on the Executive Compensation Committee during 20162020 was:
·
a
A current or former officer or employee of our company;
 
·
a
A participant during 20162020 in a related personrelated-person transaction that is required to be disclosed; or
 
·
an
An executive officer of another entity at which one of our executive officers served during 20162020 on either the board of directors or the compensation committee, nor were any of our other directors an executive officer of another entity at which one of our executive officers served on the compensation committee.
Our Director NominationsNomination Process
As indicated above, the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee of the Board of Directors oversees the director nomination process. This committee is responsible for identifying and evaluating candidates for membership on the Board and recommending to the Board nominees to stand for election.
Minimum Criteria for Members of the BoardBoard.. Each candidate to serve on the Board must possess the highest personal and professional ethics, integrity and values, and be committed to serving the long‑termlong-term interests of our stockholders. In addition, our Corporate Governance Guidelines require that, to be nominated for re-election to our Board, an incumbent director must tender an irrevocable resignation that will be effective upon (i) the failure to receive the required vote for director election at the next annual meeting at which they face re-election and (ii) Board acceptance of such resignation. Other than the foregoing, there are no stated minimum criteria for director nominees, although the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee may consider such other factors as it may deem appropriate, which may include, without limitation, professional experience,experience; diversity of backgrounds, skills and experience at policy‑makingpolicy-making levels in business, government, financial, and other areas relevant to our global operations,operations; experience and history with our company,company; and stock ownership.
 
11

We do not have a formal policy with regard toregarding the consideration of diversity in identifying Board nominees, but thenominees. However, our Board and our Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee strivesbelieve that diversity is an important consideration in Board composition, as men and women of different skills, areas of expertise and experience, races, and ethnic backgrounds can contribute different and useful perspectives to nominate individuals with a variety of complementary skills so that,help the Board, as a group, the Board will possess the appropriate talent, skills and expertise to more effectively oversee our business.
Process for Identifying, Evaluating and Recommending CandidatesCandidates.. The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee will consider director candidates recommended by stockholders if properly submitted to the committee. Stockholders wishing to recommend candidates should do so in writing to the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee, c/o Corporate Secretary, Nu Skin Enterprises, Inc., 75 West Center Street, Provo, Utah 84601. The committee may also consider candidates proposed by current directors, management, employees and others. All such candidates who, after evaluation, are then recommended by the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee and approved by the Board will be included in our recommended slate of director nominees in our proxy statement.
Procedures for Stockholders to Nominate Director Candidates at our Annual MeetingsMeetings.. Stockholders of record may also nominate director candidates for our annual meetings of stockholders by following the procedures set forth in our Bylaws. Please refer to the section below titled "Stockholder“Stockholder Proposals for 20182022 Annual Meeting"Meeting” for further information.
Communications with Directors
Stockholders or other interested parties wishing to communicate with the Board of Directors, the non‑non-management directors as a group, the Lead Independent Director or any other individual director may do so in writing by addressing the correspondence to that individual or group, c/o Corporate Secretary, Nu Skin Enterprises, Inc., 75 West Center Street, Provo, Utah 84601. All such communications will be initially received and processed by our Corporate Secretary. Accounting, audit, internal accounting controls and other financial matters will be referred to our Audit Committee chair. Other matters will be referred to the Board, the non‑managementnon-management directors, or individual directors as appropriate.
Additional Corporate Governance Information
We have adopted the following:
·
Code of ConductConduct.. Our code of conduct applies to all of our employees, officers and directors, including our subsidiaries. As noted below, this code is available on our website. Any amendments or waivers (including implicit waivers) regarding this code for whichthe Code of Conduct requiring disclosure is required byunder applicable SEC rules or NYSE listing standards or the Securities and Exchange Commission's rules will be disclosed onin the “Corporate Governance” section of our website.
Investor Relations website at ir.nuskin.com.
·
Corporate Governance GuidelinesGuidelines.. Our corporate governance guidelines govern our company and our Board of Directors on matters of corporate governance, including responsibilities, committees of the Board and their charters, director independence, director qualifications, director compensation and evaluations, director orientation and education, director access to management, director access to outside financial, business and legal advisors and management development and succession planning.
·
Stock Ownership Guidelines. Our stock ownership guidelines apply to our directors and executive officers. These guidelines provide that executive officers and directors must retain 50% to 75% of the net shares (after payment of the exercise price and related taxes) with respect to any equity award unless the individual holds a number of shares equal to the ownership levels set forth in the guidelines. The ownership levels are phased in over five years from the date of appointment or election. Unvested equity awards and vested options are not counted in determining whether a director or executive officer holds shares equal to or greater than the designated level. At the end of the five-year phase-in period, the designated ownership levels are set at 100,000 shares for our Chief Executive Officer, 25,000 shares for our other executive officers, and 5,000 shares for directors.
 
12

EachBoth of the above isare available in the "Corporate Governance"“Corporate Governance” section of our Investor Relations website at nuskinenterprises.com.ir.nuskin.com. In addition, stockholders may obtain a print copy of anyeither of the above, free of charge, by making a written request to Investor Relations, Nu Skin Enterprises, Inc., 75 West Center Street, Provo, Utah 84601.


DIRECTOR COMPENSATION

Our Board of Directors periodically reviews director compensation. The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee is responsible for evaluating director compensation from time to time, and recommending any adjustmentswhen it determines that adjustments are appropriate.appropriate, it recommends them to the Board of Directors for its consideration. The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee has retained the services of Frederic W. Cook & Co.Semler Brossy Consulting Group LLC as its independent compensation consultant to assist in the review of our director compensation program, to provide compensation data and alternatives, and to provide advice as requested. For additional information regarding our independent compensation consultant, see "Compensation“Executive Compensation: Compensation Discussion and Analysis—UseRole of Compensation Consultant and Competitive Data."Consultant.”
In 2016,
The following table summarizes our non-employee director compensation program, which applies to each director who did notbesides Messrs. Lund and Wood because they receive compensation as an executive officer or employeeofficers of our company or our affiliates received an annual retainer fee of $50,000, with Mr. Shen's retainer fee being pro-rated forcompany. The table shows the time he participated on our Board. These directors also received a fee of $1,500 for each meeting ofprogram as in effect during 2020 and the Board or any committee meeting thereof attended and an additional fee of $1,000 for each committee meeting attended if such director waschanges that were approved in early 2021 following the chair of that committee. The Lead Independent Director, the Audit Committee chair and all other committee chairs received additional annual retainer fees of $20,000, $15,000 and $10,000, respectively, for their service in those positions. Because the chairsreview of our Audit Committeedirector compensation program and Executive Compensation Committee rotated during 2016,will take effect as of June 1, 2021. The increases in retainers for leadership positions aim to more closely align with market practice. The increase in the outgoing and incoming chairs received pro-ratedannual equity award aims to better compensate the directors for an increased workload, particularly at the committee chair retainer fees for the time they served as committee chairs. level, in a manner that maintains alignment with stockholder interests.

2020 Program
Changes Approved in
2021
Annual cash retainer
Board
Committee
$85,000
$10,000 per committee
Unchanged
Additional annual cash retainer for leadership:
Lead Independent Director
Audit Committee Chair
Other committee chairs
$20,000
$15,000
$10,000
$25,000
$20,000
$15,000
Meeting fees
None(1)
Unchanged
Annual equity award (restricted stock units)$140,000 value$150,000 value

(1)The Board can approve meeting fees for participation in a special committee or other extraordinary circumstances.
In addition, we may compensate a director $1,500 per day for corporate events or travel that we require, and we may reimburse directors for certain expenses incurred in attending Board and committee meetings and other corporate events. We also may provide company products to our directors for their use.
In 2016, each non-management director also received 5,000 stock options and 1,297 restricted stock units, except that Mr. Shen received 5,000 stock options and 1,000 restricted stock units after joining our Board during 2016. These stock options and restricted stock units will vest on April 30, 2017. The grant date fair value of the 2016 equity awards granted to our non-management directors other than Mr. Shen was approximately 10% lower than the value of the equity awards granted to directors in 2015.
Pursuant to the terms of our SecondThird Amended and Restated 2010 Omnibus Incentive Plan, the total compensation, including all cash compensation as well asand the aggregate grant date fair value (computed as of the date of grant in accordance with applicable financial accounting rules) of all awards under the Plan provided to any non-employee director during any single calendar year cannot exceed $750,000.
Messrs. Lund and Hunt are employees of the company and are not paid under the non-employee director compensation program.
 
Director Compensation Table – 20162020
The table below summarizes the compensation earned by or paid to each of our directors in 20162020 except Mr. Hunt,Wood, whose compensation is reported in the executive compensation tables. Mr. HuntWood serves as a director, but as a company employee he receives no compensation for his services as a director.
Name
Fees Earned or Paid in Cash
($)
Stock
Awards
($)(1)
Option
Awards
($)(1)
All Other Compensation
($)(2)
Total
($)
Nevin N. Andersen 138,500 49,169 71,200 15,468 274,337
Daniel W. Campbell 149,333 49,169 71,200 21,491 291,194
Andrew D. Lipman 131,000 49,169 71,200 11,311 262,680
Neil H. Offen 107,000 49,169 71,200 — 227,369
Thomas R. Pisano 116,167 49,169 71,200 11,186 247,721
Zheqing (Simon) Shen 42,333 61,570 111,550 — 215,453
Edwina D. Woodbury 109,500 49,169 71,200 — 229,869
Steven J. Lund — — —
 741,081(3)
 741,081
 
Name
Fees Earned or
Paid in Cash ($)
Stock
Awards
($)(1)
All Other
Compensation
($)(2)
Total ($)
Daniel W. Campbell125,000135,920260,920
Andrew D. Lipman130,000135,920265,920
Laura Nathanson114,000135,920249,920
Thomas R. Pisano124,000135,920259,920
Zheqing (Simon) Shen96,500135,920232,420
Edwina D. Woodbury129,000135,920264,920
Steven J. Lund
1,160,484(3)
1,160,484

(1)On May 25, 2016, Messrs. Andersen, Campbell, Lipman, Offen and Pisano and Ms. Woodbury wereJune 3, 2020, each of the directors listed above except for Mr. Lund, who is an employee, was granted 1,2973,612 restricted stock units, and 5,000 stock options. The stock options have an exercise price of $39.33. On September 21, 2016, Mr. Shen was granted 1,000 restricted stock units and 5,000 stock options.  The stock options have an exercise price of $62.28.which will vest on April 30, 2021. The amounts reported in these columnsthis column reflect the aggregate grant date fair value of equity awards computed in accordance with FASB ASC Topic 718 and do not represent amounts actually received by the director.restricted stock units. For this purpose, the estimate of forfeitures is disregarded and the value of the restricted stock awardsunits is discounted to reflect that no dividends are paid prior to vesting. For information on the valuation assumptions used in calculating these amounts, refer to Note 12 to our financial statements in the Form 10-K filed for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.
The outstanding stock and option awards held at December 31, 20162020 by each of the listed individuals are as follows:
NameStock AwardsOption Awards
Nevin N. Andersen1,29750,100
Daniel W. Campbell1,29740,000
Andrew D. Lipman1,29760,100
Neil H. Offen1,29730,000
Thomas R. Pisano1,29730,000
Zheqing (Simon) Shen1,0005,000
Edwina D. Woodbury1,29710,000
Steven J. Lund50,000
NameStock AwardsOption Awards
Daniel W. Campbell3,61215,000
Andrew D. Lipman3,61215,000
Laura Nathanson3,612
Thomas R. Pisano3,61210,000
Zheqing (Simon) Shen3,6125,000
Edwina D. Woodbury3,6125,000
Steven J. Lund

(2)This column reports our incremental cost for providing the following: spouse travelperquisites and other personal benefits to a sales force event where the directors' spouses were expected to attend and help entertain and participate in events with our sales force and their spouses, the amounts reimbursed by us for the paymentthose directors whose total was at least $10,000, as well as other forms of taxes with respect to such spouse travel, and company products.compensation.
(3)Consists of Mr. Lund'sLund’s compensation as an employee of the company for 2016, including a salary of $550,000;2020: $570,022 in salary; a cash incentive plan bonus of $100,730;$549,252; discretionary bonuses of $4,350 (consisting of the same payments made to corporate employees as described in footnote 2 of the Summary Compensation Table and a discretionary holiday$3,500 bonus of $23,667;for reaching a years-of-service milestone); and $36,860 in other compensation, of $66,684, including $35,945$20,623 in spouse travel ($8,334 of which was to a sales force event where his spouse was expected to attend and help entertain and participate in events with our sales force and their spouses), $15,150  inpremiums for life insurance, premiums, $10,600$11,400 in 401(k) contributions, company products, home security monitoring and the amount reimbursed by uspremiums for the payment of taxes with respect to spouse travel to the sales force event as noted above.long-term disability insurance.

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATIONCOMPENSATION:
COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
Our Compensation Discussion and Analysis (“CD&A”) describes our executive compensation programs and compensation decisions in 2020 for our named executive officers (“NEOs”), who for 2020 were:
Ritch N. WoodChief Executive Officer
Ryan S. NapierskiPresident
Mark H. LawrenceExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Joseph Y. Chang
Executive Vice President of Product Development and
Chief Scientific Officer
D. Matthew DornyExecutive Vice President and General Counsel

Executive Summary
2020 Business Performance Highlights
Amidst a challenging year, our revenue increased 7% in 2020 to $2.58 billion, while earnings per share improved 17% to $3.63. Both our customer and sales leader numbers improved during the year, increasing 34% and 29%, respectively. These improvements came as a result of focusing on our growth strategy and capitalizing on opportunities available to us through our prior investments in product innovation, technology and manufacturing to build our customer base and empower our sales leaders.  We experienced strong growth in our Americas/Pacific, EMEA and Manufacturing segments. Additionally, we strengthened our balance sheet, repurchased more than five million shares of stock and increased our dividend for the 19th consecutive year.
We continue to believe we have the correct strategy in place to drive sustained growth in our business. Our growth strategy remains focused on three key elements:

Innovative Products. We are building on our history of offering innovative and effective products to our customers, highlighted by the recent success of our new ageLOC Boost™ device and Nutricentials Bioadaptive Skin Care™. We have a robust, multi-year roadmap for both beauty and wellness products and a new product personalization strategy, which we refer to as EmpowerMe.

Empowering Programs. With COVID-19 dramatically changing the way we live, work and interact, our talented sales force adopted our social commerce strategy by more efficiently and effectively connecting with consumers seeking innovative beauty and wellness products. Through our opportunity platform, our sales force can access hundreds of Nu Skin® personal care and Pharmanex® wellness products to meet their customers' personal needs, and we look forward to expanding this model across the world.

Digital Platform. We are focused on combining our new social commerce business model with the best of our traditional person-to-person model and expanding it into a socially enabled, digital-first affiliate business. Currently, more than 90% of our revenue flows from online transactions. We are rapidly leveraging technology to scale our business to grow our customers, and our efforts are paying off, as we reached more than 1.5 million active customers in 2020.
Our business strategy and the successes we achieved in 2020 reflect management’s strong motivation to achieve revenue growth and expand our customer base.
COVID-19 Response
At Nu Skin, our mission is to empower people to improve lives everywhere. This commitment was more important than ever in 2020 as so many of our customers, employees and members of our sales force managed through the COVID-19 pandemic. To this end, we took the following actions to protect and empower our community:

Customers. As always, all products are produced using our 6S Quality Assurance Process, which entails high standards for both safety and quality. In addition, we are conducting increased cleaning and sanitization procedures in our manufacturing and shipping facilities, while also screening employees before they enter our facilities.

Sales Force. With operations in approximately 50 markets, we have contributed to COVID-19 response efforts around the world and have provided regular guidance to our sales force with respect to applicable government-issued guidelines and recommendations. Many members of our sales force have kept in regular contact with their customers and teams through virtual tools, and we continue to support their ability to operate virtually with online ordering and direct shipping of products to end consumers.

Employees. We are fully committed to providing a safe and healthy work environment for our employees. Employees in the hardest-hit markets have been and still are working remotely where possible. For those employees who work in functions such as manufacturing and shipping who cannot work from home, we have strengthened guidelines and communications regarding hygiene practices and have added access to hand sanitizer stations throughout our facilities. In addition, we have implemented social-distancing practices within the workplace and increased cleaning and sanitization throughout our facilities. Finally, all non-essential employee travel has been suspended, and we are using digital resources to hold meetings and run the business.
2021 CEO Transition
On February 8, 2021, Mr. Wood informed the Board of Directors that he will retire as CEO, effective September 1, 2021. Mr. Wood has agreed to remain with our company through early 2022 to support the leadership transition by providing advice, guidance and assistance following the conclusion of his service as CEO.
On February 9, 2021, the Board appointed Mr. Napierski as the CEO, effective upon Mr. Wood’s departure as CEO in September 2021. It is anticipated that Mr. Napierski will begin taking on additional responsibilities over the next several months in preparation for the leadership transition in September.
On February 10, 2021, the Executive Compensation Committee (the "Committee") determined that Mr. Wood will continue with his current salary of $1,000,000 and target bonus percentage of 110% of salary until he steps down as CEO, at which time his annual salary will decrease to $550,000 and his target bonus percentage will be 60% for the remainder of his time with Nu Skin. The Committee also approved the grant of restricted stock units to Mr. Wood having a grant value of approximately $1,167,000 (approximately one-third of the value of his typical award), reflecting his one remaining year of service to our company. These restricted stock units will vest in full on February 15, 2022.
Mr. Napierski’s compensation as CEO will be determined at a later date. There are no arrangements or understandings between Mr. Napierski and any other person pursuant to which he was selected as CEO.
Our Commitment to Pay for Performance
The primary objectives of our executive compensation program are to successfully recruit, motivate and retain experienced and talented executives, provide competitive compensation arrangements that areare:

1.To successfully recruit, motivate and retain experienced and talented executives; and

2.To ensure pay for performance through incentives that
a.          Are tied to corporate and individual performance, align
b.          Align the financial interests of our executives with those of our stockholders and drive
c.          Drive superior stockholder value.
The program, which is administered by the Executive Compensation Committee, (the "Committee"), is intended to align actual compensation payments to actual performance and to adjust upward during periods of strong performance and adjust downward when performance is short of expectations.
We believe
Our NEOs’ 2020 target compensation was divided into variable compensation (cash incentive bonus and equity awards) and fixed compensation (salary) as follows:
    
The following table describes the metrics upon which NEOs earn each component of variable compensation.
Cash Incentive Bonuses
20% of CEO 2020 Target Pay
24% of Other NEOs' 2020 Target Pay
Long-Term Incentives
62% of CEO 2020 Target Pay
47% of Other NEOs' 2020 Target Pay
Annual Incentive
Time-Based Restricted Stock Units (RSUs)
40% weighting
Performance-Based Stock Options
60% weighting
Measures one-year financial performance (2020)Measures four-year stock price performance (2020-2023)Measures one-year financial performance over three years (2020, 2021, 2022)
Metric: Adjusted
revenue
Metric: Adjusted operating incomeMetric: Stock priceMetric: Adjusted EPS
50% weighting50% weighting
Incentivizes business growthIncentivizes profitability and control of expenses
Aligns management with
stockholders’ interests
Promotes multi-year retention
Aligns management with
stockholders’ interests
Provides a balance to the top-line and operating-income metrics in the cash incentive bonus program
Both metrics are calculated on a constant-currency basis from the prior-year period and are adjusted to eliminate extraneous items such as the impact of accounting changes, losses or gains on settlements of litigation that began prior to 2020 and other unusual impacts at the Committee’s discretion.Final value of award tied to stock price.Adjusted EPS is calculated to eliminate extraneous items such as the impact of accounting changes, losses or gains on settlements of litigation that began prior to 2020 and other items that are unusual, non-recurring or outside of management’s control.

Our financial results for 2020 met or exceeded the performance goals established at the beginning of the year, and our 2020 cash incentive bonuses and the first tranche of our 2020 performance-based stock option awards ("PSO awards") were earned above target. That said, the financial results for 2020 fell below threshold for the 2018 and 2019 performance-based stock option awards as such goals, at the time they were set, did not fully anticipate the impact of certain headwinds that our executive compensation program is onewe would face, including government and media scrutiny of several key factors that drove our strong revenuethe health products and earnings per share growth prior to 2014, and since the disruption to our businessdirect selling industries in Mainland China in January 2014, we believe that2019, our executive compensation program has helped to drive our recovery from that disruption by providing new performance incentives to recover. Our total stockholder return in 2016 was 30%, showing the turnaround taking effect after two years of decline. In addition, while our 2016 revenue of $2.21 billion was approximately $969 million lower than our 2013 revenue, approximately $380 million of this decline is due to the strengthening of the U.S. dollar since 2013, which we recognize is outside of management's control.
The performance incentives in our executive compensation program have aligned compensation with actual performance; since the beginning of 2014, several performance equity award opportunities and cash bonus opportunities have been unearned and forfeited as a result of falling short of pre-established performance goals. For example, Mr. Hunt has forfeited a total grant value of $6,884,335 in equity awards that were contingent on 2014, 2015 or 2016 performance, and Messrs. Wood, Chang and Dorny have each forfeited $1,042,719 on average. In addition, Mr. Hunt realized just $529,292 in cash incentive bonuses outlack of a total target amount of $4,234,000 during 2014 to 2016,major product launch in 2019 and Messrs. Wood, Chang and Dorny realized an average of $122,479 out of an average total target amount of $1,072,917. This reflects the pay-for-performance philosophyCOVID-19 pandemic in which our company provides a meaningful opportunity for compensation upon meeting rigorous performance expectations but does not provide a great deal of guaranteed compensation or pay incentives without performance.
As discussed further below, our 2016 compensation decisions centered primarily around two principles: (1) a recognition that our business was improving from the levels that followed the 2014 Mainland China disruption but was not yet meeting our expectations; and (2) the need to retain, motivate and reward our executive team if the turnaround was successful, recognizing that that they had forfeited most of their performance-based incentive compensation in the previous two years as a result of falling short of the goals.
In 2016, we devised a three-year executive compensation program to balance these two principles. This 2016–2018 program is summarized as follows:
·To provide an incentive to continue improving our business performance, the three-year program uses a relatively small amount of guaranteed value, focusing on cash incentive awards and on equity awards for which value is realized upon either stock price appreciation or the achievement of challenging performance goals. As discussed in more detail below, the Committee set these goals to help drive the achievement of certain strategic objectives of our company, including growth in Mainland China and success in the continued rollout of two key products.
16

·
To address our executive retention and motivation concerns, a portion of the future compensation program value for 2017 and 2018 was frontloaded into 2016, providing more equity awards and a higher proportion of time-based awards over performance-based awards in 2016, but then fewer equity awards and a higher proportion of performance-based awards in 2017 and 2018. Unlike our 2016 equity awards, we expect that the grant date fair values of our 2017 and 2018 equity awards will be at approximately the median of our peer group, causing the average over the three years to approximate the 75th percentile.
Thus, our 2016 compensation program is not intended to be viewed as a single year of compensation but, rather, as the first year of a three-year program, with the last two years balancing out the higher compensation that is disclosed for 2016—and in fact, our 2017 compensation decisions to date have followed this strategy, with 2017 equity grants being considerably lower than the one-time incentive provided in 2016.
The 2016 compensation of our executive officers listed in the Summary Compensation Table (collectively, the "named executive officers") reflects our 2016–2018 compensation program. The 2016 increases in our named executive officers' total compensation over 2015 are primarily attributable to (1) equity awards granted in March 2016, none of which have guaranteed value, as they require either stock price appreciation or the achievement of challenging performance goals; and (2) cash incentive bonuses that were earned at 30.5% of target in 2016 based on the partial achievement of challenging goals related to revenue and adjusted operating income.
Our 2017 executive compensation decisions to date have continued to adhere to the principles of our 2016–2018 compensation program. Consistent with the retention and motivation objective of our 2016–2018 compensation program, under which equity awards were frontloaded into 2016, the Committee granted equity awards to our executive officers in March 2017 that have a grant value at approximately the median of our peer group, with 62% of these 2017 awards being performance-based based on grant value.2020. Consistent with our objective of continuingcommitment to improve our businesspay for performance, our 2017 goals for both equitythese 2018 and non-equity incentive2019 awards are challenging, requiring above-median adjusted earnings per share growth for our performance-based equity awards that are contingent on 2017 performance and, for our cash incentive bonus program, revenue growth that approacheswere not earned, nor were any adjustments made to them in response to the 75th percentile in relation to our peer group and 75th-percentile adjusted operating income growth.COVID-19 pandemic.
In addition, as discussed in detail below, as a result of our Chief Executive Officer transition that occurred in March 2017, our Chief Executive Officer target total direct compensation for 2017 will be 59% lower than in 2016, as both cash and equity compensation will decrease from 2016 levels.
Performance-Based AwardPercent of Target Earned
2020 Cash Incentive Bonus(1)
161%
2018 PSO Awards – Tranche 3 of 3 (measuring 2020 results)(2)
0%
2019 PSO Awards – Tranche 2 of 3 (measuring 2020 results)(2)
0%
2020 PSO Awards – Tranche 1 of 3 (measuring 2020 results)(2)
200%


(1)Contingent on 2020 adjusted revenue and adjusted operating income.

(2)Represents the tranches of the respective three-year awards that were contingent on 2020 adjusted EPS, as determined at the time of grant.
2020 Say-on-Pay Vote
At our 20162020 annual meeting of stockholders, approximately 99%98% of the votes cast were in favor of our executive compensation program. When designing our 20172021 executive compensation program, the Committee considered, among other things, the 20162020 voting results and other feedback we received from our stockholders, which were viewed as supportingsupportive of our pay philosophy and incentive framework.
Overview
Our executiveContinuing Adherence to Compensation Governance Best Practices
We have a framework of strong corporate governance related to compensation, program consists of a variety of components, including base salary, cash incentive bonuses, equity awards, and retirement benefits. This compensation discussion and analysis is intended to provide greater visibility regarding:illustrated as follows:
·What We DoWhat We Don’t Do
Link pay outcomes directly to company and share price performance in support of a pay for performance philosophy
ourûNo evergreen employment agreements
ûNo hedging or pledging of Nu Skin shares
ûNo excessive perquisites
ûNo excise tax gross-ups for NEOs
ûNo payment of current dividends on unvested equity
ûNo repricing of stock options without stockholder approval
Utilize multiple, complementary incentive measures in the annual and long-term incentive plans that align with key drivers of stockholder value creation
✔          Utilize double-trigger change in control benefits
✔          Employ a comprehensive clawback policy
✔          Require robust equity retention for directors and executives
✔          Assess compensation objectives;risk annually
✔          Engage an independent compensation consultant
·various components of our compensation program and how they relate to our compensation objectives;
 
Stockholder Outreach
 
·
factors taken into consideration in establishing executive compensation;Continuing our annual stockholder outreach program, during 2020 we reached out to investors representing approximately 42% of our outstanding shares, generally covering holders of at least 1% of our outstanding shares. We value the input of our stockholders, and the outreach process is an opportunity to:
 

Solicit our stockholders’ feedback and better understand their perspectives on executive compensation so that the Committee can take those philosophies into account as it evaluates possible program changes;
·
decisions related
Answer any questions that stockholders may have with respect to the 2016 compensation of our named executive officersexisting programs and the factorspractices or past decisions; and analysis pertaining to such decisions.

Establish a platform for ongoing dialogue with our stockholders.
Compensation Overview
Objectives
 
Objectives
The primary objectives of our compensation program are to:
·
successfully
Successfully recruit, motivate and retain experienced and talented executives;
 
·
provide
Provide competitive compensation arrangements that are tied to corporate and individual performance;performance in the short- and long-term;
 
·
align
Align the financial interests of our executives with those of our stockholders; and

Drive superior stockholder value over the long-term.
The Committee, in consultation with management and the Committee’s independent advisors, oversees the executive compensation and benefits program for the company’s NEOs. The compensation program is comprised of a combination of base salary, an annual cash incentive and equity incentives, each intended to support the above-noted objectives.
 
·
drive superior stockholder value.
The following table identifies the key components of our compensation program and the objectives of each component:
Component of Compensation Program
Objective
Base Salary
Pay for role
Retention
Recruitment
Cash Incentive Plan
Short-term incentive
Pay for performance
Quarterly and annual operating achievement
Equity Incentive Plan
Long-term incentive
Pay for performance
Stock price performance
Stockholder alignment

We also provide retirement benefits in the form of a 401(k) plan and a deferred compensation plan, as well as limited perquisites and other personal benefits to executives that represent a very small portion of their overall compensation.
2016 Executive Compensation Decisions
Our 2016 executive compensation decisions centered primarily around two principles: (1) a recognition that our business was improving from the levels that followed the 2014 Mainland China disruption but was not yet meeting our expectations; and (2) the need to motivate our executive team to turn around our business following two years that were below our internal goals (and for which most cash and equity incentives were not earned or are expected to be forfeited). There was also a retention concern, as a key member of our executive team had resigned in the second half of 2015. In 2016, we devised a three-year executive compensation program to balance these two principles. Each of these items—business performance, executive officer retention and motivation, and our 2016–2018 executive compensation program—is discussed in more detail below.
18

Business Performance
As summarized in the following table, key financial metrics of our business declined over the three-year period of 2013–2016 but showed positive trends over the shorter time period of 2015–2016.
 
2013
($)
2014
($)
2015
($)
2016
($)
2016 Growth (Decline)
Over 2013
2016 Growth (Decline)
Over 2015
Revenue3,176,7182,569,4952,247,0472,207,797(31)%(2)%
Earnings per share5.943.112.252.55(57)%13%
End-of-year stock price138.2243.7037.8947.78(65)%26%

Our total stockholder return shows similar trends to those in the table above. As of December 31, 2016, our one-year total stockholder return of 30% was at the 87th percentile of our peer group. In addition, while our 2016 revenue of $2.21 billion was approximately $969 million lower than our 2013 revenue, approximately $380 million of this decline is due to the strengthening of the U.S. dollar since 2013, which we recognize is outside of management's control.
These metrics are indicative of the significant disruption, and gradual recovery, of our business in Mainland China following our voluntary suspension of business meetings and acceptance of applications for new sales representatives in response to media and regulatory scrutiny of our business in January 2014. As indicated by the comparisons to 2015, we believe our business has stabilized, and although we currently believe our business will continue to improve in 2017, performance is not yet meeting our expectations, nor was it at the time 2016 executive compensation decisions were made.
Executive Officer Retention and Motivation
At the time we made 2016 executive compensation decisions, we faced a risk of executive officer attrition due to our executive compensation practices, as exemplified by the following points that were noted in our 2016 proxy statement:
·
We did not pay cash incentive bonuses to our returning named executive officers in either 2014 or 2015 following performance that was below the performance goals and bonus thresholds. (Mr. Napierski earned cash incentive bonuses related to the performance of the region he oversaw prior to becoming an executive officer during 2015.)
·
None of our executive officers' performance-based equity awards that were granted in 2013, 2014 and 2015 vested based on 2014 or 2015 performance.
·
Mr. Hunt's salary had not increased since 2012, and our other returning named executive officers' salaries had not increased since 2014.
·
Mr. Hunt's 2015 actual total cash compensation, consisting of salary, bonus and cash incentive bonus, was the lowest of the non-founder chief executive officers in our peer group, and our other returning named executive officers were at or below the 25th percentile of our peer group.
·
Mr. Hunt's 2015 actual total direct compensation, consisting of total cash compensation and grant date fair value of equity awards, was at approximately the 10th percentile in relation to our peers, and our other returning named executive officers as a group were at approximately the 25th percentile, on average.
·Our President of Global Sales and Operations had resigned in the second half of 2015.
19

2016–2018 Executive Compensation Program
Our 2016 executive compensation decisions are not intended to be viewed as decisions regarding a single year of compensation but, rather, as the first year of a three-year program that was designed to address the business performance and executive officer retention and motivation concerns noted above. The program was designed to provide equity awards at the 75th percentile in relation to our peer group on average over the three-year period.
To address our business performance concern, our three-year compensation program uses a relatively small amount of guaranteed value, focusing on cash incentive awards and on equity awards for which value is realized upon stock price appreciation and/or the achievement of challenging performance goals. The Committee set these goals to help drive the achievement of certain strategic objectives of our company, including growth in Mainland China and success in the continued rollout of two key products across many of our markets (the launch of which had begun in 2015 and was continuing in 2016): our ageLOC Youth nutritional supplement and our ageLOC Me customized skin care system. For example, the Committee built a level of success with these strategic objectives into the revenue goals for our cash incentive awards.
To address our executive retention and motivation concerns, the equity program was frontloaded for 2016, providing more awards and a higher proportion of time-based option awards over performance-based awards in 2016. For 2017 and 2018, the equity program was designed to have a higher proportion of performance-based awards and to have total grant date fair values at approximately the median of our peer group, causing the average over the three years to approximate the 75th percentile. Taken as a whole, we estimate that half of the equity grant value under our 2016–2018 executive compensation program will be time-based and half will be performance-based.
The following graphic illustrates, with respect to Mr. Chang's equity awards, the equity component of each year in our 2016–2018 executive compensation program.
2016 Pay for Performance
The following factors demonstrate how the 2016 component of our 2016–2018 executive compensation program aligned with a pay-for-performance philosophy.
20

Cash Compensation
·
Mr. Hunt received a salary increase in 2016, his first since 2012. He had not received a salary increase in 2014 or 2015 as our business performance was declining. Messrs. Wood and Chang received salary increases during 2016, their first since 2014.  Mr. Napierski received a salary increase in connection with his promotion as an executive officer in 2015 but not in 2016. Mr. Dorny has not received a salary increase since 2014.
·
Our 2016 cash incentive plan goals were challenging. Growth was required for any cash incentive bonus to be earned, with the minimum performance levels required to earn any bonus exceeding actual results in 2015. These goals reflected an above-median revenue growth rate and an above-median adjusted operating income growth rate relative to our peers. As discussed above, these goals were reflective of certain strategic objectives, and these goals were not reset; when the goals were not achieved for certain periods in 2016, no bonus was paid, reflecting the Committee's belief as to the importance of the company's strategic objectives. Based on 2016 performance, bonus payout was just 30.5% of target during 2016, following no bonuses earned in 2014 or 2015.
·
The 2016 increases in our named executive officers' total cash compensation over 2015 are primarily attributable to the earned cash incentive bonuses during 2016. For example, Mr. Hunt's total cash compensation increased $668,448 in 2016, with $529,292 of the increase consisting of his earned cash incentive bonus (no bonus was earned in 2015). The total cash compensation of our other named executive officers increased $136,878 on average, with an average of $120,476 attributable to cash incentive bonuses that were earned in 2016. Total cash compensation consists of salary, holiday bonus and cash incentive bonus.
·
2016 actual total cash compensation, consisting of salary, holiday bonus and actual cash incentive bonus, is below the median for Mr. Hunt, and for the other named executive officers on average, due to the fact that cash incentive bonuses were only earned at 30.5% of target due to not achieving certain quarterly and annual performance goals.
Equity Compensation
·
The adjusted earnings per share goals pertaining to our March 2016 performance-based equity awards were challenging. Growth was required for any awards to be earned in 2016, as the minimum performance levels required to earn any awards exceeded 2015 actual results. Similarly, our minimum 2017 and 2018 adjusted earnings per share goals for the March 2016 awards exceed 2016 and 2017 target amounts, respectively. Based on 2016 adjusted earnings per share, our performance-based equity awards granted in March 2016 and tied to 2016 performance were earned at 102% of target. This is the first time a performance-based equity award was earned since the awards that were contingent on 2013 performance.
·
None of the March 2016 equity awards have guaranteed value because all were granted in the form of either time-based options or performance-based awards. For our named executive officers to realize value from the time-based option awards, our stock price will need to increase, and for the performance-based awards, the challenging performance goals will need to be achieved. Therefore, although there were significant increases in our named executive officers' 2016 target equity compensation values compared to 2015, the pay program is consistent with our pay-for-performance philosophy.
21

·
The performance-based equity awards that were granted to our named executive officers in March 2014 and March 2015 with earnout based on 2016 adjusted earnings per share results were forfeited when the minimum performance levels for those awards were not achieved in 2016. Furthermore, the March 2015 award's tranche that is based on 2017 adjusted earnings per share is not expected to be earned.
·
As a result of the forfeiture of the 2016 tranches of the March 2014 and March 2015 awards, Mr. Hunt forfeited equity grant value of $2,091,163 due to 2016 performance, and our other named executive officers forfeited an aggregate of $998,101. As required by SEC rules, these amounts are included as compensation in 2014 or 2015 total compensation in our Summary Compensation Tables even though they have been forfeited because the SEC rules require disclosure based on the awards' grant date fair value rather than on the value actually earned. For further information about these forfeitures, see "Performance Awards Contingent on 2016 Performance," below. However, while these amounts are included in the Summary Compensation Table, they did not provide any value when the goals were not met.
·
The time-based stock options that were granted in March 2014, which vest in four annual installments that began in February 2015, are currently underwater, having an exercise price of $82.85, and will not be repriced.
·
The special equity awards of performance-based stock options that were granted to our named executive officers in July 2013 with vesting contingent on adjusted earnings per share over a rolling 12-month period reaching specified levels have not yet been earned. One of the four tranches of this award will be cancelled in 2017 based on failure to achieve the applicable adjusted earnings per share goal by the end of 2016. This will cause Mr. Hunt to forfeit equity grant value of $426,563 that was included in his 2013 compensation. Messrs. Wood, Napierski, Chang and Dorny will forfeit an aggregate of $1,279,688 that was included in their 2013 compensation.
·
None of our ongoing goals have been or will be reset, which means that previous performance-based awards remain difficult to earn. We view the goals as pay-for-performance and do not view resetting goals as consistent with such a philosophy.
2017 Executive Compensation Decisions
Our 2017 executive compensation decisions to date have adhered to the principles of our 2016–2018 executive compensation program outlined above.
Consistent with the motivation and retention objective of our 2016–2018 executive compensation program, under which equity awards were frontloaded into 2016 with an emphasis on time-based awards, the Committee granted equity awards to our executive officers in March 2017. Approximately 70% of the awards to Messrs. Chang and Dorny are performance-based and approximately 30% are time-based based on grant value. (The performance-based percentages for Messrs. Wood and Napierski are 57% and 64%, respectively, because a portion of their awards was driven by their promotions rather than by the three-year executive compensation program that was formulated in 2016, and such portion was split evenly between time-based awards and performance-based awards.) Also, as contemplated in 2016, the grant value of the 2017 awards approximates the median in our peer group for most executive officers.
22

Consistent with our objective of continuing to improve our business performance, our 2017 goals are challenging:
·
Growth over 2016 will be required for any cash incentive bonus for 2017 annual performance to be earned; under our 2017 cash incentive program, the minimum annual performance levels required to earn any bonus exceed 2016 actual results. The growth rate associated with our revenue target approaches 75th-percentile growth in relation to our peers, and the growth rate associated with our adjusted operating income target is at the 75th percentile.
·
Growth will be required for our March 2017 performance-based equity awards to be earned. The minimum 2017, 2018 and 2019 adjusted earnings per share levels required to earn any portion of the March 2017 awards exceed our 2016 actual results, 2017 target results and 2018 target results, respectively. The growth rate associated with our target 2017 adjusted earnings per share goal is above median.
Chief Executive Officer and President Compensation
As previously disclosed, in March 2017, Mr. Hunt stepped down as the Chief Executive Officer and President of our company because he has accepted a three-year leadership assignment for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Mr. Hunt will serve as Vice Chairman of our Board of Directors until our 2017 Annual Meeting of Stockholders and will then serve a three-year leave of absence, the terms of which are currently being determined.
Our Board of Directors appointed Mr. Wood as our Chief Executive Officer and Mr. Napierski as the President of our company.
·
In connection with his promotion to Chief Executive Officer, Mr. Wood's salary will increase from $570,000 to $900,000, his target bonus will increase from 75% to 100% of salary, and he is receiving equity awards with a grant value of $2,767,574. Mr. Wood's 2017 target total direct compensation, consisting of his salary, holiday bonus, target cash incentive bonus and grant value of equity awards, is slightly below the 25th percentile of our peer group for Chief Executive Officer compensation.
The following table illustrates that, as a result of our Chief Executive Officer transition, the target total direct compensation for our Chief Executive Officer will decrease substantially from 2016 to 2017.
 
2016
($)
2017
($)
Decrease
(%)
Base Salary and Estimated Holiday Bonus1,204,167935,000(22%)
Target Cash Incentive Bonus1,734,000900,000(48%)
Equity Award Grant Value8,411,8162,767,574(67%)
Target Total Direct Compensation11,349,9834,602,574(59%)

·In connection with his promotion to President, Mr. Napierski's salary will increase from $500,000 to $600,000, his target bonus will increase from 75% to 90% of salary, and he is receiving equity awards with a grant value of $1,363,338. Mr. Napierski no longer receives his $150,000 salary adjustment for foreign service, as he is now located in the United States after several years of foreign service. Mr. Napierski's target total direct compensation is near the median of our peer group for President/Chief Operating Officer compensation.
23

The following table compares our total 2016 and 2017 equity awards based on grant value and illustrates that our 2017 equity awards adhere to the principles of our 2016–2018 executive compensation program. In particular, the 2017 equity grants are substantially lower than, and include a higher proportion of performance-based awards than, the 2016 equity grants due to the 2016 frontload that is discussed above.
 2016 2017
 
Total Equity Awards
($)
Percentage Performance-Based 
Total Equity Awards
($)
Percentage Performance-Based
Chief Executive Officer8,411,81635% 2,767,57457%
Ryan S. Napierski2,240,49042% 1,363,33864%
Joseph Y. Chang1,570,22335% 715,07070%
D. Matthew Dorny1,570,22335% 715,07070%
 13,792,75236% 5,561,05262%

Process for Determining Compensation
Role of Executive Compensation Committee and Chief Executive Officer
The Committee is responsible for establishing and administering our executive compensation program. The Committee, together with the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee, evaluates the performance of the Chairman and of the Chief Executive Officer. The Committee is then responsible for setting their compensation. The Committee has delegated to the Chief Executive Officer the responsibility for evaluating the performance of the other executive officers and sharing those evaluations with the Committee. The Chief Executive Officer can also make recommendations to the Committee with regard to the compensation packages for other executive officers. The Committee reviews any such recommendations and has the authority to approve, revise or reject such recommendations.
Use of Compensation Consultant and Competitive Data
The Committee has retained the services of Frederic W. Cook & Co. as its independent compensation consultant to assist the Committee in the review of our executive compensation program, to provide compensation data and alternatives to the Committee, and to provide advice to the Committee as requested. The compensation consultant engaged by the Committee does not perform any work for us outside of the services it performs for the Committee and for the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee with respect to director compensation. The Committee utilizes the compensation data and alternatives provided by the compensation consultant to analyze compensation decisions in light of current market rates and practices.
Peer group information is used by the Committee in making compensation decisions. The Committee compares compensation proposals to the compensation practices of a peer group of publicly-traded companies that compete with us broadly in the consumer products industry and are similar in size to us.
The Committee reviews and updates the peer group from time to time to ensure we are utilizing an appropriate group in terms of size and relevance. The peer group was reviewed and revised in 2015, taking into account the input and recommendations of Frederic W. Cook & Co. At the time of the revision, to avoid potential distortion from differences in peer size, the revenue and market capitalization of the companies included in the peer group fell within a range of about 25% and 400% of our revenue and market capitalization. The following companies were included in our 2015 peer group:
·Avon Products, Inc.
·Newell Rubbermaid Inc.(1)
·Church & Dwight Co., Inc.
·Primerica, Inc.
·The Clorox Company
·Revlon, Inc.
·Edgewell Personal Care Company
·Sally Beauty Holdings, Inc.
·GNC Holdings, Inc.
·Sensient Technologies Corporation
·The Hain Celestial Group, Inc.
·Tupperware Brands Corporation
·Helen of Troy Limited
·Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc.
·Herbalife Ltd.
·USANA Health Sciences, Inc.
·International Flavors & Fragrances Inc.

(1)Newell Rubbermaid Inc. changed its name to Newell Brands Inc. in April 2016.
24

Risks Arising From Compensation Policies and Practices
In establishing and reviewing the components of compensation, the Committee considers potential risks associated with such components. In addition, our management conducted a review of our compensation policies and practices for employees. As discussed above, our management believed that our company faced a risk of executive officer attrition due to our executive compensation practices, which was one of the reasons for implementing our 2016–2018 executive compensation program. Our management also concluded that risks arising from our compensation policies and practices for employees are not reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on us resulting from risk management practices or risk-taking incentives.
In reaching this conclusion, our management considered the following factors:
·
Our compensation programs are market driven and balance short-term incentives with significant long-term equity incentives. Performance equity awards provide additional long-term incentives to our key employees and executive officers. In addition, our stock ownership guidelines help to ensure that a portion of our executives' equity incentives remains tied to our long-term performance.
·
Our global cash incentive compensation is based on revenue and adjusted operating income, which are core measures of performance. In addition, substantially all of our revenue is received through cash or credit card payments, as opposed to other credit arrangements, which minimizes risk associated with our revenue-based incentives. We reduced maximum bonuses under our 2015 and 2016 cash incentive plans to 200% of the target bonus, down from 250% in 2014. Additionally, the Board of Directors and management regularly review the business plans and strategic initiatives, including related risks, proposed to achieve such performance metrics.
·
A substantial portion of compensation is provided in the form of long-term equity incentives with multi-year vesting.
·We do not allow engagement in speculative trading or hedging. Our policies prohibit all of our directors and employees, including executive officers, from holding our stock in margin accounts and from engaging in speculative transactions in our stock, including short sales, options or hedging transactions. Our directors and employees, including executive officers, also are prohibited from pledging their securities in our company.
Mix of Compensation
When the Committee reviews an executive officer's compensation, it does not use a specific formula or allocation target to establish the level or mix of compensation. Rather, it exercises judgment in determining a compensation package that is appropriate to accomplish our compensation objectives under the circumstances applicable to the executive officer. The Committee also reviews the relative mix of compensation provided by other companies in our peer group for context and tries to ensure each component is competitive. Historically, we have tied a substantial amount of compensation to corporate performance under our cash incentive plan and equity incentive plan.
The Committee also reviews each executive officer's total compensation as a market check against the total compensation of executive officers in our peer group. This total compensation review focuses on base salary, cash bonuses, and valuation of equity grants using grant date valuations. The Committee periodically reviews perquisites and retirement benefits to confirm that they remain relatively consistent with the value of perquisites and retirement benefits provided by our peer companies.
25

Components of Compensation
Base Salary
Base salaries are provided to reflect the individual's(Fixed Pay)
−          Pay for role
−          Aids in recruitment and retention
Cash Incentive Plan
(Short-Term Incentive)
−          Pay for performance
−          Aligns with annual operating achievement
−          Aids in recruitment and retention
Equity Incentive Plan
(Long-Term Incentive)
−          Pay for performance
−          Aligns with stock price performance and multi-year operating achievement
−          Aids in recruitment and retention

We also provide retirement benefits in the form of a 401(k) plan and a deferred compensation plan, as well as limited perquisites and other personal benefits to executives that represent a small portion of their overall compensation.
Components of Compensation
For 2020, our NEOs’ target compensation consisted of the following components:
Base Salary
Base salaries are provided to reflect each NEO’s responsibilities, function, performance and competencies. In establishing and approving base salaries, the Committee considers various factors including:
·
current market practices and salary levels;

Current market practices and salary levels;
 

Each executive officer’s responsibilities, experience in their position and capabilities;
·
each executive officer's responsibilities, experience in their position and capabilities;
 

Individual performance and company performance;
·
individual performance and company performance;
 

The relative role and contribution of each NEO in the company;
·
the relative role and contribution of each executive officer in the company;
 
·
competitive

Competitive offers made to executive officers and the level of salary that may be required to recruit or retain executive officers;
·
the recommendations of the Chief Executive Officer; and
·
prior-year financial performance and current-year performance projections.
Base salaries for executive officers are typically reviewed annually during our evaluation period in the first quarter. The Committee does not assign specific weights to the factors identified above, but emphasizes establishing base salaries that are competitive in order to attract and retain qualified and effective executive officers.
In the first quarter of 2016, the Committee reviewed the base salaries of each of the named executive officers and determinedthe level of salary that may be required to increaserecruit or retain executive officers; and

The recommendations of the salaries of Messrs. Hunt, Wood and Chang. This was the first salary increase for Mr. Hunt since 2012 and the first salary increase for Messrs. Wood and Chang since 2014. Mr. Dorny's salary was not increased and had not increased since 2014. The named executive officers' salaries, together with the prior salaries that were reviewed in the first quarter of 2016, are as follows:
Named
Executive Officer
 
Prior Salary
($)
 
Adjusted Salary
($)
 
Increase
($)
 
Increase
(%)
M. Truman Hunt 1,000,000  1,156,000  156,000 16%
Ritch N. Wood 535,000  570,000  35,000 7%
Ryan S. Napierski 
650,000(1)
 
650,000(1)
  0%
Joseph Y. Chang 575,000 595,000 20,000 3%
D. Matthew Dorny 440,000 440,000  0%
CEO.
 
Base salaries for executive officers are typically reviewed annually, in the first quarter of each year. The Committee does not assign specific weights to the factors identified above but generally endeavors to establish base salaries that are competitive in relation to the peer group median in order to attract and retain qualified and effective executive officers.
In the first quarter of 2020, the Committee reviewed the base salaries of each of the NEOs in connection with the established annual review process and determined to increase the salaries by a range of 0% to 5%. The NEOs’ salaries, together with the prior salaries that were reviewed in the first quarter of 2020, are as follows:
Name 
Prior Salary
($)
 
Adjusted Salary
 ($)
 
Increase
 ($)
 
Increase
 (%)
Ritch N. Wood 1,000,000 1,000,000  
Mark H. Lawrence 500,000 525,000 25,000 5%
Ryan S. Napierski 700,000 725,000 25,000 4%
Joseph Y. Chang 660,000 675,000 15,000 2%
D. Matthew Dorny 510,000 510,000  

23

(1)Mr. Napierski's actual 2015 salary reported in the Summary Compensation Table is less than the amount in the "Prior Salary" column because he became an executive officer in September 2015, at which time his salary was increased to the amount shown above. Mr. Napierski's Prior Salary and Adjusted Salary include an adjustment of $150,000 pursuant to the company's standard practice of augmenting the salaries of its expatriate employees for their foreign service. Prior to September 2015, Mr. Napierski served as President of our North Asia region. Throughout 2015 and 2016, he maintained a residence in Asia, and his family had not yet relocated to the United States. Mr. Napierski no longer receives this salary adjustment for foreign service, as he is now located in the United States after several years of foreign service.
Cash Incentive Bonus
Consistent with our objective to tie a significant portion of the executive officers' compensation to our financial performance, in 2016 we awarded performance-based cash incentive bonuses under our Amended and Restated 2010 Omnibus Incentive Plan. We believe these bonuses motivate executive officers and reward them for achieving short-term operating performance levels.
Cash Incentive Bonus
Metrics. Cash incentive bonuses are measured based on achievement of goals related to adjusted revenue and adjusted operating income. These two metrics are equally weighted because management is responsible for both growing the business and increasing profitability, including control of expenses.
 
26

These bonuses are also structured to avoid rewarding our executive officers when performance does not meet expectations. Based on our performance during 2016, the bonus earned in our executive cash incentive program was 30.5% of the aggregate annual target bonus.
Our executive cash incentive bonuses are determined based on equally weighted
MetricWeightingPurposeHow Calculated
Adjusted revenue and adjusted operating income performance levels. The company believes revenue measures management's effectiveness in growing the50%Incentivizes business and that adjusted operating income measures their effectiveness in growing the business profitably. For purposes of the cash incentive bonus, revenue and adjusted operating incomegrowthBoth metrics are calculated on a constant currencyconstant-currency basis from the prior-year period and are adjusted operating income excludes certain predetermined items so thatto eliminate extraneous items not withinsuch as the impact of accounting changes, losses or gains on settlements of litigation that began prior to 2020 and other unusual impacts at the Committee’s discretion.
Adjusted operating income50%Incentivizes profitability and control of management are excluded. Revenue and adjusted operating income are equally weighted because management is responsible for both growing the business and increasing profitability, including by controlling costs. Our executive incentive plan allocates 50% of the cash incentive bonus to annual performance levels and 50% to quarterly performance levels, with 12.5% allocated to each quarter. A portion of the cash incentive bonus is tied to quarterly performance levels to motivate focused performance in each quarter, while the annual portion recognizes that strong annual results are a critical benchmark for stockholders.expenses

Target Bonus.Cash incentive bonuses are computed based on the degree to which pre-determined goal performance levels are met or exceeded. If goal performance levels are met for a particular incentive period, a participant will earn a bonus equal to a pre-established percentage of salary, the “target bonus.” We set the target bonus as a percentage of base salary based on an executive officer’s position and responsibility and on market practices. The following table provides the target bonus percentage (as a percentage of salary) for each of our NEOs in 2020.
Named
Executive Officer
2020 Target Bonus %
Ritch N. Wood110%
Mark H. Lawrence75%
Ryan S. Napierski100%
Joseph Y. Chang75%
D. Matthew Dorny75%

Calculation of Bonus: Achievement of Performance Goals and Adjustment for Individual Performance. The precise percentage of target bonus that a participant will earn is based on the degree to which pre-determined performance levels are met or exceeded.
The 2020 cash incentive bonus program included a payout opportunity of 25% of target based on minimum level achievement of annual performance goals. Previously, this payout opportunity was 50%. No changes were made to the relationship between performance achievement and payout opportunity at the target and stretch levels.
Note that:

If actual results for a particular incentive period a participant will earn a cash incentive bonus equal to a pre-established percentage of salary, the "target bonus." If goalequal:

oGoal performance levels are not met,– The bonus amount will be the bonus decreases linearly until reaching 50% of theparticipant’s target bonus atamount for the minimum performance levels. If minimum adjusted operating incomeincentive period.

oMinimum performance levels are not met, as was the case in certain periods in 2016, no– The bonus is paid, except that the Committee has the discretion to pay a bonus based on achievement of individual performance objectives in an amount up to 10% of the executive's target bonus. The Committee did not exercise this discretion in 2016. If minimum adjusted operating income performance levels are met but minimum revenue performance levels are not,will be 25% of the participant’s target bonus is earned. Toamount for the extent actual revenue or adjusted operating income exceed goalincentive period.

oStretch performance levels the– The bonus increases linearly above the target bonus until reachingamount will be 200% of the participant’s target bonus at the "stretch" performance levels. For actual revenue or adjusted operating income above the stretch performance levels in a given quarter oramount for the year,incentive period.

Payouts are interpolated linearly if actual results fall between the bonus increases linearly above 200% ofminimum and goal measurement points or between the target bonus 1% for every 1% that actual performance exceeds the stretch performance level, until reaching 250% of the target bonus percentage. However, although an executive officer's bonus earned for revenue or adjusted operating income performance in a given quarter or for the year may separately exceed 200% of the associated target bonus, the aggregate quarterly and annual bonuses may not exceed 200% of the aggregate annual target bonus.
We set the target bonus as a percentage of base salary based on an executive officer's position and responsibility and on market practices. The target bonus is intended to tie a significant portion of an executive officer's total cash compensation to our performance. We set the 2016 target bonus percentage at 150% of salary for Mr. Hunt and 75% of salary for our other named executive officers. For 2017, Mr. Wood's target bonus percentage as Chief Executive Officer is 100%, Mr. Napierski's target bonus percentage as President is 90%, and our other named executive officers' target bonus percentages will remain at 75%. For purposes of calculating Mr. Napierski's target bonus in 2016, his salary did not include the $150,000 adjustment for foreign service that is described in footnote 1 of the table in "Base Salary," above. To motivate and reward individual performance, the Committee may reduce an executive's cash incentive bonus by up to 20% if an executive does not achieve individual performance goals designed to support strategic business imperatives. The Committee may also reduce an executive's cash incentive bonus if the executive fails to achieve certain compliance-related objectives.
In establishing minimum revenue and operating performance levels (the level at which 50% of the target bonus is paid), goal revenue and operating performance levels (the level at which 100% of the target bonus is paid), and stretch revenue and adjusted operating income performance levels (the level at which 200% of the target bonus is paid), the Committee considered various factors, including our recent performance and current business plans, desired core growth rates, general business and economic conditions and business risks. The Committee also considered our company's strategic objectives, including growth in Mainland China and success in the continued rollout of two key products across many of our markets (the launch of which had begun in 2015 and was continuing in 2016): our ageLOC Youth nutritional supplement and our ageLOC Me customized skin care system. For example, for 2016, the Committee built a level of success with these strategic objectives into the revenue goals for our cash incentive awards. In addition, the performance targets were set at levels that benchmarked above-median revenue and adjusted operating income growth rates relative to our peer group at the time the goals were established.
27

To provide incentives that are earned for operating performance that is within the control of the executive officers, the performance levels are based on constant currency rates and exclude certain items as determined by the Committee at the time the performance levels were established, such as expenses resulting from litigation that was pending prior to 2016.
Stretch performance levels are set at a level that the Committee considers to be extraordinary performance. The following tables set forth the correlation between minimum, goal and stretch performance levels for 2016, measured as a percentage of goal performance levels, together with the percentage of target bonus that could be earned at such levels.measurement points.
 MinimumGoalStretch
Revenue   
Percentage of goal performance level95.3%100.0%105.7%
Percentage of target bonus paid50.0%100.0%200.0%

The percentage of target bonus earned increases 10.6% for every 1% increase in achievement of the goal revenue performance level from the minimum revenue performance level to the goal revenue performance level, and 17.5% for every 1% increase in excess of the goal revenue performance level from the goal revenue performance level to the stretch revenue performance level.
 MinimumGoalStretch
Adjusted Operating Income   
Percentage of goal performance level94.4%100.0%106.5%
Percentage of target bonus paid50.0%100.0%200.0%

The percentage of target bonus earned increases 8.9% for every 1% increase in achievement of the goal adjusted operating income performance level from
If the minimum adjusted operating income performance level tois not met, no bonus is paid regardless of the goaladjusted revenue performance for that period.

If the minimum adjusted operating income performance level and 15.4% for every 1% increase in excess ofis met but the goalminimum adjusted operating income performance level from the goal adjusted operating income performance level to the stretch adjusted operating income performance level.
It is also important to note that the Committee considers the revenue and adjusted operating income performance levels within the context of desired core growth rates, determined on a constant currency basis and excluding certain predetermined items, to be achieved from the prior year in establishing the appropriate performance levels. For example, the goal revenue performance level for the annual period in 2016 represented a 6.0% constant currency growth rate over 2015 and the goal adjusted operating income performance level represented a 18.5% constant currency growth rate over 2015. The growth rates associated with the stretch performance levels for revenue and adjusted operating income were approximately 2.0 and 1.4 times the growth rates associated with the goal performance levels, respectively. Actual performance was approximately 5.7% and 11.4% below our revenue and adjusted operating income goal performance levels, respectively.
28

As established by the Committee, the percentage of target bonus paid for actual quarterly and annual revenue and adjusted operating income performance was calculated as follows:
·
For actual performance between the minimum performance levels and the goal performance levels, the percentage of target bonus paid is equal to 100% – [(100% – 50%) × (actual performance – goal performance level) / (minimum performance level – goal performance level)].
·
For actual performance between the goal performance levels and the stretch performance levels, the percentage of target bonus paid is equal to 100% + [(200% – 100%) × (actual performance – goal performance level) / (high performance level – goal performance level)].
·
For actual performance exceeding the stretch performance levels, the percentage of target bonus paid is equal to 100% + (actual performance / stretch performance level), subject to a ceiling of 250% of target bonus for the incentive period and an aggregate annual ceiling of 200% of target bonus.
The table below sets forth the adjusted operating income and revenue performance levels for the incentive periods in 2016, the actual performance, the percentage of the goal performance levels achieved, and the percentageis not, 12.5% of the target bonus that was paid. We have includedfor the growth ratesincentive period is earned.
Notwithstanding the above methodology, the Committee may adjust an executive’s bonus based on factors it considers relevant, including individual performance and certain compliance-related objectives. The Committee did not exercise this discretion with respect to 2020 bonuses.
Establishment of 2020 Performance Goals. In establishing the performance levels, the Committee considered various factors, including industry, market and peer estimated growth rates; our recent performance and current business plans; general business and economic conditions; business risks; uncertainties due to COVID-19 and our company’s strategic objectives, which for 2020 included enhancing customer experiences across all our digital touch points, launch of our new ageLOC Boost beauty device system, and expanding our customer loyalty programs around the world to enhance retention and lifetime value.
After considering the above factors, the Committee set the 2020 performance goals, as outlined in the table below.
2020 Goals, Performance and Payout. The table below sets forth the 2020 performance goals, the actual performance, the percentage of the goal performance levels achieved and the percentage of the target bonus that was paid.
(dollar amounts in thousands)   
Metric 
2019
Result
2020 Targets2020 Result% of Goal Level Achieved% of Target Bonus Paid
MinimumGoalStretch
Adjusted revenue
(50% weighting)
 $2,420,416$2,175,000$2,420,000$2,662,000$2,594,120107.2%172.0%
Adjusted operating income (50% weighting) $267,426$177,000$217,000$293,000$254,436117.3%149.3%
Aggregate payout percentage, reflecting the weightings noted above:  160.6%

Our 2020 results, created in a year of extreme uncertainty, benefited from our strategic shift to become a more digital business, particularly in our Americas/Pacific and EMEA segments, as well as the current environment where consumers are spending more time online and working from home, together with the launch of ageLOC Boost. As a result, our adjusted revenue grew 7.2% over 2019 results. Adjusted operating income declined 4.9%. These results met and exceeded the performance goals established at the beginning of the year, and consistent with our commitment to pay for performance, the cash incentive awards were earned in 2020.
The percentage of target bonus paid does not rise or fall 1% for every 1% increase or decrease in the percentage of goal performance level achieved. For example, in 2020, we achieved 107.2% of our goal adjusted revenue level and paid 172.0% of the portion of target bonus that was based on adjusted revenue. Similarly, if our actual performance had been 99% of our goal adjusted revenue level, we would have paid less than 99% of the portion of target bonus that was based on adjusted revenue.
Calibration of Equity Awards
Aligning the interests of our executive officers with those of our stockholders is an important objective of our compensation program. To accomplish this objective, we tie a significant portion of our executive officers’ total compensation to our long-term stock performance through the grant of equity awards and to our equity retention guidelines, which require our executive officers to retain a specified amount of their equity. We also believe that equity compensation helps motivate executive officers to drive earnings growth because they will be rewarded with increased equity value, and assists in the retention of executive officers who may have significant value tied up in unvested equity awards.
We periodically review and adjust the level of our equity awards. We do not use a fixed formula or criteria in determining whether to adjust the level of equity awards, but subjectively evaluate a variety of factors, such as:
−          Practices of peer companies
−          Degree of responsibility for overall corporate performance
−          Overall compensation levels
−          Changes in position and/or responsibilities
−          Individual performance
−          Company performance
−          Total stockholder return
−          Degree of performance risk in the prior-year period to help provide a clearer understandingequity grant program
−          Potential dilution of our overall equity grants
−          Accumulated realized and unrealized value of past equity awards
−          Associated expenses of equity awards
−          The recommendations of the performanceCEO
−          Data and context provided by our compensation consultant

Historically, we have referenced peer company compensation data for context on pay levels and performance requirements compared to our peers. We generally have not given significant consideration to the value of existing equity award holdings because we want to ensure that our equity compensation is competitive for the position on an annualized basis and we want to provide an incentive from the date of grant. However, we periodically review and consider the in-the-money value of existing award holdings of our executive officers in connection with our review of equity compensation practices to determine if wealth creation is aligning with performance and the amount of unvested equity in place for retention.
As reflected in the following table, the equity awards granted to the NEOs in 2020 were heavily weighted with performance-based awards, generally tracking the 60% weighting that the Committee adopted based on stockholder feedback.
2020 TARGET EQUITY AWARDS (1)
   Percentage Perf.-Based
Named
Executive Officer
Perf.-Based
Stock
Options (2)
Time-Based
RSUs
Number
of
Awards
Grant Date
Fair Value
Ritch N. Wood244,47145,97884%56%
Mark H. Lawrence69,84913,13784%56%
Ryan S. Napierski105,82119,90284%56%
Joseph Y. Chang49,5939,32784%56%
D. Matthew Dorny49,5939,32784%56%


(1)During 2020, the Board of Directors sought shareholder approval for an amendment to our 2010 Omnibus Incentive Plan to increase the authorized shares under the incentive plan.
                                                                                                                                                 (dollar amounts expressedPlan, among other things. With limited shares available, performance-based stock options were granted as part of our annual grant cycle in thousands)
 Q1 2016Q2 2016Q3 2016Q4 2016Annual
Revenue
(50% weight)
     
Goal performance level(1)
$546,000$643,000$580,000$610,000$2,379,000
Constant currency growth rate over prior year0.5%14.8%1.5%7.0%6.0%
Actual performance$496,000$616,104$596,642$535,104$2,243,850
Constant currency growth rate over prior year(8.7)%10.0%4.4%(6.1)%0.0%
Percentage of goal performance level achieved90.8%95.8%102.9%87.7%94.3%
Percentage of target bonus paid0.0%66.4%155.5%0.0%0.0%
Adjusted Operating Income
(50% weight)
     
Goal performance level(2)
$66,612$89,377$71,340$78,690$306,019
Constant currency growth rate over prior year(3.0)%24.5%(11.3)%21.1%7.0%
Actual performance$46,974$84,660$78,635$60,978$271,247
Constant currency growth rate over prior year(31.6)%17.9%(2.2)%(6.2)%(5.1)%
Percentage of goal performance level achieved70.5%94.7%110.2%77.5%88.6%
Percentage of target bonus paid0.0%61.7%204.8%0.0%0.0%

(1)Minimum revenue performance levels for the four quarterly and annual periods were $530,000; $603,000; $560,000; $575,000 and $2,268,000, respectively. Stretch revenue performance levels were $565,000; $690,000; $610,000; $650,000 and $2,515,000, respectively.
(2)Minimum adjusted operating income performance levels for the four quarterly and annual periods were $63,600; $83,214; $68,320; $73,600 and $288,734, respectively. Stretch adjusted operating income performance levels were $70,060; $96,255; $75,030; $84,500 and $325,845, respectively.
29

For 2016, the aggregate annual bonus earned in our executive cash incentive program was 30.5%February, and time-based restricted stock units were granted after approval of the aggregate annual target bonus. Although bonuses were earnedamended Plan in the second and third quarters, actual performance for the first and fourth quarters and for the year fell below our pre-established minimum performance levels for revenue and adjusted operating income. The company did not provide any discretionary bonuses to the named executive officers (other than the holiday bonus, which was provided to all corporate employees) despite the low bonus funding that resulted from performance below our goals.
Due to the level at which 2016 cash incentive bonuses funded, total actual cash compensation was at or below the median for each of our named executive officers in relation to our peer group.
2016 Total Actual Cash Compensation(1)
Named
Executive Officer
($)
Approx. Percentile vs. Peers(2)
M. Truman Hunt1,710,71530P
Ritch N. Wood719,10925P
Ryan S. Napierski652,29950P
Joseph Y. Chang753,42435P
D. Matthew Dorny559,81320PJune.
 

(1)Includes salary, bonus and non-equity incentives paid under annual cash incentive bonus plan. Does not include Mr. Napierski's $150,000 adjustment for his foreign service.

(2)Percentiles are in relation to peers excluding founders.
Equity Awards
The equity component of our 2016 compensation program was designed to emphasize performance-based equity awards.
Annual Equity Grants
Aligning the interests of our executive officers with those of our stockholders is an important objective of our compensation program. In order to accomplish this objective, we tie a significant portion of the total compensation of executive officers to our long-term stock performance through the grant of equity awards and our stock ownership guidelines that require our executive officers to hold stock. We also believe that equity compensation helps motivate executive officers to drive earnings growth because they will be rewarded with increased equity value, and assists in the retention of executive officers who may have significant value tied up in unvested equity awards.
We periodically review and adjust the level of our equity awards. We do not use a fixed formula or criteria in determining whether to adjust the level of equity awards, but subjectively evaluate a variety of factors consisting of:
·
practices of peer companies;
·
degree of responsibility for overall corporate performance;
·
overall compensation levels;
·
changes in position and/or responsibilities;
·individual performance;
30

·
company performance;
·
total stockholder return;
·
degree of performance risk in the equity grant program;
·
potential dilution of our overall equity grants;
·
accumulated realized and unrealized value of past equity awards;
·
associated expenses of equity awards;
·
the recommendations of the Chief Executive Officer; and
·
data and context provided by our compensation consultant.
Historically, we have referenced peer company compensation data for context on pay levels and performance requirements compared to our peers. We generally have not given significant consideration to the value of existing equity award holdings because we want to ensure that our equity compensation is competitive for the position on an annualized basis and we want to provide an incentive from the date of grant. However, we periodically review and consider the in-the-money value of existing award holdings (inclusive of stock sales proceeds over the previous three years) of our executive officers in connection with our review of equity compensation practices to determine if wealth creation is aligning with performance and the amount of unvested equity in place for retention.
Use of Performance-Based Awards
Although we consider time-based stock options to be performance-based because the stock price must increase after the grant for value to be realized, we believe that the performance nature of our equity grants is further enhanced by making a meaningful portion of equity grants in the form of performance-contingent options or performance-contingent restricted stock units that are earned for achieving multi-year performance goals. Accordingly, as reflected in the following tables—and consistent with our 2016–2018 executive compensation program described above—each of the named executive officers was granted approximately 35% of their equity awards in the form of performance stock options and performance restricted stock units during 2016. This percentage will increase to more than 50% for 2017 based on both the number of awards and the grant date fair value.
    Percentage Performance-Based
Named
Executive Officer
Performance Stock Options (1)Performance Restricted Stock Units (1)Time-Based Stock OptionsNumber of Awards
Grant Date
Fair Value
      
M. Truman Hunt263,400486,60035%35%
Ritch N. Wood63,400136,60032%32%
Ryan S. Napierski59,20010,000115,80037%42%
Joseph Y. Chang49,40090,60035%35%
D. Matthew Dorny49,40090,60035%35%
 484,80010,000920,20035%36%

(1)Reflects the number of shares of stock that would have become eligible for vesting or exercisable if performance had been achieved at the goal performance level, the same number used for calculating grant date fair value for purposes of the Summary Compensation Table.
Our performance-based equity awards generally become eligible for vesting based on the achievement of adjusted earnings per share performance levels, measured in terms of diluted earnings per share excluding certain predetermined items. The terms of the performance-based equity awards that were granted in March 2016 give named executive officers the opportunity to earn up to 150% of their target award if performance meets certain pre-defined, "stretch" levels. Consistent with our historical practice, named executive officers earn 100% of their target awardor exercisable if performance is at goal level, and they earn 50% of their target award if performance isachieved at the minimum level. In addition, as with 2014 and 2015,goal performance level, the 2016 performance-based equity awards are divided into three equal tranches.  The tranches are contingent on performance over 2016, 2017 and 2018, respectively.
31

Performance Awards Contingent on 2016 Performance
For the tranche of our annual performance-based equity awards granted in March 2016 that was contingent on 2016 performance, the minimum, goal and stretch adjusted earnings per share levels were $2.79, $3.00 and $3.30, respectively. These levels were based on expectations as of the beginning of 2016. Our 2016 actual adjusted earnings per share as calculatedsame number used for calculating grant date fair value for purposes of the performance awards were $3.01, and as a result, 102% of the target award was earned. Summary Compensation Table.
Use of Performance-Based Equity Awards
Although we consider time-based stock options to be performance-based because the stock price must increase after the grant for value to be realized, we believe that the performance nature of our equity grants is further enhanced by making a meaningful portion of equity grants in the form of performance-contingent stock options that are earned for achieving multi-year performance goals. To align management with our stockholders’ interests, the performance goals are tied to adjusted EPS, measured as diluted EPS excluding extraneous items such as the impact of accounting changes, losses or gains on settlements of litigation that began prior to 2020 and other items that are unusual, non-recurring or outside of management’s control. The adjusted EPS metric also provides a balance to the top-line and operating-income metrics in the cash incentive bonus program.
Consistent with our historical practice, NEOs earn 100% of their target award if performance is at goal level, and they earn 50% of their target award if performance is at the minimum level. The terms of the performance-based equity awards that were granted in 2019 and 2020 give NEOs the opportunity to earn up to 200% of their target award if performance meets certain pre-defined “super stretch” levels. This closely aligns the maximum payout opportunity with competitive practice and further strengthens our alignment with stockholders. The terms of the performance-based equity awards granted to the NEOs in 2018 limited the opportunity to earn up to 150% of their target award.
Our performance-based equity awards are divided into three equal tranches. The three tranches are contingent on performance over the year of the grant and the two following years, respectively. Although the grants measure three one-year periods, the goals for all three years are established up front at the time of grant to ensure a longer-term orientation without the “reset” of goals each year.
Performance-Based Equity Awards – Goals and Vesting
Our performance-based equity awards granted in the past several years have generally required continuous improvement in adjusted EPS results. They have been structured with three tranches, with vesting contingent on the achievement of adjusted EPS goals in the year of grant and in each of the two following years. The goals for all three of these one-year periods are set at the time of grant.
Awards Under 2018–2020 Compensation Programs. As illustrated in the table below, for performance-based equity awards granted in 2018 and 2019, the minimum goals for the year of grant required growth over the previous year’s actual adjusted EPS, and the minimum goals for the two subsequent years required adjusted EPS to be at or above the respective prior years’ target adjusted EPS.
In light of the anticipated negative impacts from the COVID-19 pandemic, the Committee established adjusted EPS goals for the first year of the 2020 performance-contingent equity awards at a level that was below the previous year’s actual adjusted EPS. While the goals for the two subsequent years required adjusted EPS growth for an equivalent payout, the ranges around target (to minimum and to maximum) were increased to reflect the increased uncertainty in the operating environment, particularly due to COVID-19, and no longer required growth above the prior year’s target at the minimum level.
 
Minimum
Goal ($)
Target
Goal ($)
Maximum
Goal ($)
Actual ($)% Vested
 
2018 Award
 
          2017 Adjusted EPS: 3.23(1)
 
2018 Adjusted EPS Tranche3.333.523.73
3.61(2)
121%
2019 Adjusted EPS Tranche3.523.703.92
3.10(3)
2020 Adjusted EPS Tranche3.703.884.11
3.63(3)
      
2019 Award
 
          2018 Adjusted EPS: 3.61(2)
 
2019 Adjusted EPS Tranche3.683.984.38
3.10(3)
2020 Adjusted EPS Tranche3.984.204.62
3.63(3)
2021 Adjusted EPS Tranche4.204.454.97TBDTBD
      
2020 Award
 
          2019 Adjusted EPS: 3.10(3)
      
2020 Adjusted EPS Tranche2.002.503.60
3.63(3)
200%
2021 Adjusted EPS Tranche2.102.623.78TBDTBD
2022 Adjusted EPS Tranche2.212.753.97TBDTBD


(1)As compared to our 20162017 reported earnings per shareEPS of $2.55,$2.36, our adjusted earnings per shareEPS reflects an adjustment of $0.87 to reflect the net impact of the 2017 tax reform legislation in the United States.

(2)As compared to our 2018 reported EPS of $2.16, our adjusted EPS reflects adjustments totaling $1.45 from a charge associated with the conversion of $0.36 per share from our Japan customs expenseconvertible notes in the first quarter of 20162018, adoption of the new revenue standard under U.S. GAAP, the impairment and $0.10 per share fromrestructuring charges incurred in the fourth quarter of 2018, and both a taxgain and a charge associated with the acquisitions in the first quarter of 2018. These adjustments were permitted by the terms of the awards granted in 2018.

(3)No adjustments were made to our 2019 reported EPS of $3.10 or our 2020 reported EPS of $3.63.
Time-Based Equity Awards
Each NEO received an annual time-based RSU grant in 2020. These RSUs will vest one-fourth each year, beginning on February 15 of the year following the grant.  The 2020 time-based RSU awards align management with stockholders’ interests and promote multi-year retention.
Retirement and Other Post-Termination Benefits
Our executive officers do not participate in any pension or defined benefit plan. We believe it is important for retention purposes to provide executive officers with a meaningful opportunity to accumulate savings for their retirement. To accomplish this objective, we maintain both a tax-qualified 401(k) plan and a nonqualified deferred compensation plan. We make a limited matching contribution for our employees, including NEOs, under the 401(k) plan. We also make contributions to each NEO’s deferred compensation plan account. Effective in 2021, our deferred compensation plan was modified to provide a matching contribution by the company for individual contributions up to a maximum of 5% of base salary. In addition, we generally make a discretionary contribution, expected to be reduced from the historical amount of 10% of salary to approximately 5% of salary.
As more fully described and quantified below in “Executive Compensation Tables and Accompanying Narrative—Narrative to Summary Compensation Table and Grants of Plan Based Awards Table—Employment Agreement with Mr. Chang” and in the table titled “Potential Payments Upon Termination or Change in Control,” we have an executive employment agreement with Mr. Chang that provides for certain termination benefits. The Committee has also adopted an Executive Severance Policy that applies to all of our NEOs.
We do not provide excise tax gross-up protection to any of our NEOs. Any cash severance payment under these arrangements or accelerated vesting of equity in connection with a change in control requires a qualifying termination of employment. We believe these double-trigger post-termination benefits provide reasonable protections to employees who may be terminated following a change in control. They also assist us in retaining their services in the event of a potential change in control. We believe such arrangements are in the best interests of our company and our stockholders if they are reasonable in amount and scope, because they can help to retain key employees during a change in control process.
Perquisites and Other Benefits
We provide our executive officers and other key employees with other limited benefits and perquisites. These consist of, among other things, payments for term life insurance, use of company-owned properties, sporting event tickets, company products and sales force event-related spouse travel. We do not reimburse executive officers for the income taxes associated with these perquisites except for limited business-related perquisites such as spouse travel to sales force events where the spouse is expected to attend and help entertain and participate in events with our sales force and their spouses. We have elected to pay the income taxes for these business-related perquisites because we believe they are business expenses. These benefits generally represent a very small portion of an executive officer’s overall compensation and provide a benefit to us and our stockholders. Mr. Napierski additionally received tax payments associated with income received as a result of his former expatriate assignment. The amount of these benefits is included in footnote 5 to the Summary Compensation Table.
Process for Determining Compensation
Role of Executive Compensation Committee and Chief Executive Officer
The Committee is responsible for establishing and administering our executive compensation program. The Committee participates in the performance evaluation process of the Chairman and of the CEO, which process is led by the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee. The Committee is then responsible for setting their compensation. The CEO, with oversight by the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee, is responsible for evaluating the performance of the other executive officers and then making recommendations to the Committee with regard to the compensation packages for these officers. The Committee reviews any such recommendations and has the authority to approve, revise or reject such recommendations.
Role of Compensation Consultant
The Committee has retained the services of Semler Brossy Consulting Group LLC (“Semler Brossy”) as its independent compensation consultant to assist in the review of our executive compensation program, to provide compensation data and alternatives to the Committee, and to provide advice to the Committee as requested, including limited advice regarding employee equity grants and the compensation programs of our subsidiary companies when requested by the Committee. The Committee utilizes the compensation data and alternatives provided by the compensation consultant to analyze compensation decisions in light of current market rates and practices. During 2020, Semler Brossy did not perform any work for us outside of the services performed for the Committee and for the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee with respect to director compensation.
The Committee annually reviews the independence of its compensation consultant in light of SEC rules and NYSE Listed Company Rules regarding compensation consultant independence and has concluded that Semler Brossy is independent from the company and has no conflicts of interest related to its engagement by the Committee.
Use of Competitive Data
The Committee uses peer group information in making compensation decisions. The Committee compares compensation proposals to the compensation practices of a peer group of publicly-traded companies that compete with us broadly in the consumer products industry—with a preference for those with a direct selling business model—and are similar in size to us.
The Committee reviews and updates the peer group from time to time to ensure it is utilizing an appropriate group in terms of size and relevance. Following such a review, in 2018 the Committee determined to update the peer group such that it would include fewer companies larger than 200% of our revenue and market capitalization, position Nu Skin closer to the peer median for revenue, and make the group represent our company’s most direct competitors from a business-model and product-focus perspective. At the time that the peers were approved in 2018, Nu Skin’s revenue was 7% below the peer median for revenue.
Following a review of the peer group, in November 2019, the Committee determined to update the peer group to ensure it continued to reflect companies in our industry and approximate revenue size. As a result, the Committee removed GNC Holdings, Inc. from the peer group and added Spectrum Brands Holdings, Inc. Following this change in peers, Nu Skin’s revenue was 13% above the peer median for revenue. The newly constituted peer group was used in making compensation decisions for 2020, and it consists of the following companies:
Avon Products, Inc.(1)
−          Primerica, Inc.
−          Church & Dwight Co., Inc.−          Revlon, Inc.
−          Edgewell Personal Care Company−          Sally Beauty Holdings, Inc.
The Hain Celestial Group, Inc.
−          Sensient Technologies Corporation
Helen of Troy Limited
−          Spectrum Brands Holdings, Inc.
Herbalife Nutrition Ltd.
−          Tupperware Brands Corporation
International Flavors & Fragrances Inc.
−          USANA Health Sciences, Inc.
−          Prestige Consumer Healthcare Inc.


(1)Acquired by Natura &Co Holding S.A., a Brazilian corporation, in January 2020.
In August 2020, the Committee removed Avon Products, Inc. from the peer group due to its acquisition  by Natura &Co Holding S.A. Following this change in peers, Nu Skin’s revenue was 6% above the peer median for revenue. The newly constituted peer group was used in making compensation decisions for 2021.
Mix of Compensation
When the Committee reviews an executive officer’s compensation, it does not use a specific formula or allocation target to establish the level or mix of total compensation. Rather, it exercises judgment in determining a compensation package that is appropriate to accomplish our compensation objectives under the circumstances applicable to the executive officer. The Committee also reviews the relative mix of compensation provided by other companies in our peer group for context and tries to ensure each component is competitive. Historically, we have tied a substantial amount of compensation to corporate performance under our cash incentive plan and equity incentive plan.
The Committee also reviews each executive officer’s total compensation as a market check against the total compensation of executive officers in our peer group. This total compensation review focuses on base salary, cash bonuses, and valuation of equity grants using grant date valuations. The Committee periodically reviews perquisites and retirement benefits to confirm that they remain relatively consistent with the value of perquisites and retirement benefits provided by our peer companies.
Risks Arising From Compensation Policies and Practices
In establishing and reviewing the components of compensation, the Committee considers potential risks associated with such components. In addition, our management conducted a review of our compensation policies and practices for employees and concluded that risks arising from our compensation policies and practices for employees are not reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on us.
In reaching this conclusion, our management considered the following factors:

Our compensation programs are market driven and balance short-term incentives with significant long-term equity incentives. Performance-contingent equity awards provide additional long-term incentives to our key employees and executive officers. In addition, our equity retention guidelines help to ensure that a portion of our executives’ equity incentives remains tied to our long-term performance.

Our global cash incentive compensation is based on revenue and profitability, which are core measures of performance. In addition, substantially all of our revenue is received through cash or credit card payments, as opposed to other credit arrangements, which minimizes risk associated with our revenue-based incentives. Additionally, the Board of Directors and management regularly review the business plans and strategic initiatives, including related risks, proposed to achieve such performance metrics.

A substantial portion of compensation is provided in the enactmentform of a new U.S. tax regulationlong-term equity incentives with multi-year vesting.

We do not allow engagement in December 2016.
Becausespeculative trading or hedging. Our policies prohibit all of our 2016 actual adjusted earnings per share were less than our pre-established 2016 minimum performance levels of $4.15 for the March 2015 awardsdirectors and of $7.60 for the March 2014 awards, our returning namedemployees, including executive officers, forfeited both of these performance-based equity awards that were based on 2016 performance. (Mr. Napierski became an executive officerfrom holding our stock in September 2015margin accounts and therefore did not receive these awards.)
The following table summarizes the performance-based equity awards thatfrom engaging in speculative transactions in our namedstock, including short sales, options or hedging transactions. Our directors and employees, including executive officers, forfeited as a result of 2016 performance. It also includes the grant date fair values for such awards, which values were includedare prohibited from pledging their securities in the Summary Compensation Table for the year in which the grants were made.
Named Executive OfficerGrant DateAward Type
Underlying Shares Forfeited
(#)(1)
Grant Date Fair Value Forfeited
($)
M. Truman Hunt3/31/2014 Performance-Based Restricted Stock Units15,0001,185,300
 3/10/2015 Performance-Based Restricted Stock Units17,367905,863
   32,3672,091,163
     
Ritch N. Wood3/31/2014 Performance-Based Stock Options2,86788,189
 3/31/2014 Performance-Based Restricted Stock Units1,700134,334
 3/10/2015 Performance-Based Stock Options2,86756,595
 3/10/2015 Performance-Based Restricted Stock Units1,70088,672
   9,134367,790
     
Ryan S. Napierski
     
Joseph Y. Chang3/31/2014 Performance-Based Stock Options2,86788,189
 3/31/2014 Performance-Based Restricted Stock Units1,700134,334
 3/10/2015 Performance-Based Stock Options2,86756,595
 3/10/2015 Performance-Based Restricted Stock Units1,70088,672
   9,134367,790
     
D. Matthew Dorny3/31/2014 Performance-Based Stock Options2,16766,657
 3/31/2014 Performance-Based Restricted Stock Units1,16792,216
 3/10/2015 Performance-Based Stock Options2,16742,777
 3/10/2015 Performance-Based Restricted Stock Units1,16760,871
   6,668262,521

(1)Reflects the number of shares of stock that would have become eligible for vesting or exercisable if performance had been achieved at the goal performance level, the same number used for calculating grant date fair value for purposes of the Summary Compensation Table in the respective year.our company.
Other Compensation-Related Governance
 
32

North Asia Region Special Incentive Award
In 2014, we granted a special incentive award to Mr. Napierski related to the future long-term performance of our North Asia region, where Mr. Napierski was serving as President. The award consists of performance cash and performance-based stock options, which vest based on achievement of the following objectives during the three-year period ending December 31, 2017:
·Continuously maintaining the title of President of our North Asia region or a position overseeing that position;
·A viable successor replacing or being prepared to replace Mr. Napierski; and
·
Goals for North Asia profitability and for the compound annual growth rate of North Asia revenue.
Since becoming an executive officer in September 2015, Mr. Napierski has continued to oversee the President of our North Asia region for purposes of the first objective listed above. If the first and second objectives listed above are achieved, then the incentive award will vest based on the degree to which the profitability and compound annual growth rate objectives are achieved over the three-year period. If these objectives are achieved at a minimum performance level, performance cash of $250,000 will vest. If these objectives are achieved at an intermediate performance level, 15,000 stock options and performance cash of $500,000 will vest. If these objectives are achieved at a high level, 30,000 stock options and performance cash of $750,000 will vest. For more information about this award, see footnote 3 to the Outstanding Equity Awards at Fiscal Year-End – 2015 table.
Clawback Policy
Our equity incentive awards and our cash incentive awards contain clawback or recoupment provisions that allow the Committee to recover an executive's gains from the exercise or vesting of such awards in case of a financial restatement or if an executive materially breaches certain obligations or covenants, including non-competition and non-solicitation covenants, or willfully engages in or is convicted of certain illegal activity, fraud or other misconduct. In such event, we may terminate the outstanding awards of such executive and recover any gains from the exercise or vesting of cash and equity awards during the twelve months preceding the act or anytime thereafter.
Pursuant to the terms of our SecondThird Amended and Restated 2010 Omnibus Incentive Plan (the "Plan"), any and all awards granted thereunderunder the Plan will be cancelledcanceled if the participant violates a non-competition, non-solicitation or non-disclosure covenant or agreement or otherwise engages in activity or material misconduct that is in conflict with or adverse to our interests, including conduct contributing to any financial restatements or financial irregularities, as determined by the Committee.
In addition, all compensation awarded under our current and prior incentive plans will be subject to recovery or other penalties pursuant to (i) any future clawback policy of the company, as may be adopted or amended from time to time,time; (ii) any clawback provision set forth in an award agreement; and (ii)(iii) any applicable law, rule or regulation or applicable stock exchange rule, including, without limitation, Section 304 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, Section 954 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Section 10D of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and any applicable stock exchange listing rule adopted pursuant thereto. Further, if we are required to prepare an accounting restatement due to material noncompliance with any financial reporting requirement under the securities laws, the Committee may terminate any awards granted under our current and prior plans and/or require any participant to reimburse us for the amount of any payment or benefit received with respect to such awards to the extent they would not have been earned or accrued after giving effect to the restatement.
Stock Ownership
Consistent with the Plan, our equity incentive awards and our cash incentive awards contain cancellation, clawback and recoupment provisions that allow the Committee to recover an executive’s gains from such awards if the executive materially breaches certain obligations or covenants, including non-competition, non-solicitation and non-disclosure covenants, or willfully engages in or is convicted of certain illegal activity, fraud or other misconduct. In such event, we may terminate the outstanding awards of such executive and recover any gains from the awards during the twelve months preceding the act or anytime thereafter. Our cash incentive awards and performance-based equity awards additionally include similar cancellation, clawback and recoupment provisions that apply in the case of a financial restatement to the extent the award would not have been earned or accrued after giving effect to the restatement.
Equity Retention Guidelines
Our stock ownershipequity retention guidelines are designed to motivate our executive officers and directors to consider the long-term consequences of business strategies and to provide a level of long-term performance risk with respect to our compensation programs. These guidelines provide thatgenerally require executive officers mustand directors to retain 50% to 75% of the net shares (after payment of the exercise price and related taxes) with respect to any equity award unless the individual holds a number of shares having a value equal to the ownership levels set forth in the guidelines. a multiple of his or her base salary (for executives) or annual cash retainer (for non-management directors), as follows:
Position
Multiple of Base Salary or
Annual Retainer
CEO6.0
Other Executives2.5
Non-Employee Directors5.0

The ownership levels are phased in over five years from January 1 of the year following the date of appointment or election to one’s position as an executive officer. Unvested equity awards and vested options are not counted inofficer or director. In determining whether an executive officer holds shares equal to or greater thandirector satisfies the designated level. Atownership levels, we count shares owned outright or beneficially by the endindividual or an immediate family member residing in the same household, as well as a portion of the individual’s unvested time-based restricted stock units. We do not count vested or unvested options.
As of March 31, 2021, all of our NEOs and directors were retaining equity awards consistent with the guidelines, and all of our NEOs and directors who had served in their positions for the five-year phase-in period owned the designated ownership levels are set at 100,000 shares for our Chief Executive Officer and 25,000 shares for our other executive officers. Asamount of March 1, 2017, based on the closing price of $49.69 for our Class A Common Stock on the NYSE, these levels of ownership were valued at $4,969,000 and $1,242,250, respectively. Based on these values, the ownership level required for our Chief Executive Officer represents approximately 4.3 times Mr. Hunt's base salary in effect as of the end of 2016, and the ownership level required for the other named executive officers represents approximately 2.2 times the average of the base salaries in effect as of the end of 2016 for Messrs. Wood, Napierski, Chang and Dorny. As of March 1, 2017, all of our named executive officers owned more than the number of sharesstock designated for the positions they held as of March 1, 2017.their job positions.
 
33

As Mr. Wood was promoted to Chief Executive Officer on March 7, 2017, he will be subject to the retention guidelines discussed above until he owns 100,000 shares. Based on the closing price of $50.22 for our Class A Common Stock on the NYSE on March 7, 2017, this ownership level equates to $5,022,000, or 5.6 times Mr. Wood's $900,000 salary that he will receive as Chief Executive Officer.
Retirement and Other Post-Termination Benefits
Our executive officers do not participate in any pension or defined benefit plan. We believe it is important for retention purposes to provide executive officers with a meaningful opportunity to accumulate savings for their retirement. To accomplish this objective, we maintain both a tax-qualified 401(k) plan and a nonqualified deferred compensation plan. We do not make any matching contributions for named executive officers under the deferred compensation plan. We generally make a discretionary contribution (historically 10% of each executive officer's salary), which may be allocated between the executive officer's 401(k) and deferred compensation plan accounts. Discretionary contributions to an executive officer's 401(k) plan account vest 20% per year for the first five years of service. Discretionary contributions to an executive officer's deferred compensation plan account vest 50% at 10 years of service and 5% each year thereafter. Vested company contributions in the deferred compensation plan may be subject to forfeiture.
As more fully described and quantified below in "Narrative to Summary Compensation Table and Grants of Plan Based Awards Table—Employment Agreement" and in the table titled "Potential Payments Upon Termination or Change in Control," we have an executive employment agreement with Mr. Chang that provides for certain change in control and termination benefits. We do not provide excise tax gross-up protection to any of our named executive officers. Any cash severance payment under the employment agreements or accelerated vesting of equity in connection with a change in control requires a qualifying termination of employment. We believe these double-trigger post-termination benefits provide reasonable protections to employees who may be terminated following a change in control. They also assist us in retaining their services in the event of a potential change in control. We believe such arrangements are in the best interests of us and our stockholders if they are reasonable in amount and scope, because they can help to retain key employees during a change in control process.
Perquisites and Other Personal Benefits
We provide our executive officers and other key employees with other limited benefits and perquisites. These consist of, among other things, payments for term life insurance, use of company-provided vehicles, properties, sporting event tickets, company products and sales force event-related spouse travel. We do not reimburse executive officers for the income taxes associated with these perquisites except for limited business-related perquisites such as spouse travel to sales force events where the spouse is expected to attend and help entertain and participate in events with our sales force and their spouses. We have elected to pay the income taxes for these business-related perquisites because we believe they are business expenses. These benefits generally represent a very small portion of an executive officer's overall compensation and provide a benefit to us and our stockholders. During 2016, Mr. Napierski received additional expatriate-related perquisites and personal benefits, including an education and housing allowance, tax payments and other benefits, because he maintained a residence in Asia and his family had not yet relocated to the United States. The amount of these benefits is included in footnote 5 to the Summary Compensation Table.
34

Indemnification and Advancement of Expenses
We have entered into indemnification agreements with each of our directors and executive officers, pursuant to which these individuals will be indemnified for certain liabilities and will be advanced certain expenses that have been incurred as a result of actions to which they were, are, or are threatened to be made a party, or actions otherwise involving them, in connection with their service to the company. The indemnification agreements also include related provisions outlining the procedures for obtaining such benefits, and they generally require us to obtain and maintain director and officer liability insurance.
Tax Limitations on Deductibility
We have taken into consideration
Section 162(m) of the limitation on deductibility for United StatesInternal Revenue Code precludes us from taking a federal income tax purposes ofdeduction for compensation paid in excess of $1 million paid to our Chief Executive Officer“covered employees” (which include the CEO, CFO and theour three other most highly compensatedhighly-compensated NEOs, as well as any other individuals who were covered employees in any prior tax year after 2016). While the Committee has generally taken into consideration the tax deductibility of executive officers employed atcompensation, the endCommittee believes that the primary purpose of our compensation program is to support our business strategy and the year (other thanlong-term interests of our Chief Financial Officer) by structuringstockholders. Therefore, the Committee has maintained the flexibility to award compensation that may not be tax deductible if doing so furthers the objectives of our executive compensation program.
Under the U.S. tax reform legislation that was enacted in December 2017, the definition of “covered employee” was expanded to include the CFO and covered employees from previous tax years. In addition, the exception to the Section 162(m) deduction limit for performance-based compensation was repealed for tax years beginning after December 31, 2017, subject to certain transition rules. Despite these new limits on the deductibility of performance-based compensation, the Committee continues to believe that a significant portion of our NEOs’ compensation as performance-based. Our current cash incentive planshould be tied to performance, and equity incentive plan have been approved byit designed our stockholders,2018, 2019 and the awards under these plans can qualify as "performance-based" for purposes of the deductibility limitations. While we try2020 executive compensation programs accordingly. We currently expect that any compensation amounts over $1 million paid to structure compensation so that itany covered employee will no longer be deductible unless they qualify for income tax purposes, we also exercise judgment and may authorize compensation payments that do not comply with the exemptionstransition relief applicable to certain arrangements in Section 162(m) when we believe that such payments are appropriate and in the best interestsplace as of us and our stockholders.November 2017.
Executive Compensation Committee Report
We have reviewed and discussed with management the Compensation Discussion and Analysis that is included in this proxy statement. Based on such review and discussions, we recommended to the Board of Directors that the Compensation Discussion and Analysis be included in this proxy statement.
EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION COMMITTEE OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Thomas R. Pisano, Chairman
Daniel W. Campbell
Andrew D. Lipman
Neil H. Offen
EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION COMMITTEE OF
THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Thomas R. Pisano, Chairman
Daniel W. Campbell
Andrew D. Lipman
Laura Nathanson

3533

Executive Compensation Tables and Accompanying NarrativeEXECUTIVE COMPENSATION TABLES AND ACCOMPANYING NARRATIVE

Summary Compensation Table
The following table summarizes the total compensation of each of the named executive officers (“NEOs”) for 2014, 20152018, 2019 and 2016,2020, as calculated in accordance with SEC rules. The amounts in the "Stock Awards"“Stock Awards” and "Option Awards"“Option Awards” columns do not necessarily reflect the amounts actually earned by the named executive officerNEOs because they include performance-based equity awards that were granted during the respective year regardless of whether and when they wereare ultimately earned, based on company performance. See the Adjusted Summary Compensation Table, below, for further information.
Name and
Principal Position
Year 
Salary
($)(1)
  
Bonus
($)(2)
  
Stock Awards
($)(3)
  
Option Awards
($)(3)
  
Non-Equity Incentive Plan Compensation
($)(4)
  
All Other Compensation
($)(5)
  
Total
($)
 
                       
M. Truman Hunt
President and Chief Executive Officer
2016  1,130,006   51,417      8,411,816   529,292   154,240   10,276,771 
2015  1,000,000   42,267   2,717,882   520,590      133,925   4,414,663 
2014  1,000,000   42,402   3,613,800         102,878   4,759,080 
                              
Ritch N. Wood
Chief Financial Officer
2016  564,117   24,500      2,242,650   130,492   93,955   3,055,714 
2015  535,000   25,392   266,050   399,925      105,892   1,332,259 
2014  530,833   23,027   409,564   552,573      74,786   1,590,783 
                              
Ryan S. Napierski(6)
President of Global Sales and Operations
2016  660,000   27,833   277,899   1,962,592   114,466   1,117,320   4,160,109 
2015  538,077   27,600   398,085   799,176   102,570   2,464,049   4,329,556 
                             
                              
Joseph Y. Chang
Chief Scientific Officer and Executive Vice President of Product Development
2016  591,667   25,542      1,570,223   136,215   92,490   2,416,137 
2015  575,000   24,558   558,435   399,925      91,341   1,649,259 
2014  570,833   24,693   409,564   552,573      66,799   1,624,462 
                              
D. Matthew Dorny
General Counsel
 
2016  440,000   19,083      1,570,223   100,730   81,172   2,211,207 
2015  440,000   18,933   182,582   311,581      75,190   1,028,286 
2014  436,667   19,068   281,072   409,882      59,394   1,206,083 
 
Name and
Principal Position
Year
Salary
($)(1)
Bonus
($)(2)
Stock
Awards
($)(3)
Option
Awards
($)(3)
Non-Equity
Incentive Plan
Compensation
($)(4)
All Other
Compensation
($)(5)
Total ($)
         
Ritch N. Wood
Chief Executive
Officer
20201,000,0388501,642,3342,100,0061,766,600126,7306,636,559
2019991,6671,322,1402,111,047145,5264,570,379
2018941,66740,333611,3852,547,2331,794,993129,9996,065,610
         
Mark H. Lawrence
Executive VP and
Chief Financial
Officer
2020520,853850469,254600,003632,36377,1362,300,459
2019491,6671,992,713542,84498,1703,125,393
2018445,83319,500171,950716,400637,69473,6822,065,059
        
         
Ryan S. Napierski
President
2020720,8613,350710,899909,0021,164,350104,1633,612,626
2019687,500572,325913,788122,6582,296,272
2018620,83326,792277,0461,154,2261,062,825330,8153,472,537
         
Joseph Y. Chang
Executive VP of
Product Dev. and
Chief Scientific
Officer
2020672,526850333,160426,004813,038102,3862,347,964
2019653,333268,229428,239124,2991,474,100
2018616,66726,583135,634565,166878,602108,4172,331,069
        
         
D. Matthew Dorny
Executive VP and
General Counsel
2020510,020850333,160426,004614,29569,4511,953,780
2019504,167268,229428,23977,0631,277,698
2018472,83322,542135,634565,166673,12367,2601,936,558

(1)Messrs. Lawrence, Napierski, ChangDorny and, Dornythrough 2019, Chang deferred a portion of their salaries under our nonqualified deferred compensation plan,Deferred Compensation Plan, which is included in the Nonqualified Deferred Compensation – 20162020 table. Each of the named executive officersNEOs also contributed a portion of his salary to our 401(k) retirement savings plan.
(2)The amounts reported in this column includefor 2020 consist of (i) a gift payments that we have historicallypayment made to all corporate employees as year‑enda year-end holiday giftsgift; (ii) cash payments made to all corporate employees in lieu of summer and holiday company parties that were canceled due to the COVID-19 pandemic; and (iii) in the formcase of Mr. Napierski, a gift certificate or similar merchant credit arrangement, and cash in an amount equal to a percentage of each employee's base salary (approximately two weeks of salary). Mr. Hunt also received a$2,500 bonus for reaching a years-of-service milestone.
(3)The amounts reported in these columns reflect the aggregate grant date fair value of equity awards computed in accordance with FASB ASC Topic 718 and, for performance-based awards, are based on the probable outcome of the performance conditions as of the grant date. The amounts do not represent amounts actually received by the named executive officers.NEOs. For this purpose, the estimate of forfeitures is disregarded, and the value of the stock awards is discounted to reflect that no dividends are paid prior to vesting. For information on the valuation assumptions used in calculating these amounts, refer to Note 129 to our financial statements in the Form 10-K filed for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.2020.

The aggregate grant date fair value of the 2020 performance-based option awards, assuming achievement of the maximum performance level, would be: Mr. Wood – $4,200,012; Mr. Lawrence – $1,200,006; Mr. Napierski – $1,818,005; Mr. Chang – $852,008; and Mr. Dorny – $852,008.
The aggregate grant date fair value of the 2016 performance-based stock and option awards, assuming achievement of the maximum performance level, would be respectively: Mr. Hunt – $0 and $4,450,143; Mr. Wood – $0 and $1,071,143; Mr. Napierski – $416,848 and $1,000,184; Mr. Chang – $0 and $834,613; and Mr. Dorny – $0 and $834,613. The foregoing amounts do not include the value of the time-based stock options that were granted during 2016, which are reflected in the Option Awards column.
(4)TheSee “Executive Compensation: Compensation Discussion and Analysis—Cash Incentive Bonus” for information regarding the amounts reported in this column are cash awards to the named executive officers made pursuant to our Amended and Restated 2010 Omnibus Incentive Plan. See the "Compensation Discussion and Analysis—Cash Incentive Bonus" section for information regarding these awards.column. For years in which non-equity incentive bonuses were earned, Messrs. Lawrence, Napierski and ChangDorny deferred a portion of their incentivecertain of these bonuses under our nonqualified Deferred Compensation Plan, which is includeddeferrals are reflected in the Nonqualified Deferred Compensation – 20162020 table.
(5)The following table describes the components of the All Other Compensation column for 20162020 in the Summary Compensation Table.
 
36
Name
Company
Contributions to
Deferred
Compensation
Plan
($)
Company
Contributions to
401(k) Retirement
Savings Plan
($)
Perquisites and
Other Personal
Benefits
($)(a)
Other
($)(b)
Total
($)
Ritch N. Wood100,00011,40013,9521,378126,730
Mark H. Lawrence52,50011,40010,6442,59277,136
Ryan S. Napierski72,50011,4009,68610,577104,163
Joseph Y. Chang67,50011,40011,88511,601102,386
D. Matthew Dorny51,00011,4005,4941,55669,451

Name
Company Contributions to Deferred Compensation Plan
($)
Tax Payments
($)(a)
Life Insurance Premiums Paid by Company
($)(b)
Company Contributions to 401(k) Retirement Savings Plan
($)
Perquisites and Other Personal Benefits
($)(c)
Total
($)
M. Truman Hunt115,6001,57110,60026,468154,240
Ritch N. Wood57,0003,53883810,60021,97893,955
Ryan S. Napierski65,000
547,233(d)
29410,600
494,193(d)
1,117,320
Joseph Y. Chang59,5003,5383,27010,60015,58292,490
D. Matthew Dorny44,0002,9601,01610,60022,59681,172


(a)
This column reports amounts reimbursed by us for the payment of taxes with respect to travel of the named executive officers' spouses to sales force events where the spouse is expected to attend and help entertain and participate in events with our sales force and their spouses. We have elected not to pay the income taxes associated with non-business related perquisites. For Mr. Napierski, this column also includes tax payments associated with his income earned outside of the United States. For further discussion regarding tax payments, see "Compensation Discussion and AnalysisPerquisites and Other Personal Benefits."
(b)This column reports premiums paid to obtain term life insurance policies with coverage, as of December 31, 2016, of $750,000 for Messrs. Hunt and Dorny and $500,000 for Messrs. Wood, Napierski and Chang.
(c)This column reports our incremental cost for perquisites and personal benefits provided to the named executive officers.NEOs. In 2016,2020, these included the personal use of company‑provided vehicles andcompany-provided properties; AAA membership; tickets, travel and hospitality for sporting events; company products; security monitoring; and spouse travel to sales force events where the spouse is expected to attend and help entertain and participate in events with our sales force and their spouses. In addition, Mr. Napierski received expatriate benefits, including payments for a housing allowance of $212,163, a cost of living allowance of $133,969, and an education allowance of $78,625.tax-planning advice.

(d)(b)This column includes premiums for long-term disability insurance, and premiums for term life insurance with coverage, as of December 31, 2020, of $750,000 for each NEO. The amount paid for Mr. Chang’s term life insurance policy was $11,061. This column also includes $9,265 in tax payments associated with Mr. Napierski’s income received as a result of his former expatriate assignment. For further discussion regarding tax payments, see “Executive Compensation: Compensation Discussion and Analysis—Perquisites and Other Benefits.” Portions of these amountsMr. Napierski’s tax payments were paid in Japanese yen. The amounts were converted to U.S. dollars using a weighted average exchange rate for the month in which the payment was made. During 2016,2020, these exchange rates ranged from 101.31103.8 to 118.19109.9 Japanese yen per U.S. dollar.
(6)Mr. Napierski's compensation is significantly higher than the compensation of our other non-CEO named executive officers primarily because he received the expatriate benefits that are summarized in footnotes (5)(a) and (c), above.
 
3735


Adjusted Summary Compensation Table
   
Adjustments for Forfeited or
Above-Target Equity Awards
Name and Principal PositionYear
Total Compensation in Summary Compensation Table
($)
Above-Target (Forfeited) Stock Awards
($)
Above-Target (Forfeited) Option Awards
($)
Adjusted Total Compensation
($)
M. Truman Hunt
President and Chief Executive Officer
201610,276,77119,40410,296,175
20154,414,663(905,863)3,508,801
20144,759,080(1,185,300)3,573,780
      
Ritch N. Wood
Chief Financial Officer
20163,055,7144,6743,060,388
20151,332,259(88,672)(56,595)1,186,992
20141,590,783(134,334)(88,189)1,368,260
      
Ryan S. Napierski
President of Global Sales and Operations
20164,160,1091,9474,3654,166,431
20154,329,5564,329,556
2014
      
Joseph Y. Chang
Chief Scientific Officer and Executive Vice President of Product Development
20162,416,1373,6472,419,784
20151,649,259(88,672)(56,595)1,503,992
20141,624,462(134,334)(88,189)1,401,939
      
D. Matthew Dorny
General Counsel
20162,211,2073,6472,214,854
20151,028,286(60,871)(42,777)924,639
20141,206,083(92,216)(66,657)1,047,210
Grants of Plan‑BasedPlan-Based Awards – 20162020
The following table provides information about equity and non‑equitynon-equity incentive plan awards granted to the named executive officerseach NEO in 2016.2020.
NameGrant DateEstimated Future Payouts under non-Equity Incentive Plan AwardsEstimated Future Payouts under Equity Incentive Plan Awards
All Other Option Awards: Number of Securities Underlying Options
(#)(3)
Exercise or Base Price of Option Awards
($)(4)
Grant Date Fair Value of Stock and Option Awards
($)(5)
Threshold
($)(1)
Target
($)(1)
Max
($)(1)
Threshold
(#)(2)
Target
(#)(2)
Max
(#)(2)
           
M. Truman Hunt3/2/2016131,700263,400395,10030.632,966,762
 3/2/2016 —486,60030.635,445,054
 N/A433,5001,734,0003,468,000  —
           
Ritch N. Wood3/2/201631,70063,40095,10030.63714,096
 3/2/2016
 3/2/2016136,60030.631,528,554
 N/A106,875427,500855,000
           
Ryan S. Napierski3/2/201629,60059,20088,80030.63666,790
 3/2/20165,00010,00015,000277,899
 3/2/2016115,80030.631,295,802
 N/A121,875487,500975,000
           
Joseph Y. Chang3/2/201624,70049,40074,10030.63556,409
 3/2/2016
 3/2/201690,60030.631,013,814
 N/A111,563446,250892,500
           
D. Matthew Dorny3/2/201624,70049,40074,10030.63556,409
 3/2/2016
 3/2/201690,60030.631,013,814
 N/A82,500330,000660,000
 
   
Estimated Possible Payouts
under non-Equity Incentive Plan
Awards
Estimated Future Payouts
under Equity Incentive Plan
Awards
   
Name
Grant
Date(1)
Date of
Executive
Compensation
Committee
Approval
Threshold
($)(2)
Target
($)(2)
Max
($)(2)
Threshold
(#)(3)
Target
(#)(3)
Max
(#)(3)
All Other
Stock
Awards:
Number
of Shares
of Stock
or Units
(#)
Exercise
or Base
Price of
Option
Awards
($)(4)
Grant Date
Fair Value
of Stock
and
Option
Awards
($)(5)
Ritch N. Wood          
 2/15/20202/7/2020   122,236244,471488,942 30.452,100,006
 6/3/20202/7/2020      45,978 1,642,334
 N/A 137,5001,100,0002,200,000      
            
Mark H. Lawrence         
 2/15/20202/7/2020   34,92569,849139,698 30.45600,003
 6/3/20202/7/2020      13,137 469,254
 N/A 49,219393,750787,500      
            
Ryan S. Napierski         
 2/15/20202/7/2020   52,911105,821211,642 30.45909,002
 6/3/20202/7/2020      19,902 710,899
 N/A 90,625725,0001,450,000      
            
Joseph Y. Chang         
 2/15/20202/7/2020   24,79749,59399,186 30.45426,004
 6/3/20202/7/2020      9,327 333,160
 N/A 63,281506,2501,012,500      
            
D. Matthew Dorny         
 2/15/20202/7/2020   24,79749,59399,186 30.45426,004
 6/3/20202/7/2020      9,327 333,160
 N/A 47,813382,500765,000      

(1)Equity awards having a grant date of 2/15/2020 and all non-equity incentive plan awards were granted pursuant to our Second Amended and Restated 2010 Omnibus Incentive Plan. Equity awards having a grant date of 6/3/2020 were pursuant to our Third Amended and Restated 2010 Omnibus Incentive Plan, with each grant contingent upon stockholder approval of that Plan. Stockholder approval occurred at our 2020 Annual Meeting of Stockholders on 6/3/2020.
(2)The amounts reported in these columns reflect potential payouts for 2016 under our 2020 executive cash incentive plan if the respective levels of performance were achieved for all quarters and for the year. The amounts reported in the Threshold column reflect the potential payout if any company performance metric was at the minimum level required to receive a bonus. The amounts reported in the Target columnand Max columns reflect the potential payout if all company performance metrics were at goal and maximum performance levels. The amounts reported in the Max column reflect the potential payout if all company performance metrics were at or above stretch performance levels.levels, respectively.
(2)(3)The awards reported in these columns are performance restricted stock units and performanceperformance-based stock options granted under our Second Amended and Restated 2010 Omnibus Incentive Plan. The amounts reported in thesethe Threshold, Target and Max columns reflect the potential number of shares of stock that become eligible for vesting or exercisable pursuant to these performance equity awards if certain financial metrics are achieved. The amount reported in the Threshold column for each award reflects the potential number of shares of stockoptions that become eligible for vesting or exercisable if performance iscertain financial metrics are achieved at the minimum, level required for any shares of stock to become eligible for vesting or exercisable. The amount reported in the Target column for each award reflects the potential number of shares of stock that become eligible for vesting or exercisable if performance is at the goal performance level. The amount reported in the Max column for each award reflects the potential number of shares of stock that become eligible for vesting or exercisable if performance is at the level required for 150% of the target-level shares of stock to become eligible for vesting or exercisable.and maximum levels, respectively.
(3)The awards reported in this column are stock options granted to the named executive officers under our Amended and Restated 2010 Omnibus Incentive Plan. These stock option awards vest and become exercisable in four equal annual installments beginning approximately one year from the date of the respective grant.
(4)This column shows the exercise price for the stock option awards, granted, which in each case is the closing price of our stock on the grant date ofor, if the respective grant.grant date was a weekend or holiday, the last preceding date on which a closing price was reported.
(5)The amounts reported in this column reflect the aggregate grant date fair value of equity awards computed in accordance with FASB ASC Topic 718 and, for performance-based awards, are based on the probable outcome of the performance conditions as of the grant date. For this purpose, the estimate of forfeitures is disregarded, and the value of the stock awards is discounted to reflect that no dividends are paid prior to vesting. For information on the valuation assumptions used in calculating these amounts, refer to Note 129 to our financial statements in the Form 10-K filed for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.2020.
 
Narrative to Summary Compensation Table and Grants of Plan‑BasedPlan-Based Awards Table
Employment Agreement with Mr. Chang
We have an executive employment agreement with Mr. Chang. Among other things, this agreement provides that:
·
Time-based equity awards granted to Mr. Chang will fully vest upon certain terminations of employment within six months prior to and in connection with, or within two years following, a change in control;
 
·
No excise tax protections will be provided for termination payments;
·
Mr. Chang will be bound by certain covenants, including non-solicitation, non-competition and non-endorsement, that are in addition to, or supersede, previous key employee covenants;
 
·
Mr. Chang will be entitled to the followingcertain termination payments, as described in addition to salary“Executive Compensation Tables and benefits earned prior to termination:
Accompanying Narrative—Potential Payments Upon Termination or Change in Control” below.
Termination Upon Death or Disability:
(a)
A lump sum equal to the pro-rata portion of the Mr. Chang's target bonus for any outstanding bonus cycle; and
(b)
Salary continuation for up to 90 days in certain circumstances related to a disability.
Resignation for Good Reason or Other Termination Without Cause:
(a)
A lump sum equal to the cost of twelve months of health care continuation coverage;
(b)
A lump sum equal to the pro-rata portion of Mr. Chang's earned bonus, if any, for each outstanding bonus cycle; and
(c)
Continuation of annual salary for a period of 15 months.
Termination or Resignation for Good Reason in Connection with a Change in Control:
(a)
A lump sum equal to the cost of twelve months of health care continuation coverage;
(b)
A lump sum equal to the pro-rata portion of Mr. Chang's target bonus for any outstanding bonus cycle; and
(c)
A lump sum amount equal to 1.25 times annual salary and target bonus.
 
40

Other Resignation:
(a)
Continuation of 75% of annual salary for a restricted period of up to one year, during which non-solicitation, non-competition and non-endorsement covenants remain in effect.Equity Awards and Non-Equity Incentive Plan Awards
 
In addition, Mr. Chang's employment agreement provides that, if his employment terminates pursuant to any of the circumstances outlined above, other than for death or disability, Mr. Chang will be entitled to a four‑year consulting contract with us for $250,000 per year, less any severance payments that are paid to him during the year pursuant to his employment agreement.
Performance Awards
For information on the terms of the equity awards and non-equity performanceincentive plan awards that were granted to named executive officersNEOs during 2016,2020, see the "Compensation“Executive Compensation: Compensation Discussion and Analysis" section of this Proxy StatementAnalysis” and the footnotes to the Outstanding Equity Awards at Fiscal Year-End – 20162020 table. The NEOs received actual bonuses for fiscal year 2020 in the amounts shown in the "Non-Equity Incentive Plan Compensation" column of the 2020 Summary Compensation Table.
Outstanding Equity Awards at Fiscal Year-End – 20162020
The following table provides information on theeach NEO’s holdings of equity awards by the named executive officers as of December 31, 2016.
  Option AwardsStock Awards
Name and
Award Type
 (1)
Grant Date
Number of Securities Underlying Unexercised Options Exercisable
(#)
Number of Securities Underlying Unexercised Options Unexercisable
(#)(2)(3)
Equity Incentive Plan Awards: Number of Securities Underlying Unexercised Unearned Options
(#)(3)(4)
Option Exercise Price
($)
Option Expiration Date
Number of Shares or Units of Stock That Have Not Vested
(#)(5)
Market Value of Shares or Units of Stock That Have Not Vested
($)(6)
Equity Incentive Plan Awards: Number of Unearned Shares, Units or Other Rights That Have Not Vested
(#)(4)(7)
Equity Incentive Plan Awards: Market or Payout Value of Unearned Shares, Units or Other Rights That Have Not Vested
($)(6)
M. Truman Hunt          
SO6/28/201025,00025.896/28/2017
SO8/31/201025,00025.578/31/2017
PSO11/15/201050,00030.4311/15/2017
SO2/28/201125,00031.922/28/2018
SO8/15/201125,00039.358/15/2018
SO2/9/201225,00054.082/9/2019
SO12/17/201225,00044.8312/17/2019
PSO7/15/201318,75077.657/15/2020
SO12/9/201337,50012,500131.5212/9/2020
PRSU3/31/20147,500358,350
PRSU3/10/201517,367829,795
SO12/18/20159,25027,75037.5812/18/2022
SO3/2/2016486,60030.633/2/2023
PSO3/2/2016395,10030.633/2/2023
           
Ritch N. Wood          
PSO3/2/201017,50028.093/2/2017
SO6/28/201013,75025.896/28/2017
SO8/31/201013,75025.578/31/2017
PSO11/15/201050,00030.4311/15/2017
SO2/28/201113,75031.922/28/2018
PSO2/28/201117,50031.922/28/2018
SO8/15/201113,75039.358/15/2018
PSO2/9/201217,50054.082/9/2019
SO2/9/201213,75054.082/9/2019
SO8/31/201213,75041.498/31/2019
PSO2/15/20138,75041.272/15/2020
2020.
 
41

 Option AwardsStock Awards
Name
and
Award
Type
(1)
Grant
Date
Number of
Securities
Underlying
Unexercised
Options
Exercisable
(#)
Number of
Securities
Underlying
Unexercised
Options
Unexercisable
(#)
Equity Incentive
Plan Awards:
Number of
Securities
Underlying
Unexercised
Unearned Options
(#)(2)(3)
Equity Incentive Plan Awards: Number of Securities Underlying Unexercised Unearned Options
(#)(3)(4)Option
Exercise
Price
($)
Option Exercise Price
($)
Option
Expiration
Date
Number of
Shares or
Units of
Stock That
Have Not
Vested
(#)(5)(4)
Market Value
of Shares or
Units of
Stock That
Have Not
Vested
($)(6)
Equity Incentive Plan Awards: Number of Unearned Shares, Units or Other Rights That Have Not Vested
(#)(4)(7)
Equity Incentive Plan Awards: Market or Payout Value of Unearned Shares, Units or Other Rights That Have Not Vested
($)(6)(5)
Ritch N. Wood       
SO3/31/20146,800  82.853/31/2021  
SO12/17/20146,800  39.5112/17/2021  
SO3/10/20156,800  54.973/10/2022  
SO12/18/20156,800  37.5812/18/2022  
SO3/2/2016136,600  30.633/2/2023  
PSO3/2/201654,525  30.633/2/2023  
PSO3/4/201758,306  50.683/4/2024  
RSU3/4/2017     6,300344,169
PSO3/8/201841,753 17,25371.993/8/2025  
RSU3/8/2018     4,444242,776
PSO2/15/2019  35,57163.092/15/2026  
RSU2/15/2019     16,643909,207
PSO2/15/2020  488,94230.452/15/2027  
RSU6/3/2020     45,9782,511,778
         
Mark H. Lawrence      
PSO3/27/201714,422  54.233/27/2024  
RSU3/27/2017     2,050111,992
PSO3/8/201811,742 4,85371.993/8/2025  
RSU3/8/2018     1,25068,288
PSO2/15/2019  9,14763.092/15/2026  
RSU2/15/2019     4,280233,816
RSU2/15/2019     18,4931,010,273
PSO2/15/2020  139,69830.452/15/2027  
RSU6/3/2020     13,137717,674
         
Ryan S. Napierski      
SO12/18/20156,800  37.5812/18/2022  
SO12/18/201550,000  37.5812/18/2022  
SO3/2/201677,800  30.633/2/2023  
PSO3/2/201630,913  30.633/2/2023  
PSO3/4/201732,224  50.683/4/2024  
RSU3/4/2017     2,600142,038
PSO3/8/201818,919 7,81871.993/8/2025  
RSU3/8/2018     2,014110,025
PSO2/15/2019  15,39863.092/15/2026  
RSU2/15/2019     7,204393,555
PSO2/15/2020  211,64230.452/15/2027  
RSU6/3/2020     19,9021,087,246
Ritch N. Wood (cont.)          
SO2/15/201310,3133,43741.272/15/2020
PSO7/15/201318,75077.657/15/2020
SO12/9/201310,3133,437131.5212/9/2020
PSO3/31/20141,43482.853/31/2021
SO3/31/20143,4003,40082.853/31/2021
PRSU3/31/201485040,613
SO12/17/20143,4003,40039.5112/17/2021
SO3/10/20151,7005,10054.973/10/2022
PSO3/10/20152,86754.973/10/2022
PRSU3/10/20151,70081,226
SO12/18/20151,7005,10037.5812/18/2022
SO3/2/2016136,60030.633/2/2023
PSO3/2/201695,10030.633/2/2023
           
Ryan S. Napierski          
PSO11/15/201035,00030.4311/15/2017
PSO7/15/201312,50077.657/15/2020
RSU2/15/20131,25059,725
RSU3/31/20142,500119,450
PSO10/16/201415,00043.5310/16/2021
RSU2/11/20154,500215,010
RSU12/18/20151,87589,588
SO12/18/20151,7005,10037.5812/18/2022 —
SO12/18/201512,50037,50037.5812/18/2022
SO3/2/2016115,80030.633/2/2023
PSO3/2/2016���88,80030.633/2/2023
PRSU3/2/201615,000238,900
           
Joseph Y. Chang          
PSO3/2/20105,62528.093/2/2017
SO6/28/20103,12525.896/28/2017
SO8/31/20104,68825.578/31/2017
PSO11/15/201050,00030.4311/15/2017
SO2/28/20116,25031.922/28/2018
PSO2/28/20117,50031.922/28/2018 —
SO8/15/20116,25039.358/15/2018
PSO2/9/20127,50054.082/9/2019
SO2/9/20126,25054.082/9/2019
SO8/31/20126,25041.498/31/2019
PSO2/15/20133,75041.272/15/2020
SO2/15/20134,6881,56241.272/15/2020
PSO7/15/201312,50077.657/15/2020
SO12/9/20134,6881,562131.5212/9/2020
PRSU3/31/201485040,613
PSO3/31/20141,43482.853/31/2021
SO3/31/20143,4003,40082.853/31/2021
SO12/17/20143,4003,40039.5112/17/2021
PSO3/10/20152,86754.973/10/2022
SO3/10/20151,7005,10054.973/10/2022
PRSU3/10/20151,70081,226
SO12/18/20151,7005,10037.5812/18/2022 —
SO3/2/201690,60030.633/2/2023
PSO3/2/201674,10030.633/2/2023
           

 Option AwardsStock Awards
Name
and
Award
Type
(1)
Grant
Date
Number of
Securities
Underlying
Unexercised
Options
Exercisable
(#)
Number of
Securities
Underlying
Unexercised
Options
Unexercisable
(#)
Equity Incentive
Plan Awards:
Number of
Securities
Underlying
Unexercised
Unearned Options
(#)(2)(3)
Equity Incentive Plan Awards: Number of Securities Underlying Unexercised Unearned Options
(#)(3)(4)Option
Exercise
Price
($)
Option Exercise Price
($)
Option
Expiration
Date
Number of
Shares or
Units of
Stock That
Have Not
Vested
(#)(5)(4)
Market Value
of Shares or
Units of
Stock That
Have Not
Vested
($)(6)
Equity Incentive Plan Awards: Number of Unearned Shares, Units or Other Rights That Have Not Vested
(#)(4)(7)
Equity Incentive Plan Awards: Market or Payout Value of Unearned Shares, Units or Other Rights That Have Not Vested
($)(6)(5)
D. Matthew Dorny          
PSO11/15/201042,00030.4311/15/2017
SO2/28/20116,25031.922/28/2018
PSO2/28/20117,50031.922/28/2018
SO8/15/20116,25039.358/15/2018
PSO2/9/20127,50054.082/9/2019
SO2/9/20126,25054.082/9/2019
SO8/31/20126,25041.498/31/2019
PSO2/15/20133,75041.272/15/2020
SO2/15/20134,6881,56241.272/15/2020
PSO7/15/201312,50077.657/15/2020
SO12/9/20134,6881,562131.5212/9/2020
PRSU3/31/201458427,880
PSO3/31/20141,08482.853/31/2021
SO3/31/20142,5002,50082.853/31/2021
SO12/17/20142,4502,45039.5112/17/2021
PRSU3/10/20151,16755,759
PSO3/10/20152,16754.973/10/2022
SO3/10/20151,2503,75054.973/10/2022
SO12/18/20151,5004,50037.5812/18/2022
SO3/2/201690,60030.633/2/2023
PSO3/2/201674,10030.633/2/2023
Joseph Y. Chang      
SO3/31/20146,800  82.853/31/2021  
SO3/10/20156,800  54.973/10/2022  
SO12/18/20156,800  37.5812/18/2022  
SO3/2/201690,600  30.633/2/2023  
PSO3/2/201642,485  30.633/2/2023  
PSO3/4/201718,562  50.683/4/2024  
RSU3/4/2017     1,12561,459
PSO3/8/20189,264 3,82871.993/8/2025  
RSU3/8/2018     98653,865
PSO2/15/2019  7,21663.092/15/2026  
RSU2/15/2019     3,376184,431
PSO2/15/2020  99,18630.452/15/2027  
RSU6/3/2020     9,327509,534
         
D. Matthew Dorny      
SO3/31/20145,000  82.853/31/2021  
SO12/17/20144,900  39.5112/17/2021  
SO3/10/20155,000  54.973/10/2022  
SO12/18/20156,000  37.5812/18/2022  
SO3/2/201652,000  30.633/2/2023  
PSO3/2/201641,235  30.633/2/2023  
PSO3/4/201718,562  50.683/4/2024  
RSU3/4/2017     1,125 61,459
PSO3/8/20189,264 3,82871.993/8/2025  
RSU3/8/2018     98653,865
PSO2/15/2019  7,21663.092/15/2026  
RSU2/15/2019     3,376184,431
PSO2/15/2020  99,18630.452/15/2027  
RSU6/3/2020     9,327509,534

(1)Award types are as follows:
SO:
SO: Time-Based Stock Options
RSU:
RSU: Time-Based Restricted Stock Units
PSO:
PSO: Performance-Based Stock Options
PRSU:Performance-Based Restricted Stock Units

(2)
Time-Based Stock Options
Grant DateVesting Schedule
2/15/2013
3/31/2014
3/10/2015
3/2/2016
Vest in four equal annual installments, the first of which vested on February 15 of the year following the grant.
12/9/2013
12/17/2014
12/18/2015
Vest in four equal annual installments, the first of which vested or will vest on August 15 of the year following the grant or, for Mr. Napierski's 50,000 stock options granted on 12/18/2015, September 8, 2016.

(3)
Performance-Based Stock Options
Grant DateVesting Schedule
7/15/2013
Vests in four equal tranches based on the achievement of adjusted earnings per share performance levels, measured in terms of diluted earnings per share excluding certain predetermined items. The first, second, third and fourth tranches are contingent on achievement of adjusted earnings per share of $6.00, $8.00, $10.00 and $12.00, respectively, over a rolling four-quarter period. Vesting occurs on the date the Compensation Committee approves the calculation of adjusted earnings per share for the respective tranche. Upon any change in control, the next unvested tranche shall be deemed to be vested immediately prior to such change in control, and any remaining unvested tranche shall be cancelled. The unvested portion of these performance stock options will be terminated if the adjusted earnings per share goals are not achieved based on performance through December 2019, or partially terminated earlier if annualized adjusted earnings per share fall below certain thresholds after December 2016. Based on our performance through December 2016, the tranche that was contingent on achievement of adjusted earnings per share of $12.00 will terminate as of March 30, 2017.
43

3/31/2014
Vests vest in three equal tranches based on the achievement of adjusted earnings per shareEPS performance levels, measured in terms of diluted earnings per shareEPS excluding certain predetermined items. Vesting occurs on the date the Compensation Committee approves the calculationlater of adjusted earnings per share for the respective tranche. Vesting is accelerated upon the participant's termination (including constructive termination) in connection with a change in control. Any portions of the tranches that do not vest will immediately terminateone year following the Committee'sgrant date and the Committee’s approval of the calculation of adjusted earnings per share for such tranche. No portion of the three tranches vested based on adjusted earnings per share achieved in 2014, 2015 and 2016, and the first, second and third tranches therefore terminated as of March 10, 2015, February 25, 2016 and February 27, 2017, respectively.
10/16/2014
Vests in one tranche based on the achievement of performance goals applicable to the North Asia region for the three years ended December 31, 2017. Vesting occurs on the date the Compensation Committee approves the calculation of the actual performance. Vesting is accelerated upon the participant's termination (including constructive termination) in connection with a change in control. For more information about this award, see "Compensation Discussion and Analysis—North Asia Region Special Incentive Award."
3/10/2015
Vests in three equal tranches based on the achievement of adjusted earnings per share performance levels, measured in terms of diluted earnings per share excluding certain predetermined items. Vesting occurs on the date the Compensation Committee approves the calculation of adjusted earnings per shareEPS for the respective tranche. Vesting of the target amount of PSOs is accelerated upon the participant'sparticipant’s termination (including constructive termination) in connection with a change in control. Any portions of the tranches that do not become eligible for vesting will immediately terminate following the Committee'slater of one year following the grant date and the Committee’s approval of the calculation of adjusted earnings per shareEPS for such tranche.
Grant DateVesting Schedule
3/8/2018A portion of the first tranche vested based on adjusted EPS achieved in 2018. No portion of the second or third tranche vested based on adjusted EPS achieved in 2020, and these tranches therefore terminated as of February 7, 2020 and February 10, 2021, respectively.
2/15/2019No portion of the first or second tranche vested based on adjusted earnings per shareEPS achieved in 20152019 and 2016,2020, and the first and secondthese tranches therefore terminated as of February 25, 201615, 2020 and February 27, 2017, respectively.10, 2021. The portion of the third tranche that vests iswill be determined by adjusted earnings per shareEPS reaching pre-determined levels in 2017.
2021.
3/2/201615/2020Vests in three equal tranches based on the achievement of adjusted earnings per share performance levels, measured in terms of diluted earnings per share excluding certain predetermined items. Vesting occurs on the date the Compensation Committee approves the calculation of adjusted earnings per share for the respective tranche. Vesting is accelerated upon the participant's termination (including constructive termination) in connection with a change in control. Any portions of the tranches that do not become eligible for vesting will immediately terminate following the Committee's approval of the calculation of adjusted earnings per share for such tranche. A portion of theThe first tranche vested in full based on adjusted earnings per shareEPS achieved in 2016.2020. The portions of the second and third tranches that vest arewill be determined by adjusted earnings per shareEPS reaching pre-determined levels in 20172021 and 2018,2022, respectively.

(4)(3)In accordance with SEC rules, these columns report the potential number of shares of stockoptions that become eligible for vesting or exercisable if performance is at the minimum level required for any shares of stockoptions to become eligible for vesting or exercisable, except that, based on 2020 results, the PSOs and PRSUs granted on 3/2/201615/2020 are reported at the maximum level based on 2016 results.level.
(5)(4)
Time-Based Restricted Stock Units
Grant DateVesting Schedule
3/4/2017Vest in four equal annual installments, the first of which vested on March 4, 2018.
2/15/2013
3/31/2014
2/11/2015
27/2017
Vest in four equal annual installments, the first of which vested on March 2, 2018.
3/8/2018Vest in four equal annual installments, the first of which vested on February 15, of the year following the grant.2019.
2/15/2019
12/18/2015
Vest in four equal annual installments, the first of which vested on September 8, 2016.
February 15, 2020, except for Mr. Lawrence’s award of 18,493 RSUs, which vests in three equal annual installments, the first of which vested on February 15, 2020.
6/3/2020Vest in four equal annual installments, the first of which vested on February 15, 2021.

(6)(5)The market value of the restricted stock units reported in these columns is based on the closing market price of our stock on December 30, 2016,31, 2020, which was $47.78.
(7)
Performance-Based Restricted Stock Units
Grant DateVesting Schedule
3/31/2014
Vests in three equal tranches based on the achievement of adjusted earnings per share performance levels, measured in terms of diluted earnings per share excluding certain predetermined items. Vesting occurs on the date the Compensation Committee approves the calculation of adjusted earnings per share for the respective tranche. Vesting is accelerated upon the participant's termination (including constructive termination) in connection with a change in control. Any portions of the tranches that do not vest will immediately terminate following the Committee's approval of the calculation of adjusted earnings per share for such tranche. No portion of the three tranches vested based on adjusted earnings per share achieved in 2014, 2015 and 2016, and the first, second and third tranches therefore terminated as of March 10, 2015, February 25, 2016 and February 27, 2017, respectively.
3/10/2015
Vests in three equal tranches based on the achievement of adjusted earnings per share performance levels, measured in terms of diluted earnings per share excluding certain predetermined items. Vesting occurs on the date the Compensation Committee approves the calculation of adjusted earnings per share for the respective tranche. Vesting is accelerated upon the participant's termination (including constructive termination) in connection with a change in control. Any portions of the tranches that do not become eligible for vesting will immediately terminate following the Committee's approval of the calculation of adjusted earnings per share for such tranche. No portion of the first or second tranche vested based on adjusted earnings per share achieved in 2015 and 2016, and the first and second tranches therefore terminated as of February 25, 2016 and February 27, 2017, respectively. The portion of the third tranche that vests is determined by adjusted earnings per share reaching pre-determined levels in 2017.
3/2/2016Vests in three equal tranches based on the achievement of adjusted earnings per share performance levels, measured in terms of diluted earnings per share excluding certain predetermined items. Vesting occurs on the date the Compensation Committee approves the calculation of adjusted earnings per share for the respective tranche. Vesting is accelerated upon the participant's termination (including constructive termination) in connection with a change in control. Any portions of the tranches that do not become eligible for vesting will immediately terminate following the Committee's approval of the calculation of adjusted earnings per share for such tranche. A portion of the first tranche vested based on adjusted earnings per share achieved in 2016. The portions of the second and third tranches that vest are determined by adjusted earnings per share reaching pre-determined levels in 2017 and 2018, respectively.$54.63.
 

45

Option Exercises and Stock Vested – 20162020
The following table provides information on stock option exercises and vesting of stock awards for the named executive officerseach NEO during 2016.2020.
 Option AwardsStock Awards
Name
Number of Shares
Acquired on Exercise
(#)
Value Realized
 on Exercise
($)(1)
Number of Shares
Acquired on Vesting
(#)
Value Realized
on Vesting
($)(2)
M. Truman Hunt250,0005,197,500
Ritch N. Wood
Ryan S. Napierski15,000321,9005,875190,441
Joseph Y. Chang37,500804,7505,458159,046
D. Matthew Dorny49,7501,108,073
 
 Option AwardsStock Awards
NameNumber of Shares Acquired on Exercise (#)(1)Value Realized on Exercise ($)(2)Number of Shares Acquired on Vesting (#)
Value Realized on Vesting
($)(3)
Ritch N. Wood14,070397,688
Mark H. Lawrence13,348394,762
Ryan S. Napierski48,0001,046,9516,009170,286
Joseph Y. Chang6,80072,4782,74478,065
D. Matthew Dorny18,600382,9432,74478,065

(1)All option exercises were pursuant to Rule 10b5-1 trading plans adopted by the NEOs.
(2)Value realized on exercise of stock options is equal to the number of options exercised multiplied by the market value of our common stock at exercise less the exercise price, and is calculated before payment of any applicable withholding taxes and broker commissions.
(2)(3)Value realized on vesting of restricted stock units is equal to the number of restricted stock units vested multiplied by the market value of our common stock on the vesting date, and is calculated before payment of any applicable withholding taxes and broker commissions.
Nonqualified Deferred Compensation
Pursuant to our nonqualified Deferred Compensation Plan (the "DCP"), certain employees, including the named executive officers,NEOs, may elect to defer up to 80% of his or hertheir base salary up to 100% of bonus and up to 100% of restricted stock unitscash incentive bonus (minus applicable withholding requirements) that otherwise would be payable in a calendar year. Deferral elections are made prior to the calendar year in which the deferred salary bonus or restricted stock unitsbonus will be earned. Additionally, we mayIn addition, the company makes contributions to each NEO’s account. Effective in 2021, the DCP was modified to provide a matching contribution by the company for individual contributions up to a maximum of 5% of base salary. We also elect togenerally make a discretionary contribution, (historicallyexpected to be reduced from the historical amount of 10% of each executive officer's salary), which may be allocated between the executive officer's 401(k) and deferred compensation plan accounts.salary to approximately 5% of salary.
Earnings and losses on deferred base salary and bonus are based on market rates, and on earnings and losses on participant-selected investment funds available under our Deferred Compensation Plan. Restricted stock unit deferrals are allocated to a fund that tracksmirroring the performance of investment funds that are available for participants to track under the company's stock.DCP. All amounts a participant elects to defer, adjusted for earnings and losses thereon, are 100% vested for purposes of the Deferred Compensation PlanDCP at all times. All amounts we elect to contribute, to a participant's account, adjusted for earnings and losses thereon, either vest as20% per year over five years (for contributions on or after January 1, 2021) or vest over a 20-year period that begins on the participant's hire date (for contributions prior to 50% upon 10 years of employment with us, and vest an additional 5% for each year of employment with us thereafter until such amounts are 100% vested upon 20 years of employment with us. In addition, all amounts become 100% vested2021). This vesting schedule is subject to acceleration upon the participant attainingoccurrence of certain events, including the attainment of 60 years of age, upon the participant's death or disability as defined in the plan,DCP, discretionary acceleration by the Committee, or, otherwisefor contributions on or after January 1, 2021, the completion of at the discretionleast 10 years of the Executive Compensation Committee.employment above a specified compensation level.
For participants who received company contributions prior to January 1, 2015, our Deferred Compensation Planthe DCP also provides a death benefit that will pay, upon a participant'sparticipant’s death prior to the commencement of benefit payments, an amount equal to the participant'sparticipant’s deferrals, adjusted for earnings and losses thereon, plus the greater of (i) the vested portion of company contributions, adjusted for earnings and losses thereon, or (ii) five times such participant'sparticipant’s average base salary for the previous three years. All distributions under the Deferred Compensation PlanDCP are payable in cash (except for restricted stock units, which were previously permitted to be deferred and are payable in stock), and the participant may elect either a lump sum payment or monthly, quarterly, or annual installments over a maximum of 15 years.
 
46

The following table shows the investment funds that are available for participants to track under our Deferred Compensation Planthe DCP and their annual rates of return for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016,2020, as reported by the administrator of the plan.DCP.
Name of FundRate of ReturnName of FundRate of Return
Great-West Money Market – Instl Shares0.25%Vanguard VIF Growth-1.08%
American Century VP Inflation Protection – Class I Shares4.71%Neuberger Berman AMT Mid-Cap Intrinsic Value – I Class16.17%
Vanguard VIF Short-Term Investment-Grade2.72%LVIP SSgA Mid-Cap Index – Standard Class20.31%
LVIP Delaware Bond – Standard Class2.74%Great-West T. Rowe Price Mid Cap Growth6.18%
Putnam VT High Yield – Class IA15.66%Delaware VIP Small Cap Value Series – Standard Class31.41%
Templeton Global Bond VIP – Class 13.21%Deutsche Small Cap Index VIP – Class A21.02%
Great-West Conservative Profile (Series I)6.14%Vanguard VIF Small Company Growth14.94%
Great-West Moderately Conservative Profile (Series I)7.18%American Funds Global Growth – Class 20.62%
Great-West Moderate Profile (Series I)8.19%American Funds Global Small Capitalization – Class 22.10%
Great-West Moderately Aggressive Profile (Series I)9.10%American Funds IS Global Growth and Income – Class 27.35%
Great-West Aggressive Profile (Series I)10.76%AllianceBernstein VPS International Value – Class A-0.50%
Delaware VIP Value Series – Standard Class14.65%American Funds International – Class 23.53%
MFS VIT Value – Initial Class14.09%Van Eck VIP Emerging Markets – Initial Class0.10%
Vanguard VIF Equity Index11.81%MFS VIT Utilities Series – Initial Class11.47%
Delaware VIP U.S. Growth Series – Standard Class-5.16%Vanguard VIF REIT Index8.36%

Name of Fund
Rate of
Return
Name of Fund
Rate of
Return
Great-West Gov't Money Market - Instl Shares0.41%Neuberger Berman AMT Mid-Cap Intrinsic Value - I Class-2.62%
American Century VP Inflation Protection - Class I Shares9.81%LVIP SSgA Mid-Cap Index - Standard Class13.19%
Vanguard VIF Short-Term Investment-Grade5.49%Great-West T. Rowe Price Mid Cap Growth - Investor Class24.11%
LVIP Delaware Bond - Standard Class9.87%Delaware VIP Small Cap Value Series - Standard Class-1.90%
Putnam VT High Yield - Class IA5.50%DWS VIT Small Cap Index VIP - Class A19.43%
Templeton Global Bond VIP - Class 1-5.07%Vanguard VIF Small Company Growth23.18%
Great-West Conservative Profile - Investor Class8.21%American Funds Global Growth - Class 230.47%
Great-West Moderately Conservative Profile - Investor Class9.57%American Funds IS Global Growth and Income - Class 28.73%
Great-West Moderate Profile - Investor Class11.25%American Funds Global Small Capitalization - Class 229.73%
Great-West Moderately Aggressive Profile - Investor Class11.75%AB VPS International Value - Class A2.47%
Great-West Aggressive Profile - Investor Class11.99%American Funds International - Class 213.98%
Delaware VIP Value Series - Standard Class0.41%Van Eck VIP Emerging Markets - Initial Class17.25%
MFS VIT Value - Initial Class3.48%Vanguard VIF Real Estate Index-4.85%
Vanguard VIF Equity Index18.20%MFS VIT Utilities Series - Initial Class5.90%
Vanguard VIF Growth43.09%Nu Skin Enterprises Inc. Restricted Stock Units39.04%
Delaware VIP U.S. Growth Series - Standard Class44.13%  
Nonqualified Deferred Compensation – 20162020
The following table provides information on compensationeach NEO’s account under our nonqualified Deferred Compensation Plan for the year 2016.2020.
Name
Executive
Contributions
in Last FY
($)(1)
Registrant
Contributions
in Last FY
($)(1)
Aggregate Earnings
 in Last FY
($)(1)
Aggregate
Withdrawals / Distributions
Aggregate Balance
at Last FYE
($)(1)
M. Truman Hunt115,600421,7326,142,699
Ritch N. Wood57,00067,737842,495
Ryan S. Napierski260,81865,00091,9831,810,093
Joseph Y. Chang180,03559,500508,2536,714,527
D. Matthew Dorny15,35244,00076,175971,183
 
Name
Executive
Contributions
in Last FY
($)(1)
Registrant
Contributions
in Last FY
($)(1)
Aggregate
Earnings
in Last FY
($)(1)
Aggregate
Withdrawals/
Distributions
Aggregate
Balance at
Last FYE
($)(1)
Ritch N. Wood100,000214,2461,744,394
Mark H. Lawrence11,30352,50048,627303,401
Ryan S. Napierski301,83072,5001,052,0845,612,008
Joseph Y. Chang67,5001,055,9029,828,757
D. Matthew Dorny450,89851,000112,6672,619,790

(1)Executive and registrant contribution amounts are and have been reflected in the 20162020 Summary Compensation Table and prior years'years’ summary compensation tables, as applicable. Aggregate earnings are not reflected in the 20162020 Summary Compensation Table and were not reflected in prior years' Summary Compensation Tables.years’ summary compensation tables.
Potential Payments Upon Termination or Change in Control
The information below describes the compensation that would become payable under existing plans and arrangements if the named executive officer'sNEO’s employment had terminated on December 31, 2016,2020, given the named executive officer'seach NEO’s compensation and service levelslevel as of such date and, if applicable, based on our closing stock price on that date. Except as noted below, all amounts would be payable as a lump sum upon termination, except deferred compensation, which may be payable as a lump sum or in installments at the election of the named executive officer.NEO. These benefits are in addition to benefits available generally to salaried employees, such as disability benefits and distributions under our 401(k) plan. In addition, certain non-competition and other obligations of the named executive officers relating to these payments are described above under the section titled "Narrative to Summary Compensation Table and Grants of Plan‑Based Awards Table—Employment Agreements."
 
47

Due to the number of factors that affect the nature and amount of any benefits provided upon the events discussed below, any actual amounts paid or distributed may be different. Factors that could affect these amounts include the timing during the year of any such event, our stock price and the named executive officer'sNEO’s age.

Name
Voluntary
Termination
($)
Involuntary
Termination
for cause
($)
Involuntary
Termination
Not for cause
($)
Termination (Including Constructive Termination)
 in Connection with
Change of Control
($)
Death
($)(1)
Disability
($)
M. Truman Hunt      
Severance(2)
Equity(3)
15,521,841
Deferred Compensation(4)
6,142,6996,142,6996,142,6996,142,6999,833,5676,142,699
Health Benefits(5)
Total6,142,6996,142,6996,142,69921,664,5409,833,5676,142,699
       
       
Ritch N. Wood      
Severance(2)
Equity(3)
3,776,191
Deferred Compensation(4)
842,495842,495842,495842,4952,716,584842,495
Health Benefits(5)
Total842,495842,495842,4954,618,6862,716,584842,495
       
       
Ryan S. Napierski      
Severance(2)
Equity(3)
4,524,843
Deferred Compensation(4)
1,810,0931,810,0931,810,0931,810,0934,155,4601,810,093
Health Benefits(5)
Total1,810,0931,810,0931,810,0936,334,9364,460,8971,810,093
       
       
Joseph Y. Chang      
Severance(2)
1,196,2501,493,7502,330,469278,906427,656
Equity(3)
2,734,985
Deferred Compensation(4)
6,714,5276,714,5276,714,5276,714,5278,432,9776,714,527
Health Benefits(5)
11,62511,625
Total7,910,7776,714,5278,219,90211,791,6068,711,8837,142,183
       
       
D. Matthew Dorny      
Severance(2)
Equity(3)
2,533,089
Deferred Compensation(4)
904,489904,489904,489904,4892,498,686904,489
Health Benefits(5)
Total904,489904,489904,4893,437,5782,498,686904,489
NameVoluntary Termination ($)Involuntary Termination for Cause ($)Involuntary Termination Not for Cause ($)Termination (Including Constructive Termination) in Connection with Change of Control ($)Death ($)(1)Disability ($)
Ritch N. Wood      
Severance(2)
750,0003,266,6005,966,6001,766,6002,016,600
Equity(3)
9,919,239
Deferred Compensation(4)
1,744,3941,744,3941,744,3941,744,3944,888,9531,744,394
Health Benefits(5)
26,24626,246
Total2,494,3941,744,3945,037,23917,656,4786,655,5533,760,994
 
Mark H. Lawrence      
Severance(2)
393,7501,288,6132,010,488632,363763,613
Equity(3)
3,830,991
Deferred Compensation(4)
61,57761,57761,57761,57761,577297,077
Health Benefits(5)
26,46026,460
Total455,32761,5771,376,6505,929,516693,9401,060,690
 
Ryan S. Napierski      
Severance(2)
543,7502,070,6003,339,3501,164,3501,345,600
Equity(3)
2,585,781
Deferred Compensation(4)
5,379,1385,379,1385,379,1385,379,1387,754,3995,379,138
Health Benefits(5)
25,87925,879
Total5,922,8885,379,1387,475,61811,330,1498,918,7496,724,738
 
Joseph Y. Chang      
Severance(2)
1,368,7502,519,2883,447,413813,038981,788
Equity(3)
2,008,448
Deferred Compensation(4)
9,828,7579,828,7579,828,7579,828,75711,038,1989,828,757
Health Benefits(5)
16,47516,475
Total11,197,5079,828,75712,364,52015,301,09211,851,23610,810,545
 
D. Matthew Dorny      
Severance(2)
382,5001,251,7951,953,045614,295741,795
Equity(3)
2,008,448
Deferred Compensation(4)
2,312,6422,312,6422,312,6422,312,6423,670,5722,312,642
Health Benefits(5)
26,46026,460
Total2,695,1422,312,6423,590,8976,300,5954,284,8673,054,437

(1)The amounts reported in this column do not include the proceeds payable on death from term life insurance policies for which we pay the premiums, with coverage, as of December 31, 2016,2020, of $750,000 for Messrs. Hunt and Dorny and $500,000 for Messrs. Wood, Napierski and Chang.each NEO.
(2)We have an employment agreement with Mr. Chang. Among other things, this agreementOur Executive Severance Policy applies to all of the NEOs. This policy provides for the following termination payments in addition to salary and benefits earned prior to termination:termination, provided that the NEO complies with certain non-competition and other obligations:
(a) Voluntary termination:
(i)Continuation of 75% of annual salary for a restricted period of up to one year to better enable the company to enforce the agreement's non‑solicitation, non-competition and non-endorsement covenants after termination.
48

(i) A lump sum equal to 75% of annual salary if the Company elects, in its sole discretion, to enforce the non-competition obligations in the NEO’s Key Employee Covenants Agreement.
(b) Involuntary termination not for cause (including constructive termination):
(i)A lump sum equal to the pro-rata portion of Mr. Chang's earned bonus, if any, for each outstanding bonus cycle; and
(ii)Continuation of annual salary for a period of 15 months.
(i) The pro-rata portion of the NEO’s earned bonus, if any, for any outstanding bonus cycle, payable at the same time as bonuses are paid to other executive officers; and
(ii) A lump sum equal to a multiplier (of 1.5 for the CEO; 1.25 for other NEOs) times annual salary.
(c) Termination (including constructive termination) in connection with a change in control:
(i)A lump sum equal to the pro-rata portion of Mr. Chang's target bonus for any outstanding bonus cycle; and
(ii)A lump sum amount equal to 1.25 times annual salary
(i) The pro-rata portion of the NEO’s earned bonus, if any, for any outstanding bonus cycle, payable at the same time as bonuses are paid to other executive officers; and target bonus.
(ii) A lump sum equal to a multiplier (of 2 for the CEO; 1.5 for other NEOs) times the sum of annual salary and target bonus.
(d) Termination upon death or disability:
(i)A lump sum equal to the pro-rata portion of Mr. Chang's target bonus for any outstanding bonus cycle; and
(ii)Salary continuation for up to 90 days in certain circumstances related to a disability.
(i) The pro-rata portion of the NEO’s earned bonus, if any, for any outstanding bonus cycle, payable on the date that bonuses are normally paid; and
(ii) Salary continuation for up to 90 days in certain circumstances related to a disability.
In addition, Mr. Chang'sChang’s employment agreement provides that, if his employment terminates pursuant to any of the circumstances outlined above in this footnote 2, other than for death or disability, Mr. Chang will be entitled to a four-year consulting contractagreement with us for $250,000$287,500 per year, less any severance payments that are paid to him during the year pursuant to his employment agreement.the Executive Severance Policy.
(3)TheOur equity award agreements generally provide that unvested awards will terminate upon the termination of employment. However, vesting (of the target amount, in the case of performance-based stock options) is accelerated upon the participant’s termination (including constructive termination) in connection with a change in control. Accordingly, the amounts payable under the equity category, in the case of performance-based stock option awards, are based on the difference between the $47.78$54.63 closing price of our stock on December 30, 201631, 2020 and the exercise price of the applicable award, multiplied by the target number of unvested sharesoptions subject to the award. The amounts payable under the equity category in the case of time-based restricted stock units are based on the $47.78same closing price of our stock on December 30, 2016 multiplied by the number of unvested sharesrestricted stock units subject to the applicable award.
(4)
The amounts reported for deferred compensation, other than for death and disability, reflect only the amounts deferred by the named executive officers,NEOs, the vested portion of amounts contributed by us and earnings on such amounts. We may, at our discretion, accelerate vesting of the unvested amounts contributed by us in the event of a change in control. If we were to accelerate vesting, the total amounts of deferred compensation payable to the named executive officersour NEOs would be as follows: Mr. Hunt Wood $6,142,699; $1,744,394; Mr. Wood Lawrence $842,495; $297,077; Mr. Napierski $1,810,093; $5,379,138; Mr. Chang $6,714,527; $9,828,757; and Mr. Dorny $971,183.
$2,312,642.
(5)Pursuant to his employment agreement, Mr. Chang is entitledOur Executive Severance Policy entitles the NEOs to a lump sum equal to twelve months of health care continuation coverage upon involuntary termination not for cause (including constructive termination) and termination (including constructive termination) in connection with change in control. These payments are conditioned on the NEO’s compliance with certain non-competition and other obligations.

OTHER COMPENSATION INFORMATION

Equity Compensation Plan Information
The following table provides information as of December 31, 2016,2020, about our Class A Common Stock that may be issued upon the exercise of options, warrants and rights under all of our existing equity compensation plans (including individual arrangements):
Plan Category 
Number of securities to be issued upon exercise of outstanding options, warrants and rights
(a)
  
Weighted-average exercise price of outstanding options, warrants and rights
(b)
  
Number of securities remaining available for future issuance under equity compensation plans (excluding securities reflected in column (a))
(c)
 
          
Equity compensation plans approved by security holders  6,529,488
(1) 
 $51.42
(2) 
  2,580,032
(3) 
             
Equity compensation plans not approved by security holders         
             
             
            Total  6,529,488  $51.42   2,580,032 
 
Plan Category
Number of securities
to be issued upon
exercise of
outstanding options,
warrants and rights
(a)
Weighted-average
exercise price of
outstanding
options, warrants
and rights
(b)
Number of securities
remaining available for
future issuance under
equity compensation plans
(excluding securities
reflected in column (a))
(c)
Equity compensation plans approved by security holders
4,099,717(1)
$44.76(2)
5,817,529(3)
Equity compensation plans not approved by security holders
Total4,099,717$44.765,817,529

(1)  Consists of 5,933,0333,168,691 options (2,207,100(770,631 time-based and 3,725,9332,398,060 performance-based) and 596,455931,026 restricted stock units (519,519(931,026 time-based and 76,9360 performance-based). The performance-based awards are reported as the number of shares that become eligible for vesting or exercisable if performance is at the goaltarget level. The number of shares that are ultimately issued pursuant to the performance-based awards could vary from the amounts reported based on the degree to which the
performance goals are achieved.
 
(2)  Excludes the impact of time-based and performance-based restricted stock units, which are exercised for no consideration. The weighted average remaining life of the options is 4.054.2 years.
(3)  Represents the number of shares available for future issuance under our SecondThird Amended and Restated 2010 Omnibus Incentive Plan.Plan, under which we may grant awards relating to shares of Class A Common Stock including options, stock appreciation rights, restricted stock awards, restricted stock unit awards, other share-based awards and performance awards. Options and stock appreciation rights are counted against the share reserve as one share for each option or stock appreciation right. Other awards are counted as 2.25 shares.

CEO Pay Ratio Information
As required by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act and SEC rules, we are disclosing the annual total compensation of the CEO, the median of the annual total compensation of all other employees, and the ratio of these two numbers (the “CEO pay ratio”), each as calculated pursuant to applicable rules and guidance. We also provide supplemental information and calculations to provide context regarding our global operations and unique features of our workforce.
CEO Compensation
Mr. Wood’s 2020 annual total compensation was $6,636,559.
Median Employee Compensation and CEO Pay Ratio Disclosure
As of December 31, 2020, our global employee population, including employees of our subsidiaries, consisted of 25,789 individuals. To identify the median employee, we used each employee’s annualized base pay plus target cash incentive as of December 31, 2020 (for Mainland China sales employees, described below, and employees of our manufacturing and packaging subsidiaries, this was calculated by annualizing their salary and bonus amounts for the last portion of the year, as those amounts are indicative of their recent activity), translated into U.S. dollars. With these amounts for all of our employees, we identified a median group of 101 employees. We then calculated the annual total compensation of each of these 101 employees using the same methodology that is required under SEC disclosure requirements for our NEOs’ compensation, and we identified the median employee from that population.

Our median employee is a sales employee in Mainland China whose 2020 annual compensation was $1,339, which yields a CEO pay ratio of 4,956:1. However, as discussed below, due to a unique feature of our employee population, we do not believe this ratio appropriately represents our company’s compensation practices.
Supplemental Information – Global Employee Population and Structure
The structure of our business model in Mainland China causes a unique and significant increasing impact on our CEO pay ratio. In all of our markets other than Mainland China, our sales force members are independent distributors rather than employees of our company. Because of restrictions on direct selling and multi-level commissions in Mainland China, we have implemented a business model for that market that is different from our business model in other markets. One of the differences is that our sales force in Mainland China includes not only independent sellers but also part-time sales employees.
Our Mainland China sales employees constitute a large proportion of our total employee base, and as a result, these employees have a significant impact on our CEO pay ratio. As of December 31, 2020, 20,999, or 81%, of our employees were Mainland China sales employees, compared to 4,790 other full- and part-time employees worldwide. Like all members of our sales force globally, our Mainland China sales employees devote as much or as little time and effort to their sales efforts as they desire, and their compensation varies significantly as a result.
Due to the impact of our Mainland China sales employees on our CEO pay ratio, we do not believe the required pay ratio disclosure, above, appropriately represents our company’s compensation practices. To better allow stakeholders to evaluate our CEO’s compensation within the context of our company, we also disclose a ratio that excludes our Mainland China sales employees. Based on our 4,790 employees who are not Mainland China sales employees, our median employee is a communication specialist in Hong Kong whose 2020 annual compensation was $36,226, resulting in a CEO pay ratio of 183:1.
We believe the compensation amounts and ratios provided above represent reasonable estimates calculated in accordance with SEC regulations and guidance. The SEC rules allow companies to adopt a variety of methodologies, to apply certain exclusions, and to make reasonable estimates and assumptions that reflect their employee populations and compensation practices. As a result, the pay ratio reported by other companies may not be comparable to the pay ratio for our company, as other companies have different employee populations and compensation practices and may utilize different methodologies, exclusions, estimates and assumptions in calculating their pay ratios.
PROPOSAL 2:
ADVISORY VOTE TO APPROVE OUR EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

Pursuant to Section 14A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, we are requesting stockholder approval of a non-binding advisory resolution approving theour NEOs’ compensation of our named executive officers as disclosed in this Proxy Statement.proxy statement.
Compensation Objectives and 2020 Pay for Performance
The primaryfollowing objectives of our executive compensation program aresupport our recommendation to successfully recruit, motivate and retain experienced and talented executives, provide competitiveapprove the compensation arrangements that are tied to corporate and individual performance, align the financial interests of our executives with those of our stockholders, and drive superior stockholder value. NEOs:

(1)Our program enables us to successfully recruit, motivate and retain experienced and talented executives;

(2)We implement a pay-for-performance philosophy through the use of incentives that:

a.Are tied to corporate and individual performance;

b.Align the financial interests of our executives with those of our stockholders; and

c.Drive superior stockholder value.
The program, which is administered by theour Executive Compensation Committee (the "Committee"“Committee”), is intended to align actual compensation payments to actual performance and to adjust upward during periods of strong performance and adjust downward when performance is short of expectations.
We believe that
Amidst a challenging year, our executive compensation program is one of several key factors that drove our strong revenue andincreased 7% in 2020 to $2.58 billion, while earnings per share growth priorimproved 17% to 2014,$3.63. Both our customer and sincesales leader numbers improved during the disruption to our business in Mainland China in January 2014, we believe that our executive compensation program has helped to drive our recovery from that disruption by providing new performance incentives to recover. Our total stockholder return in 2016 was 30%year, increasing 34% and 29%, showing the turnaround taking effect after two years of decline. In addition, while our 2016 revenue of $2.21 billion was approximately $969 million lower than our 2013 revenue, approximately $380 million of this decline is due to the strengthening of the U.S. dollar since 2013, which we recognize is outside of management's control.
The performance incentives in our executive compensation program have aligned compensation with actual performance; since the beginning of 2014, several performance equity award opportunities and cash bonus opportunities have been unearned and forfeitedrespectively. These improvements came as a result of falling shortfocusing on our growth strategy and capitalizing on opportunities available to us through our prior investments in product innovation, technology and manufacturing to build our customer base and empower our sales leaders.  We experienced strong growth in our Americas/Pacific, EMEA and Manufacturing segments. Additionally, we strengthened our balance sheet, repurchased more than five million shares of pre-established performance goals. For example, Mr. Hunt has forfeited a total grant value of $6,884,335stock and increased our dividend for the 19th consecutive year.
We continue to believe we have the correct growth strategy in equity awards that were contingent on 2014, 2015 or 2016 performance,place to achieve revenue growth and Messrs. Wood, Chang and Dorny have each forfeited $1,042,719 on average. In addition, Mr. Hunt realized just $529,292 in cash incentive bonuses out of a total target amount of $4,234,000 during 2014 to 2016, and Messrs. Wood, Chang and Dorny realized an average of $122,479 out of an average total target amount of $1,072,917. This reflects the pay-for-performance philosophy in whichexpand our company provides a meaningful opportunity for compensation upon meeting rigorous performance expectations but does not provide a great deal of guaranteed compensation or pay incentives without performance.
As discussed further in "Compensation Discussion and Analysis," our 2016 compensation decisions centered primarily around two principles: (1) a recognition that our business was improving from the levels that followed the 2014 Mainland China disruption but was not yet meeting our expectations; and (2) the need to retain, motivate and reward our executive team if the turnaround was successful, recognizing that that they had forfeited most of their performance-based incentive compensation in the previous two years as a result of falling short of the goals.
In 2016, we devised a three-yearcustomer base. Our executive compensation program to balance these two principles. This 2016–2018 program is summarized as follows:and the pay-for-performance incentives that are built into it are key drivers of management’s motivation.
·
To provide an
2020 compensation was predominantly variable. Consistent with our commitment to pay for performance, our CEO’s 2020 target compensation consisted of 82% variable compensation (cash incentive bonus and equity awards) and 18% fixed compensation (salary and all other compensation). Our other NEOs’ target compensation was 71% variable and 29% fixed.

2020 equity awards were predominantly performance-based. The equity awards that were granted to our NEOs in 2020 also reflect our pay-for-performance philosophy. These equity awards were approximately 60% performance-based (based on grant date fair value). Going forward, the Committee generally plans to continue improving our business performance, the three-year program uses a relatively small amountusing an equity mix of guaranteed value, focusing on cash incentive awards and on equity awards for which value is realized upon either stock price appreciation or the achievement of challenging performance goals. As discussed in more detail in "Compensation Discussion and Analysis," the Committee set these goals to help drive the achievement of certain strategic objectives of our company, including growth in Mainland China and success in the continued rollout of two key products.approximately 60% performance-based awards.
 
Advisory Resolution
 
·
To address our executive retention and motivation concerns, a portion of the future compensation program value for 2017 and 2018 was frontloaded into 2016, providing more equity awards and a higher proportion of time-based awards over performance-based awards in 2016, but then fewer equity awards and a higher proportion of performance-based awards in 2017 and 2018. Unlike our 2016 equity awards, we expect that the grant date fair values of our 2017 and 2018 equity awards will be at approximately the median of our peer group, causing the average over the three years to approximate the 75th percentile.
Thus, our 2016 compensation program is not intended to be viewed as a single year of compensation but, rather, as the first year of a three-year program, with the last two years balancing out the higher compensation that is disclosed for 2016—and in fact, our 2017 compensation decisions to date have followed this strategy, with 2017 equity grants being considerably lower than the one-time incentive provided in 2016.
The 2016 compensation of our executive officers listed in the Summary Compensation Table (collectively, the "named executive officers") reflects our 2016–2018 compensation program. The 2016 increases in our named executive officers' total compensation over 2015 are primarily attributable to (1) equity awards granted in March 2016, none of which have guaranteed value, as they require either stock price appreciation or the achievement of challenging performance goals; and (2) cash incentive bonuses that were earned at 30.5% of target in 2016 based on the partial achievement of challenging goals related to revenue and adjusted operating income.
Our 2017 executive compensation decisions to date have continued to adhere to the principles of our 2016–2018 compensation program. Consistent with the retention and motivation objective of our 2016–2018 compensation program, under which equity awards were frontloaded into 2016, the Committee granted equity awards to our executive officers in March 2017 that have a grant value at approximately the median of our peer group, with 62% of these 2017 awards being performance-based based on grant value. Consistent with our objective of continuing to improve our business performance, our 2017 goals for both equity and non-equity incentive awards are challenging, requiring above-median adjusted earnings per share growth for our performance-based equity awards that are contingent on 2017 performance and, for our cash incentive bonus program, revenue growth that approaches the 75th percentile in relation to our peer group and 75th-percentile adjusted operating income growth.
In addition, as a result of our Chief Executive Officer transition that occurred in March 2017, our Chief Executive Officer target total direct compensation for 2017 will be 59% lower than in 2016, as both cash and equity compensation will decrease from 2016 levels.
See the "Compensation Discussion and Analysis" section of this Proxy Statement and the related tables and narrative disclosure for additional information regarding our compensation program for the named executive officers.
The Board of Directors recommends that stockholders approve the following advisory resolution:
RESOLVED, that the stockholders hereby approve the compensation of the company'scompany’s named executive officers, as disclosed in this Proxy Statementproxy statement pursuant to Item 402 of Regulation S-K, including the Compensation Discussion and Analysis, compensation tables and narrative disclosure.
Although this advisory resolution is non-binding, the Board values input from stockholders. The Board will consider the voting results for this proposal in making future compensation decisions. For example, at our 2016 annual meeting of stockholders, approximately 99% of the votes cast were in favor of our executive compensation program. When designing our 2017 executive compensation program, the Committee considered, among other things, the 2016 voting results and other feedback we received from our stockholders, which were viewed as supporting our pay philosophy and incentive framework.
 
52

We currently intend to include a stockholder advisory voteresolution on our executive compensation program at our annual meeting of stockholders each year.
THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS RECOMMENDS THAT STOCKHOLDERS VOTE "FOR" THE APPROVAL OF THE ADVISORY RESOLUTION APPROVING THE COMPANY'S EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION.
53

PROPOSAL 3:
ADVISORY VOTE ON THE FREQUENCY OF FUTURE STOCKHOLDER ADVISORY VOTES ON OUR EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION
Pursuant to Section 14A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, we are requesting that stockholders provide an advisory vote as to whether future stockholder advisory votes on our executive compensation, such as Proposal 2 above, should be held every one, two or three years.
A majority of the votes cast at our 2011 Annual Meeting of Stockholders voted in favor of holding an annual advisory vote on executive compensation, and we have held an annual advisory vote on executive compensation each year since 2011.
The Board of Directors recommends that future advisory votes on executive compensation continue to occur every year as a means to provide us with timely and direct feedback from stockholders. As discussed in the "Compensation Discussion and Analysis" section of this Proxy Statement and the related tables and narrative disclosure, our executive compensation program emphasizes long-term incentives designed to reward sustainable performance. However, we believe that holding an annual advisory vote on executive compensation will best align with the information we provide annually regarding our executive compensation program. In addition, we are aware of the significant interest in executive compensation matters by investors and the general public, and we value and encourage constructive dialogue with our stockholders on these matters.
Please note that because advisory votes on executive compensation would occur well after the beginning of the year, and because the various elements of our executive compensation program are integrated and complement one another, it may not always be feasible or appropriate to change our executive compensation program by the time of the following year's annual meeting of stockholders.
Although this advisory vote is non-binding, the Board of Directors values input from stockholders. The Board of Directors will consider the voting results for this proposal in determining how frequently to conduct the vote on executive compensation.
THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS RECOMMENDS THAT STOCKHOLDERS VOTE FOR "1 YEAR" ON“FOR” THE FREQUENCYAPPROVAL OF FUTURE STOCKHOLDERTHE ADVISORY VOTES ON THE COMPANY'SRESOLUTION APPROVING OUR EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION.

5448

PROPOSAL 4:
3:
RATIFICATION OF SELECTION OF
INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

Our Audit Committee is directly responsible for the appointment, compensation, retention and oversight of our independent registered public accounting firm. The Audit Committee is also involved in the selection of the lead audit engagement partner whenever a rotational change is required, normally every five years.
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP ("PwC"(“PwC”) served as our independent registered public accounting firm for the 20162020 fiscal year. PwC has served in this capacity since the 1994 fiscal year, and the Audit Committee has selected PwC to serve in this capacity for the 20172021 fiscal year. The Audit Committee believes that the continued retention of PwC as our independent registered public accounting firm for 20172021 is in the best interests of our company and our stockholders. Before determining to retain PwC for 2021, the Audit Committee evaluated PwC’s performance and qualifications, considering such factors as technical competence, independence, adequacy of staffing the audit, quality and efficiency of services, expertise with our company and industry, reasonableness of fees, and quality and candor of communications. The Audit Committee also considered the potential impact a change in our auditors could have on our company and audit.
As a matter of good corporate governance, we are asking stockholders to ratify the selection of PwC as our independent registered public accounting firm for 2017.2021. If the selection is not ratified, the Audit Committee will consider whether it is appropriate to select another independent registered public accounting firm. Even if the selection is ratified, the Audit Committee in its discretion may select a different registered public accounting firm at any time during the year if it determines that such a change would be in the best interests of us and our stockholdersstockholders.
Representatives of PwC are expected to be present at the Annual Meeting. They will have the opportunity to make a statement if they so desire and will be available to respond to appropriate questions.
Fees to Independent Registered Public Accountants
The following table presents approximate fees for professional services rendered by PwC for the audit of our annual financial statements for the 20152019 and 20162020 fiscal years and approximate fees billed for other services rendered by PwC during those periods.
  
Fiscal 2016
($)
 
Fiscal 2015
($)
Audit Fees(1)
 2,857,000 2,788,000
Audit-Related Fees(2)
 142,000 108,000
Tax Fees(3)
 2,469,000 2,208,000
All Other Fees(4)
 4,000 2,000
Total 5,472,000 5,106,000
 
 Fiscal 2020 ($)Fiscal 2019 ($)
Audit Fees(1)
3,070,0003,132,000
Audit-Related Fees(2)
23,000355,000
Tax Fees(3)
1,577,0001,398,000
All Other Fees(4)
3,0007,000
Total4,673,0004,892,000


(1)Audit Fees consist of fees billed or expected to be billed for the audit of annual financial statements, review of quarterly financial statements and services normally provided in connection with statutory and regulatory filings or engagements.

(2)Audit-Related Fees for 20162020 consist primarily of fees related to testing for acquisitions and the preparation of certain documents. Audit-Related Fees for 2019 consist primarily of (1) reviews and evaluations of our system implementations and methodologies related to the adoption of new accounting standards and tax reform; and (2) services in connection with our issuance of convertible debt refinance and reimbursement of legal fees and expenses paid by PwC in connection with discovery in the class action matter brought against us, which we settled during 2016. Audit-Related Fees for 2015 consist primarily of reimbursement of legal fees and expenses related to the class action matter and translation services for a foreign securities filing.acquisitions.

(3)Tax Fees for 2020 consist of approximately $1,142,000$1,206,000 in fees for tax compliance work and $1,327,000$371,000 in fees for tax planning work in 2016 and $570,000work. Tax Fees for 2019 consist of approximately $1,085,000 in fees for tax compliance work and $1,638,000$313,000 in fees for tax planning work in 2015.work.

(4)All Other Fees consist of software fees.access fees to accounting, financial and disclosure resources.
 
Audit and Non-Audit Services Pre-Approval Policy
Under the Audit and Non‑AuditNon-Audit Services Pre‑ApprovalPre-Approval Policy, the Audit Committee must pre‑approvepre-approve all audit and non‑auditnon-audit services provided by the independent registered public accounting firm. The policy, as described below, sets forth the procedures and conditions for such pre‑approvalpre-approval of services to be performed by the independent registered public accounting firm. Under the policy, proposed services may be either pre‑approvedpre-approved categorically within specified budgets ("(“general pre‑approval"pre-approval”) or specifically pre‑approvedpre-approved on a case‑by‑casecase-by-case basis ("(“specific pre‑approval"pre-approval”). In approving any services by the independent registered public accounting firm, the Audit Committee will consider whether the performance of any such service would impair the independent registered public accounting firm'sfirm’s independence. The policy also authorizes the Audit Committee chair to provide pre-approval for services, provided that she or he reports the pre-approval to the Audit Committee at its next scheduled meeting.
The Audit Committee must specifically pre‑approvepre-approve the terms and fees of each annual audit services engagement. All other Audit, Audit‑related,Audit-Related, Tax, and All Other Services (each defined in the policy) may be generally pre‑approvedpre-approved pursuant to projected categorical budgets. The Audit services subject to general pre‑approvalpre-approval include such services as statutory audits or financial audits for subsidiaries or affiliates and services associated with SEC registration statements, periodic reports, and other documents filed with the SEC or other documents issued in connection with securities offerings. Audit‑relatedAudit-related services are assurance and related services that are reasonably related to the performance of the audit or review of our financial statements or that are traditionally performed by the independent registered public accounting firm. Tax services include tax compliance, tax planning, and tax advice. All Other Services are those routine and recurring services that the Audit Committee believes will not impair the independence of our registered public accounting firm. The Securities and Exchange CommissionSEC prohibits our independent registered public accounting firm from performing certain non‑auditnon-audit services, and under no circumstances will the Audit Committee approve such services.
The Audit Committee will review the generally pre‑approvedpre-approved services from time to time, at least annually. Any changes to budgeted amounts or proposed services will require specific pre‑approvalpre-approval by the Audit Committee.
In 2016,
The Audit Committee approved the engagement of PwC to audit our 2020 consolidated financial statements before the engagement began, and in 2020, all of the Audit-Related, Tax and All Other services provided by PwC were approved by the Audit Committee in accordance with the Audit and Non‑AuditNon-Audit Services Pre‑ApprovalPre-Approval Policy.
Audit Committee Report
The Audit Committee is responsible for monitoring our financial auditing, accounting, and financial reporting processes and our system of internal controls on behalf of the Board. Our management has primary responsibility for our internal controls and reporting process. Our independent registered public accounting firm, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP ("PwC"(“PwC”), is responsible for performing an independent audit of our consolidated financial statements and the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) ("PCAOB"(“PCAOB”) and issuing an opinion thereon. The Audit Committee'sCommittee’s responsibility is to monitor these processes. In this context, the Audit Committee met and held discussions with management, our internal auditors and PwC. Management represented to the Audit Committee that the consolidated financial statements for the fiscal year 20162020 were prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles.
The Audit Committee hereby reports as follows:
·
The Audit Committee has reviewed and discussed the audited consolidated financial statements and accompanying management'smanagement’s discussion and analysis of financial condition and results of operations with our management and PwC. This discussion included PwC'sPwC’s judgments about the quality, not just the acceptability, of the accounting principles, the reasonableness of significant judgments, and the clarity of disclosures in the financial statements.
 
56

·
The Audit Committee alsohas discussed with PwC the matters required to be discussed by the applicable requirements of the PCAOB.PCAOB and the Securities and Exchange Commission.
 
·
PwC also provided to the Audit Committee the written disclosures and the letter required by applicable requirements of the PCAOB regarding PwC'sPwC’s communications with the Audit Committee concerning independence, and the Audit Committee has discussed with PwC the accounting firm'sfirm’s independence. The Audit Committee also considered whether non-audit services provided by PwC during the last fiscal year were compatible with maintaining the accounting firm'sfirm’s independence.
 
·
Based on the review and discussions referred to above, the Audit Committee recommended to the Board that the audited consolidated financial statements be included in our Annual Report on Form 10‑K for the year ended December 31, 2016,2020, for filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
 
AUDIT COMMITTEE OF THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS

Edwina D. Woodbury, Chair
Daniel W. Campbell
Thomas R. Pisano
AUDIT COMMITTEE OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Edwina D. Woodbury, Chair
Nevin N. Andersen
Daniel W. Campbell
Thomas R. Pisano

THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS RECOMMENDS THAT STOCKHOLDERS VOTE "FOR"“FOR” RATIFICATION OF THE SELECTION OF PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP AS OUR INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM FOR 2017.2021.

5751


EXECUTIVE OFFICERS
As previously disclosed, on March 7, 2017, Truman Hunt became Vice ChairmanTable of our Board of Directors, Ritch Wood assumed the position of Chief Executive Officer and Ryan Napierski became the President of our company. Mark Lawrence was appointed as our Chief Financial Officer, effective as of March 27, 2017.Contents
Mr. Lawrence, 47, served since May 2016 as vice president of finance for the Innovation Center at Vivint Smart Home, a privately owned home automation company. From October 2013 to May 2016, Mr. Lawrence was head of finance at Amazon Lab126, a consumer electronics research and development company that is a subsidiary of Amazon.com. He served from March 2013 to September 2013 as senior vice president of worldwide finance at Polycom, a voice and video communications company, and from 2002 to March 2013 he served in various financial positions at Brocade Communications Systems, a networking hardware, software and services company. Mr. Lawrence holds a bachelor's degree from Brigham Young University and a Master of Business Administration degree from the University of California, Davis.
For information about our other executive officers, see "Executive Officers of the Registrant" in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.
CERTAIN RELATIONSHIPS AND RELATED PERSONRELATED-PERSON TRANSACTIONS
Review and Approval of Related PersonRelated-Person Transactions
Our Audit Committee Charter requires that the Audit Committee review related personrelated-person transactions that are significant in size and relevant to an understanding of our financial statements, and approve or reject such transactions. The Charter further requires the Audit Committee to review the policies and procedures utilized by management for the implementation of such transactions. The Charter provides that the Committee has delegated the review and approval or rejection of related-person employment matters to the Executive Compensation Committee.
We have adopted a written policy and procedures with respect to related personrelated-person transactions, which include specific provisions for the approval of related personrelated-person transactions. Pursuant to this policy, related personrelated-person transactions include a transaction, arrangement or relationship in which we and certain enumerated related persons participate and the amount involved exceeds $25,000.
In the event that a related personrelated-person transaction is identified, it must be reviewed and approved or ratified by our Audit Committee. If it is impracticable for our Audit Committee to review the transaction, the transaction will be reviewed by the chair of our Audit Committee if the amount involved is less than $120,000, whereupon the chair of our Audit Committee will report to the Audit Committee the approval or disapproval of the transaction.
In reviewing and approving related personrelated-person transactions, the Audit Committee or its chair is required to consider all information that the Audit Committee or its chair believes to be reasonable in light of the circumstances. The Audit Committee or its chair, as the case may be, shall approve only those related personrelated-person transactions that are determined to be in, or not inconsistent with, our best interests and those of our stockholders, as the Audit Committee or its chair determines in good faith. No member of the Audit Committee shall participate in any review, consideration or approval of any related personrelated-person transaction with respect to which the member or any of his or her immediate family members has an interest.
Related Person
Related-Person Transactions
Employee Family Members.During 2016,2020, we paid employment compensation in excess of $120,000 to one relative of each of Steve Lund, Ritch Wood, and one relative of Ryan Napierski. Ryan Wood, the brother of Ritch Wood, received approximately $168,500

Eric Lund, the brother of Steve Lund, received approximately $144,000 in salary, bonuses and other compensation, and 1,500 restricted stock units during 2016. Cade Napierski, the brother of Ryan Napierski, received approximately $514,430 in salary, bonuses, expatriate benefits (including an education and housing allowance and other benefits) and other compensation and 700 restricted stock units during 2016. In addition, both Ryan Wood and other compensation and 571 restricted stock units.

Ryan Wood, the brother of Ritch Wood, received approximately $404,000 in salary, bonuses and other compensation, 2,571 restricted stock units and 3,905 performance-based stock options.

Cade Napierski, the brother of Ryan Napierski, received approximately $689,000 in salary, bonuses, expatriate benefits (including an education and housing allowance and other benefits) and other compensation, 1,507 restricted stock units and 2,289 performance-based stock options.
These three individuals also participated in the employee benefit plans available generally to our employees.
 
5852

In June 2016, the company entered into an Investment Agreement with Ping An ZQ China Growth Opportunity Limited ("Ping An ZQ"), a company owned by a consortium
Table of investors led by Ping An of China Securities (Hong Kong) Company Ltd. and ZQ Capital Limited. Pursuant to the Investment Agreement, the company issued to Ping An ZQ $210 million principal amount of convertible 4.75% senior notes due 2020. Interest on the convertible notes is payable semiannually on June 15 and December 15 of each year. Zheqing (Simon) Shen is the founding member of ZQ Capital Limited and a director at Ping An ZQ. He was appointed to our Board, and is a nominee for election to our Board at our 2017 Annual Meeting of Stockholders, pursuant to the terms of the Investment Agreement, which entitles Ping An ZQ to designate a nominee for election to our Board of Directors. Prior to Mr. Shen's appointment to our Board, our Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee interviewed Mr. Shen and found him qualified to serve as a director. In assessing Mr. Shen's independence under the listing standards of the NYSE, our Board of Directors considered Mr. Shen's relationships with Ping An ZQ and ZQ Capital Limited in light of the NYSE standards covering payments to, or received from, other entities. These relationships did not constitute a disqualifying event under such standards and were determined by the Board not to create a material relationship with our company.

STOCK OWNERSHIP INFORMATION
Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management
The following table sets forth certain information regarding the beneficial ownership of our Class A Common Stock as of March 7, 2017 by (i) each of our directors and director nominees, (ii) each of our executive officers whose name appears inApril 5, 2021, except where the Summary Compensation Table, and (iii) all of our executive officers and directors asfootnotes to the table indicate a group. The table also sets forth certain information regarding the beneficial ownership of our Class A Common Stock by Mark H. Lawrence, who has been appointed to become an executive officer as of March 27, 2017, and each person (or group of affiliated persons) who is known by us to own beneficially more than 5% of the outstanding shares of the Class A Common Stock, consisting of BlackRock, Inc. as of December 31, 2016 and The Vanguard Group as of January 31, 2017.different date. Unless otherwise indicated in the footnotes to the table, the stockholders listed have direct beneficial ownership and sole voting and investment power with respect to the shares beneficially owned. For each individual and group included in the table below, percentage ownership is calculated by dividing the number of shares beneficially owned by such person or group by the sum of the 52,779,42250,134,073 shares of Class A Common Stock outstanding on March 7, 2017April 5, 2021 plus the number of shares of Class A Common Stock that such person or group had the right to acquire within 60 days after March 7, 2017.April 5, 2021.
Directors, Executive
Officers, 5% Stockholders
 
Number of Shares(1)
 Percent of Class
M. Truman Hunt 1,026,015 1.9
Steven J. Lund(2)
 497,831 *
Ritch N. Wood(3)
 324,664 *
Joseph Y. Chang(4)
 276,032 *
D. Matthew Dorny(5)
 171,564 *
Ryan S. Napierski 129,522 *
Daniel W. Campbell(6)
 99,995 *
Andrew D. Lipman 96,190 *
Thomas R. Pisano 69,981 *
Nevin N. Andersen 61,481 *
Neil H. Offen 36,770 *
Edwina D. Woodbury(7)
 11,031 *
Zheqing (Simon) Shen(8)
 6,000 *
All directors and executive officers as a group (13 persons) 2,810,858 5.2
Mark H. Lawrence  
BlackRock Inc.(9)
 5,940,882 11.3
The Vanguard Group(10)
 5,534,723 10.5
 
Directors, Executive Officers, 5% Stockholders
Number of
Shares(1)
Percent of
Class
Ritch N. Wood(2)
635,1271.3%
Ryan S. Napierski301,087*
Joseph Y. Chang(3)
300,334*
Steven J. Lund(4)
246,328*
D. Matthew Dorny(5)
189,612*
Daniel W. Campbell(6)
115,822*
Andrew D. Lipman(7)
92,747*
Mark H. Lawrence92,426*
Thomas R. Pisano(8)
65,968*
Zheqing (Simon) Shen16,987*
Edwina D. Woodbury(9)
14,518*
Laura Nathanson6,490*
All directors and executive officers as a group (12 persons)2,077,4454.0%
Emma S. Battle*
BlackRock Inc.(10)
5,271,18810.5%
The Vanguard Group(11)
4,828,2389.6%
Wellington Management Group LLP(12)
3,174,3366.3%
Renaissance Technologies LLC(13)
2,723,5965.4%


*Less than 1%

(1)Includes shares that the above individuals have the right to acquire within 60 days as follows: Mr. HuntWood457,956;495,098; Mr. Napierski – 253,196; Mr. Chang – 220,619; Mr. Lund – 0; Mr. Wood – 269,619; Mr. Chang – 165,548; Mr. Dorny – 130,334; Mr. Napierski – 89,878;156,469; Mr. Campbell – 41,297;23,612; Mr. Lipman – 61,397;23,612; Mr. Lawrence – 72,726; Mr. Pisano – 31,297;18,612; Mr. AndersenShen51,397; Mr. Offen – 31,297;8,612; Ms. Woodbury – 10,000; Mr. Shen8,612; Ms. Nathanson6,000; and3,612; all directors and executive officers as a group – 1,346,019.1,284,780; and Ms. Battle – 0.
(2)
Includes 486,341 shares held by a family limited liability company. Mr. and Mrs. Lund are co-managers of the limited liability company and share voting and investment power with respect to all shares held by the limited liability company. Also includes 6,721 shares held indirectly by Mr. Lund as co‑trustee with respect to which he has shared voting and investment power.
(3)(2)Includes 2,000 shares that Mr. Wood jointly owns with family members.
(4)
(3)Includes 65,00078,068 shares held in a trust for which Mr. Chang'sChang’s spouse serves as trustee.trustee and for which Mr. Chang and his spouse are beneficiaries.
 

(4)Includes 240,692 shares held by a family limited liability company for which Mr. and Mrs. Lund serve as co-managers and share voting and investment power. Also includes 5,636 shares held indirectly by Mr. and Mrs. Lund as co-trustees with respect to which they share voting and investment power.
 
60


(5)Includes 41,23029,559 shares that are held in a revocable trust for which Mr. and Mrs. Dorny act as co-trustees and share voting and investment power.

(6)Includes 58,69882,200 shares that Mr. Campbell jointly owns with his spouse and 10,010 shares held by a family limited liability company owned and controlled by Mr. Campbell and his spouse.

(7)Includes 2,535 shares that Mr. Lipman jointly owns with his spouse and 15,400 shares that are held in a revocable trust for which Mr. Lipman and his spouse act as co-trustees and share voting and investment power.

(8)Includes 47,356 shares that Mr. Pisano jointly owns with his spouse.

(9)In addition to the shares reported in the table above, Ms. Woodbury has elected to defer receipt of an additional 1,2971,459 shares pursuant to the company'scompany’s Deferred Compensation Plan.
(8)
Mr. Shen is a director of Ping An ZQ China Growth Opportunity Limited ("Ping An ZQ"). The number of shares shown above excludes shares issuable upon the conversion of $210 million principal amount of our convertible 4.75% senior notes due 2020 (the "Convertible Notes") held by Ping An ZQ. As of March 1, 2017, the Convertible Notes were convertible at the holder's discretion at a conversion rate of 21.5075 per $1,000 principal amount of Convertible Notes (which represented a conversion price of $46.50 per share). The conversion rate is subject to adjustment from time to time upon the occurrence of certain customary events in accordance with the terms of the indenture governing the Convertible Notes. We have irrevocably elected to settle our conversion obligation with respect to the Convertible Notes in cash with respect to the principal amount of Convertible Notes converted and any accrued and unpaid interest to such date, and in shares of our Class A Common Stock with respect to any additional amounts so long as the Convertible Notes are held by Ping An ZQ. Mr. Shen disclaims beneficial ownership of the securities held by Ping An ZQ, except to the extent of Mr. Shen's pecuniary interest therein, if any.
(9)(10)The information regarding the number of shares beneficially owned or deemed to be beneficially owned by BlackRock, Inc. was taken fromBased on a Schedule 13G/A filed by that entityBlackRock, Inc. with the Securities and Exchange CommissionSEC on January 17, 2017.27, 2021 and disclosing ownership information as of December 31, 2020. According to the Schedule 13G/A, BlackRock, Inc. has sole voting power for 5,729,4555,092,390 shares and sole dispositive power for 5,940,8825,271,188 shares. The address of BlackRock, Inc. is 55 East 52nd Street, New York, NY 10055.
(10)
The information regarding the number of shares beneficially owned or deemed to be beneficially owned by The Vanguard Group was taken from(11)Based on a Schedule 13G/A filed by that entityThe Vanguard Group with the Securities and Exchange CommissionSEC on February 10, 2017.2021 and disclosing ownership information as of December 31, 2020. According to the Schedule 13G/A, The Vanguard Group has sole voting power for 31,7850 shares, sole dispositive power for 5,499,4154,752,826 shares, shared voting power for 6,42334,155 shares, and shared dispositive power for 35,30875,412 shares. The address of The Vanguard Group is 100 Vanguard Blvd, Malvern, PA 19355.

(12)Based on a Schedule 13G/A filed by Wellington Management Group LLP and related entities with the SEC on February 4, 2021 and disclosing ownership information as of December 31, 2020. According to the Schedule 13G/A, Wellington Management Group LLP and related entities beneficially own shares as follows:
Entity
Shared Voting
Power
Shared
Dispositive
Power
Aggregate
Amount
Beneficially
Owned
Wellington Management Group LLP2,949,7653,174,3363,174,336
Wellington Group Holdings LLP2,949,7653,174,3363,174,336
Wellington Investment Advisors Holdings LLP2,949,7653,174,3363,174,336
Wellington Management Company LLP2,883,7743,037,9123,037,912

The address of these entities is c/o Wellington Management Company LLP, 280 Congress Street, Boston, MA 02210.

(13)Based on a Schedule 13G filed by Renaissance Technologies LLC and a related entity with the SEC on February 10, 2021 and disclosing ownership information as of November 12, 2020. According to the Schedule 13G, both Renaissance Technologies LLC and Renaissance Technologies Holdings Corporation, as the majority owner of Renaissance Technologies LLC, have sole voting power for 2,720,796 shares and sole dispositive power for 2,723,596 shares. The address of both entities is 800 Third Avenue, New York, New York 10022.
Delinquent Section 16(a) Beneficial Ownership Reporting ComplianceReports
Section 16(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, requires our directors, executive officers and persons who beneficially own more than 10% of our Class A Common Stock ("Reporting Persons") to file reports with the Securities and Exchange CommissionSEC regarding their ownership of our Class A Common Stock and changes in that ownership. As a practical matter, the company assists its directors and executive officers by monitoring transactions and completing and filing Section 16(a) reports on their behalf. Based solely on a review of the reports filed for 2016during or with respect to 2020 and on written representations from our directors and executive officers, we believe that all required reports under Section 16(a) were filed on a timely basis.basis, except for (i) one late report for Ms. Woodbury related to one transaction; and (ii) one late report for Mr. Lipman related to four dividend reinvestment transactions that occurred during 2018 for a total of 35 shares.
6154

STOCKHOLDER PROPOSALS FOR 20182022 ANNUAL MEETING
In order for a stockholder proposal to be considered for inclusion in our proxy statement for our 20182022 annual meeting, the written proposal must be received at our principal executive offices no later than the close of business on November 28, 2017.December 22, 2021. Proposals should be addressed to: Corporate Secretary, Nu Skin Enterprises, Inc., 75 West Center Street, Provo, Utah 84601. Such proposals also will need to comply with the requirements contained in our Bylaws and Securities and Exchange CommissionSEC regulations regarding the inclusion of stockholder proposals in company-sponsored proxy materials.
Our Bylaws require that
Any stockholder proposal, including any stockholder proposaldirector nomination, that is not submitted for inclusion in our 20182022 proxy statement under Securities and Exchange CommissionSEC regulations, but is instead sought to be presented directly at our 20182022 annual meeting, must be received by the Corporate Secretary at the above address not less than 90 days prior to the one-year anniversary of the date on which we first mailed our proxy materials in connection with our 2016 annual meeting. Thus, since March 28, 2017 is specified as the date that this proxy statement is first sent or given to our stockholders, in order for any stockholder proposal submitted under these Bylaw provisions, including any director nomination, to be timely for our 2018 annual meeting, it must be received by us no later than December 28, 2017 (i.e., 90 days prior to March 28, 2018).January 21, 2022. However, if the date of our 20182022 annual meeting is changed by more than 30 days from the one-year anniversary of our 20172021 Annual Meeting, a stockholder'sstockholder’s notice must be received by our Corporate Secretary at the above address not later than the close of business on the later of (a) the 90th day before the 20182022 annual meeting or (b) the 10th day following the day on which public announcement of the date of such meeting is first made. In addition, if the number of directors to be elected is increased and there has been no public announcement naming all of the nominees for director or indicating the increase in the size of the Board at least 10 days before the last day a stockholder may deliver a notice of nomination in accordance with the preceding sentences, then with respect to nominees for any new positions created by such increase, the notice must be received by the Corporate Secretary at the above address no later than the close business on the 10th day following the day on which public announcement is first made by us. In addition, all notices must meet all information and other requirements contained in our Bylaws.
A stockholder may contact our Corporate Secretary at our headquarters for
To obtain a copy of the relevant Bylaw provisions regarding the requirements for making stockholder proposals and nominating director candidates.candidates, a stockholder may contact our Corporate Secretary at our headquarters, 75 West Center Street, Provo, Utah 84601.
HOUSEHOLDING
We may deliver a single notice of internet availability or set of proxy materials to an address shared by two or more of our stockholders. This delivery method, referred to as "householding,"“householding,” can result in significant cost savings for us. To take advantage of this opportunity, the company and banks and brokerage firms that hold your shares may deliver only one notice of internet availability or set of proxy materials to multiple stockholders who share an address unless one or more of the stockholders has provided contrary instructions. The company will deliver promptly, upon written or oral request, a separate copy of the notice of internet availability or set of proxy materials to a stockholder at a shared address to which a single copy of the documents was delivered. A stockholder who wishes to receive a separate notice of internet availability or set of proxy materials, now or in the future, may obtain one, without charge, by addressing a request to Investor Relations, Nu Skin Enterprises, Inc., 75 West Center Street, Provo, Utah 84601 or by calling (801) 345-1000. Stockholders of record sharing an address who are receiving multiple copies of these materials and wish to receive a single copy of such materials in the future should submit their request by contacting us in the same manner. If you are the beneficial owner, but not the record holder, of the company'scompany’s shares and wish to receive only one copy of the notice of internet availability or set of proxy materials in the future, you will need to contact your broker, bank or other nominee to request that only a single copy of each document be mailed to all stockholders at the shared address in the future.
 
CAUTIONARY STATEMENT REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS
This proxy statement contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, that represent the company'scompany’s current expectations and beliefs. All statements other than statements of historical fact are "forward-looking statements"“forward-looking statements” for purposes of federal and state securities laws and include, but are not limited to, statements of belief and statements of management'smanagement’s expectations regarding the company's strategies, initiatives and future management, as well as statements regarding future compensation decisions and performance. In some cases, you can identify these statements by forward-looking words such as "believe," "expect," "project," "anticipate," "appoint," "estimate," "intend," "plan," "targets," "likely," "will," "would," "could," "may," "might,"“believe,” “expect,” “anticipate,” “determine,” “estimate,” “intend,” “plan,” “targets,” “likely,” “will,” “would,” “could,” “may,” “might,” the negative of these words and other similar words. The forward-looking statements and related assumptions involve risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results and outcomes to differ materially from any forward-looking statements or views expressed herein. These risks and uncertainties include, but are not limited to, political, legal, tax and regulatory uncertainties; any failure of current or planned initiatives or products to generate interest among the company’s sales force and customers and generate sponsoring and selling activities on a sustained basis; competitive pressures for personnel; and the possibility that management or the Executive Compensation Committee could decide not to follow the company'scompany’s compensation program as described in the Compensation Discussion and Analysis. The company'scompany’s performance and the forward-looking statements contained herein are further qualified by a detailed discussion of associated risks set forth in the documents filed by the company with the Securities and Exchange Commission.SEC. The forward-looking statements set forth the company'scompany’s beliefs as of the date that such information was first provided, and the company assumes no duty to update the forward-looking statements contained in this proxy statement to reflect any change except as required by law.
OTHER MATTERS
As of the date of this Proxy Statement,proxy statement, the Board of Directors knows of no other matters to be brought before the Annual Meeting. If you return your signed and completed proxy card or vote by telephone or on the internet and other matters are properly brought before the Annual Meeting or any adjournment or postponement thereof, the persons named in the enclosed proxy will have discretionary authority to vote for you on such matters in accordance with their best judgment, acting together or separately.
A copy of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016,2020, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, without exhibits, may be obtained by stockholders without charge by written request to Investor Relations, Nu Skin Enterprises, Inc., 75 West Center Street, Provo, Utah 84601. A copy of the Annual Report on Form 10-K is also available on our Investor Relations website nuskinenterprises.com.at ir.nuskin.com. Exhibits will be provided upon written request and payment of an appropriate processing fee.
By Order of the Board of Directors,

STEVEN J. LUND
Chairman of the Board
Provo, Utah March 17, 2017