Skip to content Skip to footer

Compensation Discussion and Analysis

Introduction

This Compensation Discussion and Analysis describes our executive compensation philosophy and program, the compensation decisions the HRC Committee has made under the program, and the considerations in making those decisions in fiscal 2019.

Named Executive Officers

Our NEOs for fiscal 2019 are:

  • Dion J. Weisler, former President and CEO;
  • Steven J. Fieler, Chief Financial Officer;
  • Enrique J. Lores, President and CEO and former President, Imaging, Printing and Solutions;
  • Kim M. Rivera, President, Strategy and Business Management and Chief Legal Officer; and
  • Alex Cho, President, Personal Systems.

Following the end of fiscal 2019, Mr. Weisler stepped down as our President and CEO on November 1, 2019, and Mr. Lores was appointed to the role. Upon stepping down from such positions, Mr. Weisler continues to be employed by the Company as Senior Executive Advisor, a non-executive officer role, through our 2020 Annual Meeting of Stockholders. Mr. Weisler will also continue to serve as a member of the Board of Directors until the Company’s 2020 Annual Meeting of Stockholders.

Executive Summary

The HRC Committee continues to review and refine our compensation programs to support our evolving business strategy and attract high caliber executive talent. The HRC Committee’s assessment includes regular stockholder engagement and consideration of stockholder feedback. HP’s fiscal 2019 executive compensation structure remained the same as its fiscal 2018 program.

Below are brief highlights of key compensation decisions with respect to NEOs:

We provided competitive target pay opportunities, where amounts and mix were consistent with peers and stable year over year.

Target total direct compensation (“TDC”) consists of base salary, percent-of-salary target annual incentives that would be earned for achieving 100% of goals, and long-term incentive grant-date value. NEO base salaries were unchanged for fiscal 2019, except a 7.4% promotional increase for Ms. Rivera upon being appointed President, Strategy and Business Management in addition to her ongoing role as Chief Legal Officer and Secretary, plus a 3.6% market adjustment for Mr. Weisler, HP’s President and CEO. Target annual incentives were unchanged at 200% of salary for Mr. Weisler and 125% of salary for each of the other NEOs. Regular long-term incentive grant values increased moderately consistent with the market.

We aligned real pay delivery with performance through rigorous goal setting and performance measurement.

While our target TDC opportunities reflect market practice, our real pay delivery reflects performance. Annual incentives reward short-term performance measured against applicable enterprise-wide, business unit, and individual goals. Goals were set for the overall Company and businesses against internal budgets for GAAP net revenues, adjusted non-GAAP net earnings/profit, and non-GAAP free cash flow as a percent of revenue. Non-financial individual performance goals under the Management by Objectives (“MBO”) program were set for each NEO. Meanwhile, regular annual long-term incentive grants were approximately 60% in PARSUs that reward strategic performance measured by relative TSR compared to the S&P 500 and EPS measured in two and three year overlapping segments as explained on pages 49-50; the remaining 40% is in RSUs that are primarily for ownership and retention with the delivered value tied to stock price and reinvested dividend equivalents.

NEOs earned annual incentives averaging 117.2% of target for fiscal 2019. Individual bonuses varied from 93.2% to 150.7% of target and HP’s President & CEO was at 111.5%. The Company achieved above-target results with respect to HP adjusted non-GAAP net earnings/profit and non-GAAP free cash flow as a percentage of revenue. GAAP net revenue results were below target. Further, NEOs successfully delivered against their MBOs as detailed on pages 47-48.

NEOs received payout for Segment 1 FY18 and Segment 2 FY17 PARSUs (measurement periods ending in fiscal 2019). EPS FY18 and EPS FY19 were above target. Fiscal 2017-2019 relative TSR approximated the 35th percentile of the S&P 500. Fiscal 2018-2019 relative TSR approximated the 15th percentile of the S&P 500.

We regularly engaged with and listened to stockholders, practiced strong governance, and mitigated potential compensation-related risks.

Our executive compensation program is continuously reviewed for peer group alignment and strategic relevance as part of a process that includes ongoing stockholder engagement. At the annual meeting in 2019, our say-on-pay proposal was approved by over 93% of the voted shares, indicating strong stockholder support. Consequently, changes have not been extensive. To ensure alignment with our three-year financial plan, we have moved our long-term performance-based incentives (PARSUs) to a single three-year performance period with full vesting only after three years of service and achievement of financial goals for that timeframe. We are also changing relative TSR from a standalone measure to a “modifier” on earnouts determined based on the three-year performance period. We feel that this will increase focus on line-of-sight strategic performance while continuing close alignment between stockholder value creation and real pay delivery.​

We transitioned to a new HP President & CEO at the start of fiscal 2020, successfully executing the Board’s succession-planning process.

After a robust, in-depth succession planning assessment, Mr. Lores was appointed as President and CEO effective November 1, 2019. Mr. Lores’s initial target TDC was set moderately below the peer group median and the HRC Committee’s intent is to move him to the median or above median over the period of the next two-or-three years based on Company and individual performance. Mr. Lores did not receive a promotion grant or any special rewards in connection to his appointment as President and CEO.

Executive Compensation Program Oversight and Authority

Role of the HRC Committee and its Advisor

The HRC Committee continued to retain FW Cook as its independent consultant during fiscal 2019, and to work with them and management on all aspects of our pay program for senior executives. The HRC Committee makes recommendations regarding the CEO’s compensation to the independent members of the Board for approval, and reviews and approves the compensation of the remaining Section 16 officers, including our NEOs. Each HRC Committee member is an independent non-employee Director with significant experience in executive compensation matters.

The HRC Committee continually considers feedback from stockholders and the potential executive compensation implications of evolving business and strategic objectives. Based on these considerations, the HRC determined that it would be appropriate to make some fine-tuning changes in the program structure for 2020 (described further on page 51) that we believe are in our stockholders’ interests. We believe that our current compensation structure and proposed changes incent and reward achievement of specific goals, reinforce year-over-year results and provide an attractive pay-for-performance opportunity that encourages retention and leadership engagement.

FW Cook provides analyses and recommendations that inform the HRC Committee’s decisions; identifies peer group companies for competitive market comparisons; evaluates market pay data and competitive-position benchmarking; provides analyses and inputs on program structure, performance measures, and goals; provides updates on market trends and the regulatory environment as it relates to executive compensation; reviews various management proposals presented to the HRC Committee related to executive and Director compensation; and works with the HRC Committee to validate and strengthen the pay-for-performance relationship and alignment with stockholder interests. FW Cook does not perform other services for HP and will not do so without the prior consent of the HRC Committee chair. FW Cook meets with the HRC Committee chair and the HRC Committee outside the presence of management while in executive session.

The HRC Committee met six times in fiscal 2019, and all six of these meetings included an executive session. FW Cook participated in five of the meetings and, when requested by the HRC Committee chair, in the preparatory meetings and the executive sessions.

Role of Management and the CEO in Setting Executive Compensation

The CEO recommends compensation for Section 16 officers, including NEOs other than himself, for approval by the HRC Committee. The Board considered market competitiveness, business results, experience, and individual performance when evaluating fiscal 2019 NEO compensation and the overall compensation structure. The Chief Human Resources Officer and other members of our executive compensation team, together with members of our finance and legal organizations, work with the CEO to design and develop the compensation program, to recommend changes to existing program provisions applicable to NEOs and other senior executives, as well as financial and other targets to be achieved under those programs, prepare analyses of financial data, peer comparisons and other briefing materials to assist the HRC Committee in making its decisions, and implement the decisions of the HRC Committee.

During fiscal 2019, management continued to engage Meridian Compensation Partners, LLC (“Meridian”) as its compensation consultant. The HRC Committee took into consideration that Meridian provided executive compensation-related services to management when it evaluated any information and analyses provided by Meridian, all of which were also independently reviewed by FW Cook, as applicable, on the HRC Committee’s behalf.

During fiscal 2019, Mr. Weisler provided input to the HRC Committee regarding performance metrics and the setting of appropriate performance targets for his direct reports. Mr. Weisler also recommended MBOs for the NEOs (other than himself) and the other senior executives who report directly to him. Mr. Weisler is subject to the same financial performance goals as the executives who lead global functions, and Mr. Weisler’s MBOs and compensation are established by the HRC Committee and recommended to the independent members of the Board for approval.

Use of Comparative Compensation Data and Compensation Philosophy

The HRC Committee reviews the compensation of our Section 16 officers in comparison to that of executives in similar positions at our peer group companies. Our peer group includes companies we compete with for executive talent due to our geographical proximity and technology industry overlap. The HRC Committee takes size differentiations into consideration when reviewing the results of market data analysis. The HRC Committee uses this information to evaluate how our pay levels and practices compare to market practices.

When determining the peer group, the following characteristics were considered:

  • Direct talent market peers.
  • US-based companies in the technology sector (excluding distributors, contract manufacturers and outsourced services/IT consulting) with revenues between ~$10 billion and $250 billion and market cap between ~$7 billion and $175 billion.
  • Select general industry companies (industrials, consumer products and telecom) generally meeting size and business criteria that are top-brands.
  • Review of the peer companies chosen by companies within our proposed peer group and peer business similarity, to evaluate relevance.

We believe the resulting peer group provides HP and the HRC Committee with a valid comparison and benchmark for the Company’s executive compensation program and governance practices. For fiscal 2019, the HRC Committee added Apple (direct peer) and Micron Technology (size-appropriate technology company). The HRC Committee also removed Amazon, Procter & Gamble and Verizon as all exceeded size range and were not direct peers. The HP peer group for fiscal 2019, as approved by HRC Committee, consisted of the following companies:

Fiscal 2019 Peer Group
*

Represents fiscal 2019 reported revenue, except fiscal 2018 reported revenue is provided for General Electric, Honeywell, IBM, Intel, PepsiCo, Texas Instruments and Xerox.

Process for Setting and Awarding Executive Compensation

A broad range of facts and circumstances are considered in setting our overall executive compensation levels. In fiscal 2019, the HRC Committee continued to set target compensation levels within a competitive range of the market median, although in some cases lower or higher based on each executive’s situation (e.g., attraction and retention of critical talent). The Board maintains a total CEO target compensation package that approximates the median of our competitive market and is consistent with our pay positioning strategy and pay-for-performance philosophy.

The primary factors considered when determining pay opportunities for our NEOs are market competitiveness, internal equity, and individual performance. The weight given to each factor is not formulaic and may differ from year to year or by individual NEO. For example, when we recruit externally, market competitiveness, experience, and the candidate-specific circumstances may weigh more heavily in the compensation decision process. In contrast, when determining year-over-year compensation changes for current NEOs, internal equity and individual performance may factor more heavily in the decision.

The HRC Committee spends significant time determining the appropriate goals for our annual and long-term incentive plans, which make up the majority of NEO compensation. Management makes an initial recommendation of the goals, which is then assessed by the HRC Committee’s independent compensation consultant and discussed and approved by the HRC Committee. Major factors considered in setting financial goals for each fiscal year are business results from the most recently completed fiscal year, budgets and strategic plans, macroeconomic factors, guidance and analyst expectations, industry performance, conditions or goals specific to a particular business segment, and strategic initiatives. MBOs are set based on major shared and individual strategic, operating, and tactical initiatives.

Following the close of the fiscal year, the HRC Committee reviews actual financial results and MBO performance against the goals that it had set for the applicable plans for that year, with payouts under the plans determined based on performance against the established goals. The HRC Committee meets in executive session to review the MBO performance of the CEO and to determine a recommendation for his annual PfR incentive award to be approved by the independent members of the Board. See “2019 Annual Incentives” below for a further description of our results and corresponding incentive payouts.

Listening to our Stockholders on Compensation

We regularly engage with our stockholders on a variety of issues, including their views on best practices in executive compensation. The following changes to our executive compensation program, shown here, reflect those conversations with stockholders.

  • Starting with new grants in fiscal 2020, to ensure alignment with our three-year financial plan, we have moved our long-term performance-based incentives (PARSUs) to a single three-year performance period with full vesting only after three years of service and achievement of financial goals for that timeframe. We are also changing relative TSR from a standalone measure to a “modifier” on earnouts determined based on the three-year performance period. We feel that this will increase focus on line-of-sight strategic performance while continuing close alignment between stockholder value creation and real pay delivery.
  • Some changes during the last few years that reflect conversations with stockholders include the following:
    • Increased focus on enterprise-wide GAAP net revenue and adjusted non-GAAP net earnings/profit in our annual PfR incentive plan to encourage greater collaboration and teamwork among business leaders.
    • Replaced Return on Invested Capital (“ROIC”) with EPS in our PARSU grants for stronger alignment with stockholder interests and because it is a more appropriate measure for HP after the separation of HPE.

At the 2019 annual meeting, our annual say-on-pay proposal received the support of over 93% of the votes cast. As part of its 2019 executive compensation discussions, the HRC Committee reviewed the advisory vote result and considered it to be supportive of the Company’s compensation practices.

Determination of Fiscal 2019 Executive Compensation

Under our Total Rewards Program, executive compensation consists of: base salary, annual incentives, long-term incentives, benefits, and perquisites.

The HRC Committee regularly explores ways to improve our executive compensation program by considering stockholder feedback, our current business needs and strategy, and peer group practices. For 2019 the Committee decided to maintain a consistent compensation structure for executives since it supports our business strategy and aligns pay with stockholder interests.

2019 Base Salary

Our executives receive a small percentage of their overall compensation in the form of base salary, which is consistent with our philosophy of tying the majority of pay to performance. The NEOs are paid an amount in the form of base salary sufficient to attract qualified executive talent and maintain a stable management team.

The HRC Committee aims to set executive base salaries at or near the market median for comparable positions. In fiscal 2019, salaries comprise on average 11% of our NEOs’ overall compensation, consistent with our peers. To decide the CEO’s salary, the HRC Committee reviews analyses and recommendations provided by FW Cook.

For fiscal 2019, Mr. Weisler’s salary was increased from $1.4 million to $ 1.45 million to recognize his contributions and better align with the market median. For fiscal 2019, the HRC Committee did not change the base salary for Mr. Fieler, Mr. Lores or Mr. Cho. During fiscal 2018, Mr. Fieler’s base salary had been increased to $690,000 during July 2018 and Mr. Cho’s base salary had been increased to $675,000 during June 2018 in conjunction with their promotions to CFO and President, Personal Systems, respectively. Ms. Rivera’s base salary was increased from $675,000 to $725,000 due to her new responsibilities as President, Strategy and Business Management while retaining her role as Chief Legal Officer and Secretary.

Changes in Base Salary

Executive Fiscal Year-end
2018 Base Salary
Fiscal 2019
Base Salary
Percentage
Change
Dion Weisler $ 1,400,000 $ 1,450,000 +3.6%
Steven Fieler $ 690,000 $ 690,000 +0.0%
Enrique Lores $ 750,000 $ 750,000 +0.0%
Kim Rivera $ 675,000 $ 725,000 +7.4%
Alex Cho $ 675,000 $ 675,000 +0.0%

2019 Annual Incentives

The fiscal 2019 annual PfR incentive plan consisted of the following three core financial metrics: GAAP net revenue, adjusted non-GAAP net earnings/profit, and non-GAAP free cash flow as a percentage of revenue. A fourth metric, MBOs, was used to further drive individual performance and achievement of key strategic goals. Each metric was weighted at 25% of the target award value. Each individual metric may fund up to 250% of target; however, the maximum annual PfR incentive for each executive is capped at 200% of target.

The target annual PfR incentive awards for fiscal 2019 were set at 200% of salary for the CEO and 125% of salary for the other NEOs.

For fiscal 2019, the HRC Committee again established an “umbrella” formula governing the maximum bonus and then exercised negative discretion in setting actual bonuses. Under the umbrella formula, each Section 16 officer (including each NEO) was allocated a pro rata share of 0.75% of adjusted non-GAAP net earnings based on his or her target annual PfR incentive award, subject to a maximum bonus of 200% of the NEO’s target bonus, and the maximum $15 million individual cap under the Stock Incentive Plan. Below this umbrella funding structure, actual payouts were determined based upon financial metrics and MBOs established and evaluated by the HRC Committee for Section 16 officers (including each NEO) and by the independent members of the Board for the CEO.

Fiscal 2019 Annual Incentive Plan

Key Design Elements Corporate Goals MBOs % Payout
Metric(2)
(%)
GAAP Net
Revenue
($ in billions)
Adjusted Non-
GAAP Net
Earnings/Profit
($ in billions)
Non-GAAP Free
Cash Flow as a
% of Revenue(1)
(%)
Weight 25 % 25 % 25 % 25 %  
Linkage                  
Global Functions Executives(3) Corporate   Corporate   Corporate   Individual    
Business Unit (“BU”) Executives(4) Corporate/BU   Corporate/BU   Corporate   Individual    
Corporate Performance Goals                  
Maximum       Various   250
Target $60.0   $3.7   6.33 % Various   100
Threshold       Various   0
(1)

Maximum funding for non-GAAP free cash flow as a percentage of revenue is capped at 150% of target if adjusted non-GAAP net earnings/profit achievement was below target and is capped at 100% of target if adjusted non-GAAP net earnings/profit achievement was below threshold. If adjusted non-GAAP net earnings/profit achievement was above target, the maximum funding level is 250% for this metric. Maximum and threshold information are not disclosed because such disclosure would result in competitive harm. However, goals are set at levels we believe to be achievable in connection with strong performance.

(2)

Interpolated for performance between discrete points. Each individual metric may fund up to 250% of target; however, the maximum annual PfR incentive for each executive is capped at 200% of target. As a general administrative discretionary guideline, the HRC Committee may decide that financial funding for Global Functions Executives, including the CEO, cannot exceed the highest funding for a Business Unit Executive.

(3)
The Global Functions Executives include Mr. Weisler, Mr. Fieler and Ms. Rivera.
(4)

The Business Unit Executives includes Mr. Lores and Mr. Cho. Specific Business Unit GAAP net revenue and adjusted non-GAAP net earnings/profit goals are not disclosed because such disclosure would result in competitive harm. However, goals are set at levels we believe to be achievable in connection with strong performance.

The specific metrics, their linkage to corporate results, and the weighting that was placed on each were chosen because the HRC Committee believed that:

  • Performance against these metrics, in combination, enhances value for stockholders, capturing both the top and bottom line, as well as cash and capital efficiency.
  • A balanced weighting of metrics limits the likelihood of rewarding executives for excessive risk-taking.
  • Different measures avoid paying for the same performance twice.
  • MBOs enhance focus on business objectives, such as operational objectives, strategic initiatives, succession planning, and people development, which are important to the long-term success of the Company.

The following chart sets forth the definition of and rationale for each of the financial performance metrics that was used for the Fiscal 2019 Annual Incentive Plan:

Financial Performance Metrics Definition   Rationale for Metric
GAAP Net Revenue Net revenue as reported in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for fiscal 2019   Reflects top line financial performance, which is a strong indicator of our long-term ability to drive stockholder value
GAAP Business Revenue Segment net revenue as reported in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for fiscal 2019  
Adjusted Non-GAAP Net
Earnings(1)
Non-GAAP net earnings, as defined and reported in our fourth quarter fiscal 2019 earnings press release (of $3.4 billion in fiscal 2019) and summarized in footnote (1) below, further adjusted by excluding bonus net of income tax   Reflects bottom line financial performance, which is directly tied to stockholder value on a short-term basis
Non-GAAP Business Net
Profit (“BNP”)
Business net profit, excluding bonus net of income tax  
Non-GAAP Free Cash Flow as a Percentage of Revenue(2) Cash flow from operations less the net of investments in and proceeds from sales of property, plant and equipment, as reported in our fourth quarter fiscal 2019 earnings press release and summarized in footnote (2) below divided by net revenue as reported in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for fiscal 2019 (expressed as a percentage of revenue)   Reflects efficiency of cash management practices, including working capital and capital expenditures
(1)

As summarized above, Adjusted non-GAAP net earnings is a non-GAAP measure that is defined as GAAP net earnings (of $3.2 billion in fiscal 2019), which excludes (i) after-tax costs of $257 million related to restructuring and other charges, acquisition-related charges, amortization of intangible assets, non-operating retirement-related credits/(charges), and tax adjustments as well as (ii) bonus net of income tax. Management uses adjusted non-GAAP net earnings to evaluate and forecast our performance before gains, losses, or other charges that are considered by management to be outside of our core business segment operating results. We believe that presenting adjusted non-GAAP net earnings provides investors with greater visibility with respect to the information used by management in its financial and operational decision making. We further believe that providing this additional non-GAAP information helps investors understand our operating performance and evaluate the efficacy of the methodology and information used by management to evaluate and measure such performance. This additional non-GAAP information is not intended to be considered in isolation or as a substitute for GAAP diluted net earnings.

(2)

As summarized above, non-GAAP free cash flow is a non-GAAP measure that is defined as cash flow from operations ($4.7 billion in fiscal 2019) less the net of investments in and proceeds from sales of property, plant, and equipment ($0.7 in fiscal 2019). HP’s management uses non-GAAP free cash flow for the purpose of determining the amount of cash available for investment in HP’s businesses, repurchasing stock and other purposes. HP’s management also uses non-GAAP free cash flow to evaluate HP’s historical and prospective liquidity.

Following fiscal 2019, the HRC Committee reviewed performance against the financial metrics and certified the results as follows:

Fiscal 2019 Annual PfR Incentive Performance Against Financial Metrics(1,2)

Metric Weight(3) Target
($ in billions)
Result
($ in billions)
Percentage of Target
Annual Incentive Funded
GAAP Net Revenue   25.0 % $ 60.0   $ 58.8   19.8 %
Adjusted Non-GAAP Net Earnings 25.0 % $ 3.7   $ 3.8   25.8 %
Non-GAAP Free Cash Flow (% of revenue) 25.0 %   6.33 %   6.78 % 45.9 %
Total 75.0 %             91.5 %
(1)

Mr. Weisler, Mr. Fieler and Ms. Rivera received annual PfR incentive payments based on corporate financial metrics. Mr. Lores and Mr. Cho received an annual PfR incentive payment based on corporate and business financial metrics.

(2)

As a general administrative discretionary guideline, the HRC Committee may decide that financial funding for Global Functions Executives, including the CEO, cannot exceed the highest funding for a Business Unit Executive.

(3)

The financial metrics were equally weighted to account for 75% of the target annual PfR incentive.

Mr. Weisler. At the end of the fiscal year, the independent members of the Board evaluated Mr. Weisler’s performance against all of his MBOs, which included, but were not limited to: setting strategic direction for the Company based on optimizing stockholder value, maintaining supplies stabilization, growing profitable share in Personal Systems, engaging with all major constituents including financial analysts, media, key governmental figures, partners and customers to execute the HP strategy, and ensuring HP has a robust evaluation and talent program. After conducting a thorough review of Mr. Weisler’s performance, the independent members of the Board determined that his MBO performance reflected a number of accomplishments but overall had been achieved below target due to Print supplies performance. Mr. Weisler had strong accomplishments, including the following:

  • Maintained the three-pronged Core, Growth, and Future strategy, designed to drive employees across the world towards a common goal.
  • Expanded Personal Systems revenue in profitable categories and the attach category initiatives.
  • Accelerated 3D print business through development of industrial go-to-market, applications and focus on key verticals.
  • Developed and managed an effective plan to address key regulatory/political changes as well as to mitigate US trade/tariff impacts.
  • Executed a plan to consistently engage with channel partners, customers, and ecosystem partners to ensure he was getting direct feedback on the HP strategy and product portfolio to enable appropriate adjustments.
  • Continued to invest across all three waves (Core, Growth and Future) in each business.
  • Drove digital transformation and created a core competency in software, data analytics and machine learning.
  • Kept the organization updated and motivated, from the leadership team to the broader employee population, to ensure that all understood the strategy and priorities. Cultivated a growth mindset across the organization with extreme customer focus.
  • Reinvented go-to-market and customer engagement models to address dramatic shift in buying behaviors.
  • Continued implementation of modern ERP platform with development of standardized and simplified processes.
  • Worked closely with external advisors to develop future strategy and a roadmap to accelerate value creation for customers, partners and stockholders.
  • Worked with the Independent Chair to set the annual Board and Committee objectives, priorities and the Board/Committee meeting agendas.

As CEO, Mr. Weisler evaluated the performance of each of the other Section 16 officers (including each of the other NEOs) and presented the results of those evaluations to the HRC Committee at its November 2019 meeting. The evaluations included an analysis of the officers’ performance against all of their MBOs. The HRC Committee reviewed the CEO’s assessment of the degree of attainment of the MBOs of the other Section 16 officers and set their MBO scores. The results of these evaluations for the other NEOs are summarized below.

Mr. Fieler. The HRC Committee determined that Mr. Fieler’s MBOs performance had been achieved below target due to Print supplies performance. Overall, Mr. Fieler demonstrated strategic, thoughtful and engaged leadership in running the Finance function. His strong operational perspective supported the Company through business changes. Mr. Fieler has strong relationships with the investor relations community and is critical to ensuring our results deliver against financial expectations.

Mr. Lores. The HRC Committee determined that Mr. Lores’s MBOs performance had been achieved below target due to Print supplies performance. Mr. Lores did continue reinventing the Print business with a focus on differentiated innovation, business model transformation and strategic M&A.Over the past year, Mr. Lores did a remarkable job working with the HP Board on a comprehensive global review of the Company strategy and business operations, with a focus on simplifying its operating model, evolving its business models and driving significant improvement in its cost structure while making the Company more digitally enabled and customer centric.

Ms. Rivera. The HRC Committee determined that Ms. Rivera’s MBO performance had been achieved above target. Ms. Rivera worked closely with the businesses on critical matters such as supplies infringements, counterfeit seizures and IP protection. She did an excellent job on corporate governance, tariffs, investigations, launching the “Transformation Management Office” and customer service transformation initiatives. Ms. Rivera is a well-respected leader with a strong understanding of commercial decisions and is a strong partner in business, technology and governance matters.

Mr. Cho. The HRC Committee determined that Mr. Cho’s MBO performance had been achieved above target. Despite the various challenges in the marketplace, Mr. Cho did an excellent job in delivering profits and steady revenue progress. He did a remarkable job in the introduction and roll out of new products such as Dragonfly in Asia. Mr. Cho is a thoughtful and well respected leader in the organization with a strong team to drive the business appropriately.

Based on the findings of these performance evaluations, the HRC Committee (and, in the case of the CEO, the independent members of the Board) evaluated performance against the non-financial metrics for the NEOs as follows:

Fiscal 2019 Annual PfR Incentive Performance Against Non-Financial Metrics (MBOs)

Named Executive Officer Weight
(%)
Percentage of Target
Annual Incentive
Funded
(%)
Dion J. Weisler 25.0 20.0
Steven J. Fieler 25.0 20.0
Enrique J. Lores 25.0 20.0
Kim M. Rivera 25.0 27.5
Alex Cho 25.0 37.5

Based on the level of performance described above on both the financial and non-financial metrics for fiscal 2019, the payouts to the NEOs under the annual PfR incentive were as follows:

Fiscal 2019 Annual PfR Incentive Payout

Named Executive Officer Percentage of Target
Annual Incentive Funded

 
Total Annual
Incentive Payout
Financial
Metrics
(%)
Non-Financial
Metrics
(%)
As % of Target
Annual Incentive
(%)
Payout
($)
Dion J. Weisler 91.5 20.0   111.5 3,233,533
Steven J. Fieler 91.5 20.0   111.5 961,697
Enrique J. Lores 73.2 20.0   93.2 873,522
Kim M. Rivera 91.5 27.5   119.0 1,078,448
Alex Cho 113.2 37.5   150.7 1,271,882

Long-term Incentive Compensation

The HRC Committee established a total long-term incentive target value for each NEO in early fiscal 2019 that was 60% weighted in the form of PARSUs and 40% weighted in the form of time-based RSUs. The high proportion of performance-based awards reflects our pay-for-performance philosophy. The time-based awards support retention and are linked to stockholder value and ownership, which are important goals of our executive compensation program.

2019 PARSUs

The fiscal 2019 PARSUs have the same structure as used in the fiscal 2017 and fiscal 2018 PARSUs. Fiscal 2019 PARSUs have a two- and three-year vesting period, subject to one-, two-, and three-year performance periods that began at the start of fiscal 2019 and continue through the end of fiscal 2019, 2020 and 2021. Under this program, 50% of the PARSUs (including dividend equivalent units) are eligible for vesting based on EPS and 50% are eligible for vesting based on relative TSR performance. These PARSUs vest as follows: 16.6% of the units are eligible for vesting based on EPS performance of year one with continued service over two years, 16.6% of the units are eligible for vesting based on EPS performance of year two with continued service over three years, 16.6% of the units are eligible for vesting based on EPS performance of year three with continued service over three years, 25% of the units are eligible for vesting based on relative TSR performance over two years with continued service over two years, and 25% of the units are eligible for vesting based on relative TSR performance over three years with continued service over three years. This structure is depicted in the chart below:

2019 PARSUs

Key Design Elements   EPS vs. Internal Goals Relative TSR vs. S&P 500 Payout
Weight   16.6% 16.6% 16.6% 25% 25%  
Performance Periods(1)   Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 2 Years 3 Years % of Target(3)
Vesting Periods(2)   Year 2 Year 3 Year 3 Year 2 Year 3  
Performance Levels:              
Max   Target to be disclosed after the end of the three-year performance period   > 90th percentile 200%
> Target     70th percentile 150%
Target     50th percentile 100%
Threshold     25th percentile 50%
< Threshold     < 25th percentile 0%
(1)

Performance measurement occurs at the end of the one-, two-, and three-year periods.

(2)

Vesting occurs at the end of the two- and three-year periods, subject to continued service.

(3)

Interpolate for performance between discrete points.

EPS was chosen because it is a critical driver of long-term stockholder value and because of our focus on bottom-line profitability in the business transformation strategy. Year 1 (fiscal 2019) EPS goals were set after consideration of historical performance, internal budgets, external expectations, and peer group performance.

Relative TSR was chosen as a performance measure because it is a direct measure of stockholder value and rewards for outperformance relative to the broader market.

EPS and relative TSR are weighted equally in determining earned PARSUs. The first segment (42% of total target units) will vest after the end of fiscal 2020, subject to Year 1 EPS performance and relative TSR performance for the first two years. The second segment (58% of total target units) will vest after the end of fiscal 2021, subject to Year 2 EPS performance, Year 3 EPS performance, and relative TSR performance for the three years.

For more information on grants of PARSUs to the NEOs during fiscal 2019, see “Executive Compensation—Grants of Plan-Based Awards in Fiscal 2019.”

2019 RSUs

2019 RSUs and related dividend equivalent units vest ratably on an annual basis over three years from the grant date. Three-year vesting is common in our industry and supports executive retention and alignment with stockholder value.

Fiscal 2019 Long-term Incentive Compensation at Target

The following table shows combined total grant values for grants attributable to fiscal 2019. It is important to note that these values are target opportunities to earn future value-based compensation and are not actual earned amounts, which will be determined after three years based on continued employment and performance against the EPS and relative TSR goals.

Named Executive Officer PARSUs RSUs Total Fiscal 2019
Long-term Incentive Grant
Dion J. Weisler $ 8,700,000 $ 5,800,000 $ 14,500,000
Steven J. Fieler $ 2,400,000 $ 1,600,000 $ 4,000,000
Enrique J. Lores $ 3,390,000 $ 2,260,000 $ 5,650,000
Kim M. Rivera $ 3,000,000 $ 2,000,000 $ 5,000,000
Alex Cho $ 2,400,000 $ 1,600,000 $ 4,000,000

Values in the Summary Compensation Table are different than the target values described in the table above. In the Summary Compensation Table, consistent with accounting standards, amounts reflect the grant date fair value for the full TSR component (two and three-year performance period), and the EPS component for Year 1 (2019), for which goals were approved in January 2019. Grant date fair values for the EPS component for Year 2 (2020) and Year 3 (2021) are not included in the grant date fair value reported in the Summary Compensation Table since EPS goals for those years are approved in their respective fiscal year.

The Summary Compensation Table for fiscal 2019 also includes a portion of the fiscal 2018 PARSUs Year 2 EPS (2019) and 2017 PARSUs Year 3 EPS (2019) for which the goal was approved in fiscal 2019.

For more information on grants to the NEOs during fiscal 2019, see “Executive Compensation—Grants of Plan-Based Awards in Fiscal 2019.”

2018 PARSUs

2018 PARSUs have the same vesting structure as 2019 PARSUs (chart described above). The actual performance achievement for the one- and two-year periods (i.e., fiscal 2018 and fiscal 2018–2019) as a percentage of target for the PARSUs as of October 31, 2019 is summarized in the table below:

Actual Performance – Segment 1

Segment
EPS vs. Internal Goals
 
Relative TSR vs. S&P 500(1)
Fiscal 2018 Result Payout Fiscal 2018-2019 Results Payout
Segment 1 (42%) $1.94 192.9%   15th percentile 0.0%
  Target: $1.81        
(1)

Through October 2019, HP’s relative TSR performance was at the 15th percentile of the S&P 500 which corresponds to a payout of 0% of target.

2017 PARSUs

2017 PARSUs have the same vesting structure as 2018 and 2019 PARSUs (chart described above). The actual performance achievement for the two-year period (i.e., fiscal 2017–2018), as a percentage of target for the HP PARSUs as of October 31, 2018, was summarized in our proxy statement for fiscal 2018. The actual performance achievement for the three-year period (i.e., fiscal 2017–2019) as a percentage of target for the HP PARSUs as of October 31, 2019 is summarized in the table below:

Actual Performance – Segment 2

Segment EPS vs. Internal Goals  

Relative TSR vs. S&P 500(1)
2018 Payout 2019 Payout Fiscal 2017-2019 Results Payout
Segment 2 (58%) $1.94 192.9% $2.23 122.7%   35th percentile 70.4%
  Target: $1.81   Target: $2.18        
(1)

Through October 2019, HP’s relative TSR performance was at the 35th percentile of the S&P 500 which corresponds to a payout of 70.4% of target.

CEO Transition

Dion Weisler stepped down from his positions as President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, effective November 1, 2019. Upon stepping down from such positions, Mr. Weisler continued to be employed by the Company in a non-executive role as a Senior Executive Advisor. During the period between November 1, 2019 through January 31, 2020, Mr. Weisler’s compensation arrangements remained unchanged from those in place while he served as President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company. The Board approved continuing to employ Mr. Weisler as a Senior Executive Advisor beyond January 31, 2020 through the date of the Company’s 2020 Annual Meeting of Stockholders with his compensation consisting solely of his base salary at the monthly rate of $120,833, which was Mr. Weisler’s base salary rate for fiscal year 2019. Mr. Weisler also continued to serve as a member of the Board and will continue to do so until the Company’s 2020 Annual Meeting of Stockholders. He has not received and will not receive any compensation in connection with his services as a member of the Board.

Fiscal 2020 Compensation Program

The HRC Committee regularly identifies and evaluates ways to improve our executive compensation program. We believe that our current compensation structure effectively aligns real pay delivery with critical financial and strategic non-financial goals, reinforces year-over-year improvement and growth, offers a stable and consistent message to both stockholders and participants, and provides an attractive pay-for-performance opportunity to encourage retention and leadership engagement.

However, as we plan to discuss in further detail in the fiscal 2020 proxy statement, we made the following changes that we believe are in our stockholders’ interests and are appropriate to the characteristics and business strategy of the Company, and to ensure our compensation is tied to our three-year strategic and financial plan:

  • Our annual incentive continues to focus on Revenue Growth, Net Earnings and Cash Flow goals
  • We have moved to three-year cliff vesting on our Performance Based equity compensation to align with our annual plan
  • Grants made for 2020 (granted in Dec 2019) will vest in 2022
  • The metrics on those performance-based shares consist of EPS with a TSR governor
  • EPS consists of three annual goals that roll up into our three-year annual EPS plan
  • Then, a TSR governor is applied to the EPS payout to ensure alignment with our stockholders’ experience
  • TSR is measured over the full three-year period based on performance against market (S&P 500)
  • The relative TSR is a market-based governor that adjusts payout so there is alignment with stockholder results

Fiscal 2021 Compensation Program

As the HRC Committee embarks upon our compensation plan design for 2021 and beyond, we will be looking at the most appropriate measures to continue reinforcing the commitments articulated in our long-term financial plans. While EPS and TSR are important measures that tie management and stockholder interest, key metrics like operating profit and cash flow, could be impactful as three-year measures tied to our long-term incentives. Operating profit and cash flow are critical value drivers to deliver on the long-term commitments we have made to stockholders. The final compensation structure will be discussed in more detail in our 2021 proxy.

Benefits

We do not provide our executives, including the NEOs, with special or supplemental U.S. defined benefit pension or health benefits. Our NEOs receive health and welfare benefits (including retiree medical benefits, if eligibility conditions are met) under the same programs and subject to the same eligibility requirements that apply to our employees generally.

Benefits under all U.S. pension plans were frozen effective December 31, 2007. Benefits under the Electronic Data Systems (“EDS”) Pension Plan ceased upon HP’s acquisition of EDS in 2008. As a result, no NEO or any other HP employee accrued a benefit under any HP U.S. defined benefit pension plan during fiscal 2019. The amounts reported as an increase in pension benefits in the Summary Compensation Table are for those NEOs who previously accrued a benefit in a defined benefit pension plan prior to the cessation of accruals and reflect changes in actuarial values only, not additional benefit accruals.

The NEOs, along with other executives who earn base pay or an annual incentive in excess of certain limits of the Code or greater than $150,000, are eligible to participate in the 2005 Executive Deferred Compensation Plan (the “EDCP”). This plan is maintained to permit executives to defer some of their compensation in order to also defer taxation on such amounts. This is a standard benefit plan also offered by most of our peer group companies. The EDCP permits deferral of base pay in excess of the amount allowed under the qualified HP 401(k) Plan (the “HP 401(k) Plan”) (the 401(k)-deferral limit for calendar 2019 was $19,000) and up to 95% of the annual incentive payable under the Stock Incentive Plan, the PfR Plan and other eligible plans. In addition, we make a 4% matching contribution to the EDCP on base pay contributions in excess of IRS limits up to a maximum of two times that limit (maximum of $11,200 in calendar 2019). This is the same percentage of matching contributions those executives are eligible to receive under the 401(k) Plan. In effect, the EDCP permits these executives and all eligible employees to receive a 401(k)-type matching contribution on a portion of base-pay deferrals in excess of IRS limits. Amounts deferred or matched under the EDCP are credited with hypothetical investment earnings based on investment options selected by the participant from among nearly all the proprietary funds available to employees under the 401(k) Plan. No amounts earn above-market returns. Benefits payable under the EDCP are unfunded and unsecured.

Executives are also eligible to have a yearly HP-paid medical exam as part of the HP U.S. executive physical program. This includes a comprehensive exam, thorough health assessment and personalized health advice. This benefit is also offered by our peer group companies.

Consistent with its practice of not providing any special or supplemental executive defined benefit programs, including arrangements that would otherwise provide special benefits to the family of a deceased executive, in 2011 the HRC Committee adopted a policy that, unless approved by our stockholders pursuant to an advisory vote, we will not enter into a new plan, program or agreement or modify an existing plan, program or agreement with a Section 16 officer (including the NEOs) that provides for payments, grants or awards following the death of the officer in the form of unearned salary or unearned annual incentives, accelerated vesting or the continuation in force of unvested equity grants, perquisites, and other payments or awards made in lieu of compensation, except to the extent that such payments, grants or awards are provided or made available to our employees generally.

We provide our executives with financial counseling services to assist them in obtaining professional financial advice, a common benefit among our peer group companies, for convenience and to increase the understanding and effectiveness of our executive compensation program.

Limited Perquisites

We provide a small number of perquisites to our senior executives, including the NEOs. For a list of all perquisites provided to our NEOs for fiscal 2019, please refer to the All Other Compensation Table on page 56.

Due to our global presence, we maintain one corporate aircraft. In the event a NEO is accompanied by a guest or family member on the aircraft for personal reasons, as approved by the CEO, the NEO is taxed on the value of this usage according to the relevant Code rules. There is no tax gross-up paid on the income attributable to this value. Among our NEOs, Mr. Weisler is the only executive that used the corporate aircraft for personal use during fiscal 2019, which was for convenience and security.

Our Audit Committee periodically conducts global risk management reviews, which include reviewing home security services of NEOs. Services considered necessary by the Audit Committee may be paid for by HP, due to the range of security issues that may be encountered by key executives of any large, multinational corporation.

Termination and Change in Control Protections

Severance and Long-term Incentive Change in Control Plan for Executive Officers

Our Section 16 officers (including all of the NEOs) are covered by the Severance and Long-term Incentive Change in Control Plan for Executive Officers (“SPEO”), which is intended to protect us and our stockholders, and provide a level of transition assistance in the event of an involuntary termination of employment. Under the SPEO, participants who incur an involuntary termination (i.e., a termination not for cause), and who execute a full and effective release of claims following such termination, are eligible to receive severance benefits in an amount determined as a multiple of base pay, plus the average of the actual annual incentives paid for the preceding three years. In the case of the NEOs other than the CEO, the multiplier is 1.5. In the case of the CEO, the multiplier is 2.0. In all cases, this benefit will not exceed 2.99 times the sum of the executive’s base pay plus target annual incentive as in effect immediately prior to the termination of employment.

Although most of the compensation for our executives is performance-based and largely contingent upon the achievement of financial goals, the HRC Committee continues to believe that the SPEO is appropriate for the attraction and retention of executive talent. In addition, we find it more equitable to offer severance benefits based on a standard formula for the Section 16 officers (including all of the NEOs) because severance often serves as a bridge when employment is involuntarily terminated, and should therefore not be affected by other, longer-term accumulations. As a result, and consistent with the practice of our peer group companies, other compensation decisions are not generally based on the existence of this severance protection.

In addition to the cash benefit, SPEO participants are eligible to receive (1) a pro-rata annual incentive for the year of termination based on actual performance results, at the discretion of the HRC Committee, (2) pro-rata vesting of unvested equity awards (and for performance-based equity awards, only if any applicable performance conditions have been satisfied), and (3) payment of a lump-sum health-benefit stipend of an amount equal to 18 months’ COBRA premiums for continued group medical coverage for the executive and his or her eligible dependents.

Severance Benefits in the Event of a Change in Control under SPEO

In order to better ensure the retention of our executive leadership team in the event of a potentially disruptive corporate transaction, the SPEO also includes change in control terms for our NEOs. In addition to the benefits provided for involuntary terminations, the SPEO provides for full vesting of outstanding stock options, RSUs, and PARSUs upon involuntary termination not for Cause or voluntary termination for Good Reason (as defined in the plan) within 24 months after a change in control (“double trigger”), and in situations where equity awards are not assumed by the surviving corporation (a “modified double trigger”). The SPEO further provides that under a double trigger, PARSUs will vest based on target performance, whereas under a modified double trigger, PARSUs will vest based upon the greater of the number of PARSUs that would vest based on actual performance and the number of PARSUs that would vest pro-rata based upon target performance. We do not provide tax gross ups in connection with terminations, including terminations in the event of a change in control.

The HRC Committee is focused on ensuring that the change of control provisions in the SPEO are consistent with market practice, provide clarity to prospective and current executives, and will help attract and retain talent.

Amendment and Restatement of SPEO

Effective February 28, 2020, HP adopted an Amended and Restated Severance and Long-Term Incentive Change in Control Plan for Executive Officers. Under the SPEO as amended and restated, in the event of a change in control of HP, all outstanding and unvested equity will vest either in full if the successor does not assume such awards or if an individual is terminated without Cause or terminates with Good Reason within 24 months of a change in control, with performance-based awards that remain subject to performance criteria as of the date of the qualifying termination or change in control, as applicable, vesting based on target levels of performance. In addition, under the SPEO as amended and restated, in the event of any dispute under the SPEO relating to a participant’s termination of employment within 24 months following a change in control, the Company will reimburse all related legal fees and expenses reasonably incurred by the participant if claims are brought in good faith. Other than these provisions, the terms of the SPEO as amended and restated are substantially similar in all material respects to the terms of the SPEO as in effect prior to the amendment and restatement as described herein.

Other Compensation-Related Matters

Succession Planning

Among the HRC Committee’s responsibilities described in its charter is to oversee succession planning and leadership development. The Board plans for succession of the CEO and annually reviews senior management selection and succession planning that is undertaken by the HRC Committee. As part of this process, the independent Directors annually review the HRC Committee’s recommended candidates for senior management positions to see that qualified candidates are available for all positions and that development plans are being utilized to strengthen the skills and qualifications of the candidates. The criteria used when assessing the qualifications of potential CEO successors include, among others, strategic vision and leadership, operational excellence, financial management, executive officer leadership development, ability to motivate employees, and an ability to develop an effective working relationship with the Board. We also host a Board Buddy program through which each executive officer is aligned to a board member as a mentor to aid the executive’s development while giving board members a deeper understanding of the day-to-day operations of the Company.

In fiscal 2019, an executive talent review was conducted along with succession plans for each of the executive leaders. Successors were identified to reflect necessary skill sets, performance, potential, and diversity. Development plans for successors were also established to ensure readiness and will be managed throughout the year. In addition to the annual succession planning process, the HRC Committee participates in an in-depth performance discussion of each executive officer at the time of the annual compensation review. During fiscal 2019, we leveraged our robust, in-depth succession planning to successfully maneuver through various leadership changes on the executive team. We executed a CEO assessment process in partnership with the Board to identify internal and external candidates for Mr. Weisler’s replacement, which led to unanimous Board support for Mr. Lores. We also shifted other executives into new or expanded roles based on business needs and tied to succession and development plans. Further, there is a People Update at each HRC Committee meeting, which includes a review of key people processes and developments for that quarter.

In addition, the executive team participated in a robust development process that included individual assessments, interviews with executive coaches, and an individualized development plan that can be leveraged throughout the year. Development themes for the entire executive team will be addressed during quarterly face-to-face meetings for full team development.

Stock Ownership Guidelines and Prohibition on Hedging

Our stock ownership guidelines are designed to align executives’ interests with those of our stockholders and mitigate compensation-related risk. The current guidelines provide that, within five years of assuming a designated position, the CEO should attain an investment position in our stock equal to seven times his base salary and all other Section 16 officers reporting directly to the CEO should attain an investment position equal to five times their base salaries. Shares counted toward these guidelines include any shares held by the executive directly or through a broker, shares held through the 401(k) Plan, shares held as restricted stock, shares underlying time-vested RSUs, and shares underlying vested but unexercised stock options (50% of the in-the-money value of such options is used for this calculation). Mr. Weisler is the only NEO who has served in a role covered by our stock ownership guidelines for over five years and his ownership exceeds the current guidelines. Our other NEOs are on pace to meet the stock ownership guidelines within the allotted time frame.

The HRC Committee has adopted a policy prohibiting all employees, including executive officers, and Directors from engaging in any form of hedging transaction (derivatives, equity swaps, forwards, etc.) involving Company securities, including, among other things, short sales and transactions involving publicly traded options. In addition, with limited exceptions, our executive officers are prohibited from holding our securities in margin accounts and from pledging our securities as collateral for loans. We believe that these policies further align our executives’ interests with those of our stockholders.

Accounting and Tax Effects

The impact of accounting treatment is considered in developing and implementing our compensation programs, including the accounting treatment as it applies to amounts awarded or paid to our executives.

The impact of federal tax laws on our compensation programs is also considered, including the deductibility of compensation paid to the NEOs, as limited by Section 162(m) of the Code. For prior fiscal years, Section 162(m) included an exception from the deductibility limitation for qualified “performance-based compensation.” This exception, however, has been repealed for tax years beginning in fiscal 2019 under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. As such, compensation paid to certain of our executive officers in excess of $1.0 million is not deductible unless it qualifies for certain transition relief applicable for compensation paid pursuant to a written binding contract that was in effect as of November 2, 2017. In addition, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act increased the scope of individuals subject to the deduction limitation. Thus, compensation originally intended to satisfy the requirements for exemption from Section 162(m) may not be fully deductible. Although our compensation program may take into consideration the Section 162(m) rules as a factor, these considerations will not necessarily limit compensation to amounts deductible under Section 162(m). Despite the modifications to Section 162(m), the HRC Committee intends to continue to implement compensation programs that it believes are competitive and in the best interests of HP and its stockholders.

Policy for Recoupment of Performance-Based Incentives

In fiscal 2006, the Board adopted a “clawback” policy that provides Board discretion to recover certain annual incentives from senior executives (including the NEOs) whose fraud or misconduct resulted in a significant restatement of financial results. The policy specifically allows for the recovery of annual incentives paid at or above target from those senior executives whose fraud or misconduct resulted in the restatement where the annual incentives would have been lower absent the fraud or misconduct, to the extent permitted by applicable law. Additionally, our incentive plan document (and award agreements) allow for the recoupment of performance-based annual incentives and long-term incentives consistent with applicable law and the clawback policy.

Also, in fiscal 2014, we added a provision to our grant agreements to clarify that equity awards are subject to the clawback policy. Award agreements also provide Board discretion to cause forfeiture of certain outstanding cash and equity awards for fraud or misconduct that results in reputational harm to HP even when such fraud or misconduct does not result in a significant restatement of financial results.

HR and Compensation Committee Report on Executive Compensation

The HRC Committee of the Board of HP has reviewed and discussed with management this Compensation Discussion and Analysis. Based on this review and discussion, it has recommended to the Board that the Compensation Discussion and Analysis be included in this proxy statement and in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of HP filed for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2019.

HR and Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors

Stephanie A. Burns, Chair
Aida Alvarez
Shumeet Banerji
Charles “Chip” V. Bergh
Stacey Mobley

Return to top
© 2020 HP Development Company, L.P.