Employment in Financial Services

There are no specific mandatory rules relating to compensation payable to financial services employees in Hong Kong.

The HKMA has issued a Supervisory Policy Manual CG-5 “Guideline on a Sound Remuneration System”. This focuses on providing a broad idea and introducing basic principles of how remuneration policies should be designed and implemented in the authorised institution, to encourage employee behaviour that supports the risk management framework, corporate values and long-term financial soundness of the authorised institution.

Under the Guideline, the elements of a sound remuneration system are as follows:

Governance

• Remuneration policy should be in line with objectives, business strategies and the long-term goals of the authorised institution.
• The remuneration arrangement for employees whose activities could have a material impact on the authorised institution’s risk profile and financial soundness should support, but not undermine, the overall risk management approach.
• The Board of an authorised institution is ultimately responsible for overseeing the formulation and implementation of the remuneration policy.
• The establishment of a Board remuneration committee would assist the Board in discharging its responsibility for the design and operation of the authorised institution’s remuneration system.
• Risk control personnel should have appropriate authority and involvement in the process of design and implementation of the authorised institution’s remuneration policy.

Structure of remuneration

• Balance of fixed and variable remuneration should be determined with regard to the seniority, role, responsibilities and activities of their employees and the need to promote behaviour among employees that support the authorised institution’s risk-management framework and long-term financial soundness.
• Variable remuneration should be paid in such a manner as to align an employee’s incentive awards with long-term value creation and the time horizons of risk.
• Guaranteed minimum bonus to senior management or key personnel should be subject to the approval of the Board (or the Board’s remuneration committee with the necessary delegated authority).

Measurement of performance for variable remuneration

• The award of variable remuneration should depend on the fulfilment of certain pre-determined and assessable performance criteria, which include both financial and non-financial factors.
• Size and allocation of variable remuneration should take into account the current and potential risks associated with the activities of employees, as well as the performance (overall performance of the relevant business units and the authorised institution as a whole as well as the contribution of individual employees to such performance).
• Judgement and common sense may be required during the process to arrive at a fair and appropriate remuneration decision. The rationale for the exercise of judgment and the outcomes should be recorded in writing.

Alignment of remuneration pay-outs to the time horizon of risks

• Deferment of variable remuneration is appropriate when the risks taken by the employee in question are harder to measure or will be realised over a longer timeframe.
• The award of deferred remuneration should be subject to a minimum vesting period and pre-defined vesting conditions in respect of future performance.
• Authorised institutions should seek undertakings from employees not to engage in personal hedging strategies or remuneration and liability-related insurance to hedge their exposures in respect of the unvested portion of their deferred remuneration.

Remuneration disclosure

• Authorised institutions should make remuneration disclosures at least annually. The disclosure should include the qualitative and quantitative information that the HKMA has set out in its annual remuneration disclosure.

Overtime

Financial services employees in the United States are commonly classified as administrative employees exempt from both minimum wage and overtime laws. To qualify for this administrative exception under the Fair Labor Standard Acts (FLSA) and often, applicable state law, an employee must:

• be compensated on a salary or fee basis at a rate at least equal to the minimum required threshold (at the time of writing set at $684 a week or $35,568 annually); and
• have a primary duty:
  • that is the performance of office or non-manual work directly related to the management or general business operations of the employer or the employer’s customers; and
  • includes the exercise of discretion and independent judgment on significant matters.

Examples of employees qualifying for the administrative exemption are those whose duties include:

• collecting and analysing information regarding the customer’s income, assets, investments or debts;
• determining which financial products best meet a customer’s needs;
• advising customers regarding the pros and cons of various financial products; and
• marketing, servicing, or promoting financial products.

An employee whose sole duty is selling financial products does not qualify for the administrative exemption. United States courts are split on whether financial advisors are exempt.

Many states have a higher minimum annual salary threshold for the administrative exemption, including California ($1,240 a week, as of 1 January 2023) and New York ($1,125 a week for New York City and Nassau, Suffolk, and Westchester counties and $990 a week for the remainder of the state. The remainder of the State increased to $1,064.25 a week on 31 December 2022).

California has an administrative exemption test, which also requires the employee to customarily and regularly exercise discretion and independent judgement, in addition to being primarily engaged in administrative duties. Employees that do not qualify as non-exempt under one of the exemptions must receive overtime pay under California law.

FLSA also exempts “highly compensated” employees. To qualify for this exemption, an employee must earn at least $107,432 in total annual compensation (not including discretionary bonuses), must perform office or non-manual work as part of their primary duty, and must customarily perform one or more exempt duties of an administrative, executive, or professional employee.

Bonuses

Discretionary bonuses can be for any amount and can be determined on quantitative factors (eg, employer profits) or subjective factors (eg, known performance indicators, performance, merit) and employers may condition an employee’s eligibility to receive a bonus on their active employment at the time when bonuses are paid.

Guaranteed bonuses are typically non-discretionary and set at a fixed number or percentage (eg, a percentage of the employee’s annual base salary or the employer’s profits). A guaranteed bonus (unlike a discretionary one) creates a contractual obligation and will be considered wages. Once a payment is considered a “wage,” employers generally cannot withhold, recover or claw back the bonus from an employee.

California requires non-discretionary bonuses to be included in a non-exempt employee’s regular rate for overtime calculation.

Certain compensation plans include “forgivable loans,” conditioning an employee’s obligation to repay on their continued employment with the new employer for a time. If the employee leaves or is fired for certain reasons before the full loan amount is forgiven, the unforgiven share, with interest, can become due and payable.

California generally prohibits employers from deducting any outstanding loan balances from an employee’s final paycheck without express permission in contemporaneous writing signed by the employee, both at the time the loan or advance was given and at separation.

Similarly, New York has extremely nuanced rules related to permissible deductions for employee benefits, which are limited (eg, authorised deductions and deductions for the benefit of the employee).

Non-disclosure agreements are legally enforceable in Hong Kong. They follow the contract law rules and there is no other particular form or rules. To be enforceable, a non-disclosure agreement must protect information that is both confidential and valuable. There are common exceptions where confidentiality will not apply to certain information, including information available in the public domain, information lawfully received from a third party without proprietary or confidentiality limitations, information known to the employee before first receipt of same from the employer, and information disclosed in circumstances required by law or regulatory requirement.

Non-disclosure agreements are currently permissible under United States law with some exceptions, typically pertaining to whistleblower, harassment, and discrimination matters. On 7 December 2022, President Joe Biden signed the Speak Out Act, which prohibits the enforcement of non-disclosure and non-disparagement provisions that were agreed to before an incident of workplace sexual assault or sexual harassment occurred. In other words, it does not prohibit these provisions in settlement or severance agreements.

Both Dodd-Frank and SOX prohibit employers from impeding an individual’s whistleblowing process. Confidentiality provisions should expressly authorise employee communications directly with, or responding to any inquiry from, or providing testimony before the SEC, FINRA, any other self-regulatory organisation or any other state or federal regulatory authority.

The United States Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2018 discourages NDAs in the settlement of sexual harassment claims. Under this law, employers settling claims alleging sexual harassment or abuse that include a confidentiality or non-disclosure provision in the settlement agreement cannot take a tax deduction for that settlement payment or related attorneys' fees.

Under the National Labor Relations Act, employees (except for supervisors) cannot be prohibited from discussing their compensation or working conditions

California

• California Law prohibits NDAs that would prevent employees from discussing or disclosing their compensation or discussing the wages of others. However, California permits the use of a non-disclosure provision that may preclude the disclosure of any amount paid in any separation or settlement agreement.
• California imposes restrictions on the use of non-disclosure provisions that are designed to restrict an employee's ability to disclose information about unlawful acts in the workplace, including information pertaining to harassment or discrimination or any other conduct the employee has reason to believe is unlawful in employment agreements, settlement agreements, and separation agreements.
• California employers cannot:
  • require employees, in exchange for a raise or a bonus, or as a condition of employment or for continued employment, to sign any non-disparagement or non-disclosure provision that denies the employee the right to disclose information about unlawful acts in the workplace;
  • include in any separation agreement a provision that prohibits the disclosure of information about unlawful acts in the workplace; or
  • include a provision within a settlement agreement that prevents or restricts the disclosure of factual information related to claims for sexual assault, sexual harassment, workplace harassment or discrimination, retaliation, or failure to prevent workplace harassment or discrimination that are filed in a civil or administrative action, unless the settlement agreement is negotiated, which means that the agreement is voluntary, deliberate, informed, provides consideration of value to the employee, and the employee is giving notice and an opportunity to retain an attorney or is represented by an attorney.

New York

• New York law prohibits NDAs that:
  • prevent an employee from discussing or disclosing their wages or the wages of another employee.
  • prevent an employee from disclosing factual information related to a future discrimination claim, unless the agreement notifies employees that it does not prevent them from speaking to the EEOC, the New York Department of Human Rights, and any local human rights commission or attorney retained by the individual.

New York law also prohibits employers from mandating confidentiality or non-disclosure provisions when settling sexual harassment claims (though allows such provisions where it is the employee’s preference to include them).