In addition to monetary bonuses, there are other examples of opulent parachute benefits: gold parachute clauses can be used to define the lucrative benefits an employee would get if fired. This term often refers to the dismissals of senior executives resulting from a buyout or merger. Golden parachutes may include severance pay in the form of cash, a special bonus, stock options or watering of previously allocated compensation. The employment contract contains an explicit language describing the validity of the silver parachute clause. A study has shown that golden parachutes, which are more likely to receive a takeover bid or be acquired, have a lower premium (at the share price) in the event of acquisition and expected (unconditional) acquisition bonuses. It found that companies that introduce golden parachutes have a lower market value than the company`s assets and that their value continues to decline during and after the introduction of golden parachutes.  The term “golden parachute” was first used in 1961. Charles C. Tillinghast Jr., former president and CEO of Trans World Airlines, was recognized as the first gold parachute recipient when the company attempted to remove control of Howard Hughes. In the event that Hughes took control of the company and fired Tillinghast, Tillinghast gave a clause in its contract that would provide him with a considerable amount of money if he lost his job. Many severance agreements contain a language that limits payment to 299 per cent of the average salary to ensure that the parachute payment does not trigger tax penalties. Effective limits convert all non-liquidable payments, such as extended insurance benefits. B, in fixed dollars to reduce administrative complexity and the risk of accidental payment.
If a company decides to pay more than the threshold, it could also increase the payment to cover the tax fine. The reference volume of information for the term “golden parachute” entered the U.S. presidential debates in late 2008, during the global economic recession and in 2008.  Despite the poor economic conditions, a study by the professional services company Alvarez-Marsal revealed, in the two years leading up to 2012, a 32% increase in the “change-in-control” benefits granted to US leaders.  At the end of 2011, USA Today reported several retirement plans of more than $100 million from the CEO “that raise eyebrows even among those who were used to oversized payments”.  If the promised payments are kept as specific and as easily quantifiable as possible, compliance with the rules applicable to parachute payment will be reduced. The vague language of an agreement leaves it open to interpretations that could lead to costly actions between the beneficiary and the company. Some promises may require costly amounts of actuarial or accounting work, such as .B additional years of service credit on the recipient`s pension benefit. They are also controversial because many constitute a massive payment, regardless of the performance of the company and management.