Document:

Exhibit 10.3.3

 

FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK OF BOSTON

2008 EXECUTIVE INCENTIVE PLAN

March, 2008

 

Purpose

 

The Federal Home Loan Bank of Boston (Bank) has established an
Executive Incentive Plan (EIP) to:

·                  promote
achievement of the Bank’s financial plan and strategic objectives as spelled
out in the 2008 Strategic Business Plan;

·                  provide a total
rewards package that is competitive with other financial institutions in the
employment markets in which the Bank competes, including other Federal Home
Loan Banks; and

·                  facilitate the
retention and commitment of corporate officers.

 

Bank’s
Objectives for 2008

 

The focus of the Bank’s 2008 Strategic Business Plan can again be
summarized in two words: profitable growth. 
The Bank continues to target steady growth in business with members in
terms of both advances and mortgages. While the overall focus will be
profitable growth, we will continue to enhance the operational infrastructure,
and we will maintain and reinforce the Bank’s commitment to conservative and
prudent risk management and compliance.

 

The goals in the 2008 EIP are designed to reinforce the profitable
growth focus of the 2008 Strategic Business Plan.  They are also designed to incent achievement
of individual contributions to department-specific financial and non-financial
initiatives in alignment with the strategic plan.

 

 

The incentive goals are summarized in the following table with more
detail following:

 

	
   

  	
   

  	
  Weight

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Goal

  	
   

  	
  Pres.

  	
   

  	
  1

  	
   

  	
  2

  	
   

  	
  Threshold

  	
   

  	
  Target

  	
   

  	
  Excess

  	
   

  
	
  Pre-assessment
  Core ROE Spread to three-month LIBOR – Subject to Achievement of Net Income
  of at least $148.58 million

  	
   

  	
  25

  	
  %

  	
  20

  	
  %

  	
  10

  	
  %

  	
  235 basis points

  	
   

  	
  335 basis points

  	
   

  	
  435 basis points

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Percentage
  Growth in Average Member Credit Extension (Advances and Letters of Credit,
  net of CDA and NEF) Balances 2008 Over 2007 With National, Growth-Oriented,
  and Insurance Company Segments

  	
   

  	
  12.5

  	
  %

  	
  10

  	
  %

  	
  10

  	
  %

  	
  4 percent

  	
   

  	
  10 percent

  	
   

  	
  16 percent

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Percentage
  Growth in Average Member Credit Extension (Advances and Letters of Credit,
  net of CDA and NEF) Balances 2008 Over 2007 With Community Bank and Credit
  Union Segments

  	
   

  	
  12.5

  	
  %

  	
  10

  	
  %

  	
  10

  	
  %

  	
  3 percent

  	
   

  	
  5 percent

  	
   

  	
  8 percent

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Percentage
  Growth in Targeted Mission-Related Advances Programs (CDA and NEF) 2008 Over
  2007

  	
   

  	
  5

  	
  %

  	
  5

  	
  %

  	
  5

  	
  %

  	
  10 percent

  	
   

  	
  20 percent

  	
   

  	
  30 percent

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Examination
  Results

  	
   

  	
  15

  	
  %

  	
  15

  	
  %

  	
  15

  	
  %

  	
  “2” rating in 2008 exam report

  	
   

  	
  N.A.

  	
   

  	
  “1” rating in 2008 exam report

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Individual,
  Department-Specific Component

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
  %

  	
  0

  	
  %

  	
  25

  	
  %

  	
  As defined

  	
   

  	
  As defined

  	
   

  	
  As defined

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Discretionary
  Component

  	
   

  	
  30

  	
  %

  	
  40

  	
  %

  	
  25

  	
  %

  	
  As documented by supervisor

  	
   

  	
  As documented by supervisor

  	
   

  	
  As documented by supervisor

  	
   

  

 

Profitability Goal

 

	
  2008 Goal:

  	
   

  	
  Pre-assessment Core ROE Spread to
  three-month LIBOR

  
	
  Weight:

  	
   

  	
  President: 25
  percent; Tier 1: 20 percent; Tier 2: 10 percent

  
	
  Threshold:

  	
   

  	
  235 basis
  points

  
	
  Target:

  	
   

  	
  335 basis
  points

  
	
  Excess:

  	
   

  	
  435 basis
  points

  

 

2

 

Note: 
Payout for this goal will only be made if the Bank’s 2008 net income is
at least eighty-five (85) percent of the 2008 Strategic Business
Plan base net income case of $174.8million, or $148.58 million.

 

The Pre-assessment Core Return on Equity (ROE) minus Average Daily Three-Month
LIBOR is calculated as follows:

 

	
  Pre-assessment Core ROE =

  	
  Pre - assessement Core Net Income

  	
   

  
	
  Average Daily Capital

  	
   

  

 

Pre-assessment Core Net Income =

Net Income – (Prepayment Fees – Historical Prepayment Fee Amortization)

+ (Debt Retirement Costs – Historical Debt Retirement Cost
Amortization)

– Net Fair Value Adjustments + REFCorp Expense + AHP Expense

 

Net Income = 2008 net income reported in
accordance with GAAP in the United States.

 

Average Daily Capital = the average daily
balance of paid in capital stock (excluding mandatorily redeemable capital
stock classified as a liability under GAAP) plus retained earnings. Accumulated
Other Comprehensive Income is excluded.

 

Historical Prepayment Fee Amortization = the
current-period, straight-line amortization of all historical prepayment fees
over the original remaining lives of the prepaid assets.

 

Historical Debt Retirement Cost Amortization
= the current-period, straight-line amortization of all historical debt
retirement costs over the original remaining lives of the retired liabilities.

 

Net Fair Value Adjustments = the net
unrealized gains and losses as recognized under GAAP attributable to hedges,
whether economic hedges or SFAS 133-qualifying hedges, plus trading securities
gains and losses. However, valuation adjustments attributable to
other-than-temporary impairments are to be included in Pre-assessment Core Net
Income.

 

In the event that the Bank is required to adjust current period net
income to correct prior period accounting errors, positive adjustments to net
income resulting from the correction of prior period accounting errors are to
be excluded from Pre-assessment Core Net Income, while negative adjustments are
to be retained in Pre-assessment Core Net Income.

 

The exclusion of
prepayment fee income and associated debt retirement and swap unwind expense
from the core ROE metric removes the potential for “windfall” compensation in
the event of heavy prepayment fee income and removes a potential disincentive
to prudently respond to prepayment events by excluding the otherwise punitive
cost of debt retirement and swap unwind expense.  The exclusion of net unrealized fair value
adjustments is consistent with the way that management projects its financial
performance and reflects the fact that these adjustments are merely timing
adjustments to net income that have no net impact to the Bank’s net income if
gains or losses are never realized.

 

3

 

It is the Bank’s intention that its net income and ROE are generally
positively correlated with short-term interest rates.  To neutralize the bias of Bank’s natural
performance relative to interest rates fluctuations, which are beyond
management’s control, the trend in interest rates, as reflected by the Average
Daily Three-Month LIBOR Yield, is subtracted. 
The Pre-assessment Core ROE minus Average Daily Three-Month LIBOR Yield
also eliminates a tax bias associated with REFCorp and AHP, which tend to cause
ROE to change less than the change in interest rates due to the “tax” effect
that REFCorp and AHP impose.  It does,
however, retain an incentive for operating efficiencies, since projected core
ROE will be reduced to the extent the Bank’s operating expenses increase.

 

Growth
Goals

 

	
  2008
  Goal:

  	
   

  	
  Growth
  in Average Member Credit Extensions (Advances and Letters of Credit, net of
  CDA and NEF) with National, Growth-Oriented, and Insurance Company Accounts

  
	
  Weight:

  	
   

  	
  President:
  12.5 percent; Tier 1: 10 percent; Tier 2: 10 percent

  
	
  Threshold:

  	
   

  	
  4 percent

  
	
  Target:

  	
   

  	
  10
  percent

  
	
  Excess:

  	
   

  	
  16 percent

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  2008
  Goal:

  	
   

  	
  Growth
  in Average Member Credit Extensions (Advances and Letters of Credit, net of
  CDA and NEF) with Community Bank and Credit Union Segments

  
	
  Weight:

  	
   

  	
  President:
  12.5 percent; Tier 1: 10 percent; Tier 2: 10 percent

  
	
  Threshold:

  	
   

  	
  3 percent

  
	
  Target:

  	
   

  	
  5 percent

  
	
  Excess:

  	
   

  	
  8 percent

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  2008
  Goal:

  	
   

  	
  Growth
  in Average Targeted Mission-Related Advances Programs

  
	
  Weight:

  	
   

  	
  President:
  5 percent; Tier 1: 5 percent; Tier 2: 5 percent

  
	
  Threshold:

  	
   

  	
  10
  percent

  
	
  Target:

  	
   

  	
  20
  percent

  
	
  Excess:

  	
   

  	
  30 percent

  

 

To achieve the projected level of growth, management will continue to implement
the member differentiation strategy that began in 2006.  This effort began with the alignment of
processes, structures, people and systems to support and deliver the core
elements of the strategy.  Other
processes that are integral to the strategy will also continue to be identified
and aligned.  Top priority within this
strategy is given to delivering solutions to the national account segment and implementing
collateral policy and process changes in support of solutions for all segments.

 

For purposes of the 2008 EIP, the five member segments have been
aggregated into two groups with similar characteristics.  An average growth target based on advances
and letters of credit has been established for each group.(i)  The table
below shows the starting and target ending balances for these two groups:

(i) Average Advances and Letters of Credit Balances are defined as
the average daily balance of advances and Letters of Credit (net of CDA and
NEF).  If a member merges into a
non-member, the merged entity’s balances will be excluded from the calculation
for 2008 and the average balance for 2007. 
If, for example, a community bank member is merged into a national
account member, all of the merged member’s balances for 2007 and to the 2008
merger date will be included in the national account member group. The 2007
year-end average numbers exclude all institutions that were merged or acquired
through January 2, 2008.

 

 

4

 

	
  $ Billions

  	
   

  	
  2007 Projected Average

  Advances and Letters of 

  Credit (Net of CDA and

  NEF) Base

  	
   

  	
  Target Growth

  	
   

  	
  2008 Projected Average

  Advances and Letters of Credit

  (Net of CDA and NEF)

  
	
  National, Growth-Oriented, and Insurance
  Company Accounts

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  36.5 billion

  	
   

  	
  10.4 percent

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  40.3 billion

  
	
  Community Bank and Credit Union Accounts

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  8.0 billion

  	
   

  	
  4.5 percent

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  8.4 billion

  

 

The Bank currently holds a 67 percent market share of the wholesale
funding used by national accounts and an 87 percent market share of wholesale
funding used by growth oriented institutions. 
The Bank will aggressively seek to expand its market share in 2008
through pricing, product development and streamlining internal policies and
procedures to create a more user-friendly experience for members.  In addition, the Bank is expanding its
efforts to reach the insurance industry with products that address their
business needs.  These institutions do
not access the traditional wholesale funding market used by banks.

 

In contrast, the Bank enjoys a nearly 100 percent market share of
wholesale funding used by community institutions and credit unions.  Growth in advances from this segment will be
dependent on the Bank’s ability to help members expand their own market share
pursuant to their own business plans. 
The Bank will also compete for funding increasingly being diversified
into brokered CD and with Wall Street firms.

 

Member demand for letters of credit is increasing for targeted purposes.  The Bank earns a spread that is comparable to
advances and remains well protected from credit and other potential sources of
risk.  As a result, letters of credit are
included in the base and projections as a valuable product to the membership that
provides a reasonable return at reasonable risk to the Bank.

 

Management is managing MPF volume by not seeking master commitments
from its largest PFIs.  As a result, MPF
volume is not included in the 2008 EIP goals.

 

The focus of the mission-related metric will be to expand member
lending activities in the communities they serve through the Bank’s Community
Development Advances (CDA) and New England Fund (NEF) advances.(ii)

 

The projected average CDA and NEF advances balance for 2007 is $2.1
billion.  A twenty percent increase would
grow average mission-related advances to $2.5 billion.  This increase would be driven by relatively
small advances disbursements.

 

Bank staff will actively use the outreach and education tools available
to achieve the goal, including the successful Community Development Consult
program, funding strategies, training programs, and publication of examples of
successful initiatives.

 

(ii) This goal is measured using the following advance product
types: 822, 873, 877, 878, 879, 903, 904, and 914 and any new housing and
community development product codes introdued during the Plan year.

 

5

 

Exam
Goal

 

	
  2008
  Goal:

  	
   

  	
  Examination
  Result

  
	
  Weights:

  	
   

  	
  President:
  15 percent; Tier 1: 15 percent; Tier 2: 15 percent

  
	
  Threshold:

  	
   

  	
  “2” rating in 2008 exam report

  
	
  Target:

  	
   

  	
  None

  
	
  Excess:

  	
   

  	
  “1” rating in 2008 exam report

  

 

In the 2008 Report of
Examination (ROE), the Federal Housing Finance Board (Finance Board) will rate
the Bank “1,” “2,” “3,” or “4.”, with “1” being the highest possible rating and
“4” being the lowest.  A payment on this
goal will be made at threshold if the Bank’s rating is “2.”  A “1” rating will result in an excess payout
on this goal.

 

Participants
whose immediate area(s) of responsibility receive a new or repeat finding
of an Unsafe or Unsound Practice or Condition in the 2008 ROE will not be
entitled to any award for this goal.  The
President may, at his discretion, recommend no award or a reduced award for a
participant for this goal based on a new or repeat finding in the ROE.  If, on review, the Finance Board subsequently
reverses the Unsafe or Unsound Practice or Condition or other finding, the
President may recommend reinstatement of such award.

 

Individual,
Department-Specific Component

 

	
  Weights:

  	
   

  	
  President:
  0 percent; Tier 1: 0 percent; Tier 2: 25 percent

  
	
  Threshold:

  	
   

  	
  As defined by manager

  
	
  Target:

  	
   

  	
  As defined by manager

  
	
  Excess:

  	
   

  	
  As defined by manager

  

 

EIP
participants are responsible for significant department-specific initiatives
and projects that contribute to the success of the bank. The Individual,
Department-Specific Component provides for recognition of the participant’s
successful completion of those initiatives.

 

Payments
awarded under the Individual, Department-Specific Component will take into
consideration the participant’s achievement of one to three individual,
department-specific initiatives, established at the beginning of the plan year.
The initiatives may be non-financial, operational objectives or may add additional
weight to a profitability or growth goal. Revisions to these initiatives may be
considered on a case-by-case basis during the year but must be approved, in
writing, by the President and Chief Executive Officer.

 

Payments under the
Individual, Department-Specific Component will be based on the individual’s
combined, overall performance on the one to three individual, department-specific
initiatives, as evaluated by the participant’s manager.  The initiatives may be shared within a
department or across multiple departments, but the manager’s assessment will be
based on the participant’s individual contribution as well as the overall
achievement of the initiative.  Managers
may select a payout percentage for individual, department-specific objectives from
a range of threshold to a maximum payout at excess to recognize the degree to
which the EIP participant accomplished these results.  If the individual, department-specific
initiative(s) are not substantially achieved, the manager may award zero
for this component.  Managers need to 

 

6

 

provide reasonable
documentation as the basis for any award recommended under this component.

 

Discretionary
Component

 

	
  Weights:

  	
   

  	
  President:
  30 percent; Tier 1: 40 percent; Tier 2: 25 percent

  
	
  Threshold:

  	
   

  	
  As defined by manager

  
	
  Target:

  	
   

  	
  As defined by manager

  
	
  Excess:

  	
   

  	
  As defined by manager

  

 

It is understood that the
success of the bank in achieving its goals as set forth in the Plan requires
individual contribution.  Payments
awarded under the Discretionary Component will take into consideration and
recognize an individual participant’s achievement of and contribution toward
Bank, department, or individual goals or initiatives, as assessed by the President
or the participant’s manager and recommended to the Personnel Committee.

 

For Tier I participants,
the Discretionary Component may include the President’s or the manager’s
assessment of achievement of a participant’s individual and department-specific
goals, including operational initiatives, established at the beginning of the
plan year.  It also may include an
evaluation of the participant’s contributions in areas such as expense control
and operational efficiency, risk management and control, Board communication,
and succession planning.  There may also
be a subjective element in this component so that the President or manager can
award a participant’s leadership, work ethic, attitude, or other such similar
intangible attribute that contributes to the Bank’s success.

 

The President or participant’s
manager may recommend a payout percentage for the Discretionary Component from
a range of threshold to a maximum payout at excess to recognize the degree of achievement
and contribution.  The President or manager
may also recommend zero award for this component.  The President or manager needs to provide
reasonable documentation to the Personnel Committee that states the basis for
whatever award is recommended under the Discretionary Component for Tier I
participants.

 

For Tier II participants, the manager will assess, recommend and
document a payout percentage as discussed above for Tier I participants, as
applicable, but excluding the achievement of the one to three individual,
department-specific initiatives awarded under the Individual,
Department-Specific Component.

 

For the President, the
Personnel Committee will assess, recommend and document a payout percentage as
discussed above for Tier I participants. At the end of the plan year, the
President will provide the Personnel Committee with a self-assessment of
individual, Bank and personal achievements to be used in determining the
Discretionary Component award.

 

7

 

Incentive
Potential

 

Eligible employees will be assigned an incentive
award potential expressed as a percentage of the incumbent’s base salary in
effect at year-end 2008 as follows:

 

	
   

  	
   

  	
  Incentive as a Percent of Salary

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Threshold

  	
   

  	
  Target

  	
   

  	
  Excess

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  President

  	
   

  	
  25.00

  	
  %

  	
  50.00

  	
  %

  	
  75.00

  	
  %

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Tier I

  	
   

  	
  18.75

  	
  %

  	
  37.50

  	
  %

  	
  56.25

  	
  %

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Tier II

  	
   

  	
  15.00

  	
  %

  	
  30.00

  	
  %

  	
  45.00

  	
  %

  

 

2008
Participation

 

The following individuals are participants in the EIP for 2008:(iii)

 

	
  President

  	
   

  	
  Tier I

  	
   

  	
  Tier II

  	
   

  
	
  Michael A. Jessee

  	
   

  	
  Janelle K.
  Authur

  	
   

  	
  Daniel H.
  Devine

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Earl W. Baucom

  	
   

  	
  Brian G.
  Donahue

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  George H. Collins

  	
   

  	
  John F.
  Henderson, Jr.

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  M. Susan Elliott

  	
   

  	
  Kelly A.
  LaCava

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  William P. Hamilton

  	
   

  	
  Rachele
  McDonough

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Ellen McLaughlin

  	
   

  	
  William J.
  Murphy

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Frank Nitkiewicz

  	
   

  	
  Paul T.
  Pouliot

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  William L. Oakley

  	
   

  	
  Allison
  Santoro

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  Paul W. Webber

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  Kevin Whittaker

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  Kenneth A. Willis

  	
   

  

 

EIP Administration

 

The EIP is administered by the Personnel
Committee of the Board of Directors (Committee), which shall have full power
and binding authority to construe, interpret, and administer the EIP, and to
adjust it during or at the end of the calendar year covered by the EIP for
extraordinary circumstances. 
Extraordinary circumstances may include changes in business strategy,
termination or commencement of business lines, impact of severe economic
fluctuations, significant growth or consolidation of the membership base, or
significant regulatory or other changes impacting the Bank or Bank System.

 

The Committee reserves the right at any time
to amend, suspend or terminate the EIP in whole or in part, for any reason, and
without the consent of any EIP participant.

 

The Bank’s President and Chief Executive
Officer will determine participation in the EIP with the concurrence of the
Committee.

(iii) All corporate officers are listed as EIP participants with
one exception: Paul Peduto, First Vice President, Sales and Business
Development.  Mr. Peduto is a
participant in the Bank’s Sales Incentive Plan and is eligible for an incentive
award equivalent to a Tier II participant in the EIP.

 

8

 

EIP awards shall not be considered earned or
payable, in whole or in part, to any participant for any reason until they are
finally determined by the Bank’s President and Chief Executive Officer with the
concurrence of the Committee following the end of the plan year.  Moreover, unless otherwise specifically
determined by the President and Chief Executive Officer with the concurrence of
the Committee, a participant will be entitled to payment of an award only if
the participant is employed on the date of payment of the award.  However, any individual hired or promoted
into an eligible position during the plan year that is granted an award shall
have any such incentive award prorated based on months of EIP participation,
providing he/she has served a minimum of six months in that role and otherwise
satisfies the EIP’s requirements.

 

Except as set forth in the following
paragraphs, any EIP participant who terminates employment for any reason,
whether voluntarily or involuntarily, before the end of the plan year, defined
as the period January 1, 2008 through December 31, 2008, shall not be
entitled to any award, except as otherwise determined by the Bank’s President
and Chief Executive Officer, with the concurrence of the Committee, at their
sole discretion.

 

EIP participants who are eligible to retire
from employment with the Bank prior to the conclusion of the plan year may
receive a pro rata payment of any incentive award as determined and recommended
by the Bank’s President and Chief Executive Officer, with the concurrence of
the Committee, based on the months of completed service as an EIP participant
during the plan year.  To be eligible,
the participant must complete at least six months of service in the plan year
and otherwise satisfy the EIP’s requirements and must be i) eligible for normal
retirement as defined in the Pentegra Defined Benefit Plan for Financial
Institutions or ii) meet the Rule of 70 as defined in the Pentegra Defined
Benefit Plan for Financial Institutions, including credited service in the FHLB
system, but excluding any other credited service at another Pentegra
participating employer.  Further, as
determined and recommended by the President and Chief Executive Officer, the
participant may not be entitled to such pro rated payout if employed by a
competing institution at the time of or subsequent to termination from the
Bank.

 

EIP participants who terminate employment
with the Bank by reason of death or disability prior to the conclusion of the
plan year will receive a pro rata payment of any incentive award determined by
the Bank’s President and Chief Executive Officer, with the concurrence of the
Committee, based on the months of completed service as an EIP participant
during the year.  Beneficiaries of such
payments will be the same as identified in the Bank’s group insurance plan.

 

Awards to retiring or disabled participants
or beneficiaries will be paid at the same time as awards to all active
participants.

 

The Bank may make such provisions, as it
deems appropriate, for withholding payroll taxes in connection with payment of
EIP awards.

 

The Bank also has several other incentive
programs for staff at the Bank designed to motivate employees to become more innovative
and productive. The Bank’s President is responsible for the administration of
each of these programs and has the authority to construe, implement, and
administer programs, as appropriate.

 

9Exhibit 10.7.1

 

FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK OF BOSTON

 

2008 DIRECTOR COMPENSATION POLICY

 

A
fee of $2,075 per meeting shall be paid to all Directors that attend all or
part of a meeting of the Board of Directors. 
A fee of $2,850 per meeting shall be paid to the vice chair of the
Board.  A fee of $3,650 per meeting shall
be paid to the chair of the Board.  This
fee shall also be provided to any person elected by the Board to serve as
chairman pro tempore or to the vice chair if the vice chair presides for an entire
meeting of the Board.  There are nine
regularly scheduled meetings in 2008.

 

A
fee of $750 per meeting shall be paid to all committee members, including ex
officio members, who attend all or any part of any meeting of a committee of
the Board.  A fee of $750 shall be paid
to any director who attends all or part of the annual shareholders meeting.

 

A
fee of $500 per meeting shall be paid to any Director for participation in
telephonic conference calls or when participating by telephone for all or any
part of a meeting in which the Director would be entitled to receive a meeting
fee for in-person attendance at such meeting.

 

Fees
shall be paid per meeting.  For example,
if a Board meeting and committee meeting occur on the same day, a separate fee
shall be payable for attendance at each meeting.  Additionally, in the case of a multi-day
meeting, a separate fee shall be payable for each day’s attendance at the same
meeting.

 

In
the event that inclement weather prevents the occurrence of a planned meeting
of the Board or one of its committees, the Directors shall be entitled to
receive the applicable meeting fee called for in the Statement of Policy, minus
any fees received if an in-person meeting is changed to a telephonic meeting.

 

Maximum
Fees

 

Directors
are subject to statutory and regulatory caps on annual compensation.  Fees earned above these caps cannot be paid
to the Director.

 

Administrative
Matters

 

The
Personnel Committee shall annually review this policy and shall submit its
recommendation to the Board.  The Board
shall consider the recommendations of the Personnel Committee and shall approve
the policy no later than the first regularly scheduled meeting of the Board in
which the policy shall apply.  The Board
is authorized, in its sole discretion, to interpret the provisions of the
policy and to address situations not anticipated by the policy, consistent with
the requirements set forth in the regulations promulgated by the Federal
Housing Finance Board.

 

 

The
following projections assume attendance at eight board meetings and three
committee meetings.

 

	
  Director cap: $18,739

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  8 board meetings

  	
   

  	
  x

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  2,075

  	
   

  	
  =

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  16,600

  	
   

  
	
  3 committee meetings

  	
   

  	
  x

  	
   

  	
  750

  	
   

  	
  =

  	
   

  	
  2,250

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  18,850

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Vice Chair cap: $24,986

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  8 board meetings

  	
   

  	
  x

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  2,850

  	
   

  	
  =

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  22,800

  	
   

  
	
  3 committee meetings

  	
   

  	
  x

  	
   

  	
  750

  	
   

  	
  =

  	
   

  	
  2,250

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  25,050

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Chair cap: $31,232

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  8 board meetings

  	
   

  	
  x

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  3,650

  	
   

  	
  =

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  29,200

  	
   

  
	
  3 committee meetings

  	
   

  	
  x

  	
   

  	
  750

  	
   

  	
  =

  	
   

  	
  2,250

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  31,450

  	
   

  

 

2

Source: [{"source": "alea-institute/alea-institute/kl3m-data-edgar-agreements/train-00139-of-00352.parquet"}, [{"source": "alea-institute/alea-institute/kl3m-data-edgar-agreements/train-00139-of-00352.parquet"}]]