Does CEO pay dispersion matter in an emerging market? Evidence from China’s listed firms

This paper examines how the institutional features of emerging economies (i.e., government ownership, political connections, and market reform) influence CEO pay-dispersion incentives. Consistent with our expectation, we find that CEO pay dispersion generally provides a tournament incentive in China's emerging market, as it is positively associated with firm performance. In addition, tournament incentives are weaker where firms are controlled by the government and where the CEO is politically connected, but it became stronger after the China's split-share structure reforms. Further, we find that in state controlled firms the satisfaction gained by meeting multiple economic and social goals largely reduces the effectiveness of tournament incentives, while the managerial agency problems inherent in private firms might mitigate them.

The determination of CEO pay

This investigation demonstrates that board determination of CEO pay goes beyond financial performance to consider what is considered legitimate remuneration in the context of an informationally efficient CEO pay packet. These decisions are tested in a multi-layered institutionalised environment maintained by the core agency concept of shareholder primacy.

Shame sanctions and excessive CEO pay

The debate over excessive CEO compensation has roiled scholars,corporations, and the government for some time. This article suggests that there is an alternate way of attacking the problem of excessive executive pay—one that sidesteps the law and instead appeals to executives' emotions. Shame sanctions, as they are called, offer a nonlegal route to curbing exorbitant CEO compensation. This article argues that increased disclosure of executives' compensation agreements will trigger emotions like shame, guilt and embarrassment by corporations and executives. This in turn has the potential to influence financial behavior and cause corporations to be more likely to heed the concerns of the public and shareholders vis-à-vis executive pay.

Changing social norms and CEO pay: the role of norms entrepreneurs

This is the third in a series of papers examining different aspects of the CEO compensation debate. This Article will explore attempts by norms entrepreneurs to create or modify social norms. It argues that the relevant social norms are in a state of flux because of the work of norms entrepreneurs, whose efforts might reduce the need for legislative intervention. Several new norms like majority voting for board election, say on pay, smaller multiples for severance packages, and respect for shareholder activists may be emerging due to the work of norms entrepreneurs. Part II analyzes the rich literature on social norms to determine if there are models capable of application to better correlate executive compensation with performance. Despite several problems at the definitional level, it argues that the actions of constituencies relevant to the CEO pay debate might be explained by signaling, esteem, and expressive theories. Further, social norms theories neglecting internalization are deficient; corporate actors undertake self-improvement only when they internalize norms. Part III identifies the work of norms entrepreneurs in creating or changing norms pertaining to CEO compensation, and analyzes the reasons for their success. The examples considered demonstrate the effects of dynamic normative transformations on corporate actors and illustrate the contrast in behavioral changes accompanying resistance and acceptance of new norms. Part IV concludes that norm creation in corporate law is facilitated by the role of groups where membership benefits are dependent on reputation; that directors cannot tradeoff reputation like CEOs, making the deployment of reputational sanctions against them powerful; that behavioral change is more effective when there is norm internalization; and that norms entrepreneurs ought to focus on socializing relevant actors if they aspire to be successful in achieving normative change.

CEO Compensation, Compensation Risk, and Corporate Governance: Evidence from Technology Firms

Literature suggests that CEOs of technology firms earn higher pay than CEOs of non-technology firms. I investigate whether compensation risk explains the difference in compensation between technology firms and non-technology firms. Controlling for firm size and performance, I find that CEOs in technology firms have higher pay, but also have much higher compensation risk compared to non-technology firms. Compensation risk explains the major part of the difference in CEO pay. My study is consistent with the labor market economics view that CEOs earn competitive risk-adjusted total compensation.

Essays On CEO Compensation: New Evidence On The Managerial-Power Vs. Optimal Contracting Debate

This dissertation analyzes the effect of market analysts’ expectations of share prices (price targets) on executive compensation. It examines how well the estimated effects of price targets on compensation fit with two competing views on determining executive compensation: the arm’s length bargaining model, which assumes that a board seeks to maximize shareholders’ interests, and the managerial power model, which assumes that a board seeks to maximize managers’ compensation (Bebchuk et al. 2005). The first chapter documents the pattern of CEO pay from fiscal year 1996 to 2010. The second chapter analyzes the Institutional Broker Estimate System Detail History Price Target data file, which that reports analysts’ price targets for firms. I show that the number of price target announcements is positively associated with company share price’s volatility, that price targets are predictive of changes in the value of stocks, and that when analysts announce positive (negative) expectations of future stock price, share prices change in the same direction in the short run. The third chapter analyzes the effect of price targets on executive compensation. I find that analysts' price targets alter the composition of executive pay between cash-based compensation and stock-based compensation. When analysts forecast a rise (fall) in the share price for a firm, the compensation package tilts toward stock-based (cash-based) compensation. The substitution effect is stronger in companies that have weaker corporate governance. The fourth chapter explores the effect of the introduction of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) in 2002 and its reinforcement in 2006 on the options granting process. I show that the introduction of SOX and its reinforcement eliminated the practice of backdating options but increased “spring-loading” of option grants around price targets announcements. Overall, the dissertation shows that price targets provide insights into the determinants of executive pay in favor of the managerial power model.

Effect of executive compensation on firm performance

The paper finds evidence that the equity-based CEO pay is positively related to firm performance and risk-taking. Both stock price and operating performance as well as firm's riskiness increase in the pay-performance sensitivities (PPS) provided by CEO stock options and stock holdings. PPS can explain stock returns better as an additional factor to the Fama-French 3-factor model. When CEOs are compensated with higher PPS, firms experience higher return on asset (ROA). The higher PPS also leads to the higher risk-taking. While CEO incentive compensation has been perceived mixed on its effectiveness, this study provides support to the equity-based CEO compensation in reducing agency conflicts between CEOs and shareholders.

The Corporate Gini Index (CGI) determinants and advantages: lessons from a multinational retail company case study

This article identifies and compares the determinants of CEO compensation to median employee earnings with those of the Corporate Gini Index (CGI). Using a multinational retail company, the article posits that the CGI is an advantageous corporate alternative pay inequality measure that concerns CEO pay multiples to median employee earnings, which regulators should consider using and disclosing in proxy statements. Although CGI and the official measure of multiples of CEO pay to median employee earnings share some of the challenges, the advantages of CGI as an alternative measure are greater. Our findings suggest that the CGI is a much better measure of corporate income inequality bringing clear benefits at both micro and macro levels of intervention.

Directors' remuneration and performance in Australian banking

This paper explores the relationship between directors' pay and performance within Australian banking, using panel data for the 1992-2005 period. The relationship between CEO pay and performance is investigated also. Several earnings models are estimated, using different dependent variables, alternate measures of performance and different estimation techniques. The results indicate an absence of a contemporaneous relationship between directors' pay and bank performance, and no association with prior year performance. However, there is a more distant pay-performance relationship, with total directors' pay having a robust positive association with earnings per share lagged two years, as well as with ROE lagged two years. The other key determinants of directors' pay in Australian banking are bank specific managerial policies, lags in the administration of pay, bank size, directors' age and directors' stock ownership. In contrast to total directors' pay, the evidence confirms a strong positive and direct association between CEO remuneration and prior year bank performance. The pay-performance association is stronger and more direct for CEO remuneration than it is for total directors' remuneration. The responsiveness of CEO pay with respect to bank performance appears to have increased over time.

Do venture capitalists play a monitoring role in an emerging market? Evidence from the pay–performance relationship of Chinese entrepreneurial firms

This paper investigates venture capitalists' monitoring of managerial behavior by examining their impact on CEO pay–performance sensitivity across various controlling structures in Chinese firms. We find that the effectiveness of venture capitalists' monitoring depends on different types of agency conflict. In particular, we find that venture capital (VC) monitoring is hampered in firms that experience severe controlling-minority agency problems caused by disproportionate ownership structures. We provide further evidence that VC is more likely to exert close monitoring in firms that have greater managerial agency conflict, and thus require more direct monitoring. However, controlling-minority agency problems have a greater impact on VC monitoring than managerial agency problems. Overall, our study suggests that venture capitalists' monitoring role is hampered in an emerging market where firms have complex ownership structures that contribute to severe agency conflict between controlling and minority shareholders.

Disproportional ownership structure and pay–performance relationship: evidence from China’s listed firms

This paper examines the impact of ownership structure on executive compensation in China's listed firms. We find that the cash flow rights of ultimate controlling shareholders have a positive effect on the pay–performance relationship, while a divergence between control rights and cash flow rights has a significantly negative effect on the pay–performance relationship. We divide our sample based on ultimate controlling shareholders' type into state owned enterprises (SOE), state assets management bureaus (SAMB), and privately controlled firms. We find that in SOE controlled firms cash flow rights have a significant impact on accounting based pay–performance relationship. In privately controlled firms, cash flow rights affect the market based pay–performance relationship. In SAMB controlled firms, CEO pay bears no relationship with either accounting or market based performance. The evidence suggests that CEO pay is inefficient in firms where the state is the controlling shareholder because it is insensitive to market based performance but consistent with the efforts of controlling shareholders to maximize their private benefit.

Corporate tournaments and executive compensation: evidence from the UK

This study tests the implications of tournament theory using data on 100 U.K. stock market companies, covering over 500 individual executives, in the late 1990s. Our results provide some evidence consistent with the operation of tournament mechanisms within the U.K. business context. Firstly, we find a convex relationship between executive pay and organizational level and secondly, that the gap between CEO pay and other board executives (i.e., tournament prize) is positively related to the number of participants in the tournament. However, we also show that the variation in executive team pay has little role in determining company performance.

New perspectives on the governance of executive compensation:an examination of the role and effect of compensation consultants

We develop a multi-theoretic approach, drawing on economic, institutional, managerial power and social comparison literatures to explain the role of the external compensation consultant in the top management pay setting institutional field. Taking advantage of recent disclosure requirements in the UK, we collect data on compensation consultant use in 232 large companies. We show that consultants are a prevalent part of the CEO pay setting scene, and document evidence of all advisor use. Our econometric results show that consultant use is associated with firm size and the equity pay mix. We also show that CEO pay is positively associated with peer firms that share consultants, with higher board and consultant interlocks, and some evidence that where firms supply other business services to the firm, CEO pay is greater. © 2009 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC.

What will the next buyer pay? the key to investing in property

Most investors look at the initial return (or yield) that they will receive from an investment property, but this is only part of the picture. The more important issue is what capital appreciation will be achieved. Unless an investment property will deliver substantial capital appreciation, it is unlikely to be a good investment in financial terms.