Executive pay and performance: did bankers’ bonuses cause the crisis?

This paper examines the pay-performance relationship between executive cash compensation (including bonuses) and company performance for a sample of large UK companies, focusing particularly on the financial services industry, since incentive misalignment has been blamed as one of the factors causing the global financial crisis of 2007–2008. Although we find that pay in the financial services sector is high, the cash-plus-bonus pay-performance sensitivity of financial firms is not significantly higher than in other sectors. Consequently, we conclude that it unlikely that incentive structures could be held responsible for inducing bank executives to focus on short-term results.

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.

A influência do volume na performance dos fundos de investimento em ações no Brasil

Tendo como base a literatura internacional sobre fundos mútuos, o presente estudo busca encontrar algumas características que influenciam a performance dos fundos de investimentos em ações no Brasil de janeiro de 1999 até abril de 2005. O objetivo principal do trabalho é perceber se os fundos de investimento em ações têm retorno decrescente de escala. Ao mesmo tempo, sabe-se que a persistência de uma boa rentabilidade depende do grau de profissionalismo dos gestores e também de uma boa relação entre o gestor responsável e o investidor e, um contrato ótimo entre ambos. Observou-se que o volume não tem influência negativa no retorno do fundo, pelo contrário, quanto maior o fundo melhor é a rentabilidade do mesmo. Os resultados também apresentaram que os fundos que cobram taxa de performance têm um desempenho melhor do que os que não cobram. Foi identificado também que os fundos que utilizam a marca d água como incentivo de remuneração aos gestores têm rentabilidade um pouco maior do que os fundos que pagam taxa de performance, mas não utilizam a marca d água no regulamento. Chegou-se a conclusão que há uma relação direta entre incentivo e desempenho. Os resultados aqui encontrados buscam facilitar o conhecimento e a tomada de decisão de pesquisadores, investidores, empresas gestoras, Corretoras e Distribuidoras, fundos de pensão e dos demais interessados na indústria de fundos de investimento em ações no Brasil.

How does ownership structure invfluence bank risk? Analyzing the role of managerial incentives

This paper analyzes how ownership concentration and managerial incentives influences bank risk for a large sample of US banks over the period 1997-2007. Using 2SLS simultaneous equations models, we show that ownership concentration has a positive total effect on bank risk. This is the result of a positive direct effect, which reflects monitoring and opportunistic behavior, and a negative indirect effect, which works through the design of managerial incentive contracts and reflects shareholder preferences toward risk. Large shareholders reduce bank risk by reducing the sensitivity of CEO wealth to stock volatility (Vega) and by increasing the CEO pay-performance sensitivity (Delta). In addition, we show that the direct and indirect effect of ownership concentration on bank risk depends on the type of the largest shareholder (a family, a bank, a corporation or an institutional investor), as well as, on the total shareholding held by each type as a group. Our results suggest that the positive relation between ownership concentration and risk is not the result of preferences towards more risk. Rather, they point at opportunistic behavior of large shareholders.

On the valuation and incentive effects of executive cash bonus contracts

Executive compensation packages are often valued in an inconsistent manner: while employee stock options (ESOs) are typically valued ex-ante, cash bonuses are valued ex-post. This renders the existing valuation models of employee compensation packages theoretically unsatisfactory and, potentially, empirically distortive. In this paper, we propose an option-based framework for ex-ante valuation of cash bonus contracts. After obtaining closed-form expressions for ex-ante values of several frequently used types of bonus contracts, we utilize them to explore the e¤ects that the shape of a bonus contract has on the executive s attitude toward risk-taking. We, also, study pay-performance sensitivity of such contracts. We show that the terms of a bonus contract can dramatically impact both risk-taking behavior as well as pay-performance incentives. Several testable predictions are made, and venues of future research outlined.

Managerial Risk-Taking and CEO Excess Compensation

This paper examines risk taking and CEO excess compensation problems in U.S firms to determine their impact on shareholders wealth. Literature suggests a positive effect of CEO incentive risk and strong corporate governance on CEO risk taking. Furthermore, the strong governance mitigates excess compensation problem. Controlling for governance quality and incentive risk, I provide empirical evidence of a significant association between risk taking and CEO excess compensation. When I also control for pay-performance sensitivity (delta) and feedback effects of incentive compensation on CEO risk taking, I find that higher use of incentive pay encourages risk taking, and due to a high exposure to risk CEOs draws excess compensation. Furthermore, I find that the excess compensation problem is more serious with CEOs taking high risk than with those taking low risk. Finally, I find that CEO risk taking also has structural impacts on CEO compensation

Controle acionário, remuneração de executivos e desempenho empresarial : evidências para o mercado brasileiro

Esse artigo buscou examinar como o tipo de controlador afeta a relação remuneração e desempenho da diretoria nas empresas brasileiras no período de 2010 a 2013. Primeiramente, o controle no Brasil ainda é majoritariamente exercido por firmas familiares, e que o capital também é concentrado, sendo em média 65% do capital detido pelos 5 maiores acionistas. Quanto a análise econometrica os resultados indicaram que: As empresas de controle familiar e governamental remuneram seus gestores com um valor menor em relação os outros tipos de controle; Não foi possível fazer inferência acerca da influência do controlador nas empresas institucionais; As empresas sem controlador remuneram o seu gestor com um valor maior de remuneração. Por fim, quanto ao desempenho, em nenhuma das equações o ROA foi significativo, demonstrando fracos mecanismos de remuneração ou capacidade do gestor em determinar sua compensação

Corporate performance and the pay gap

Increasing disparity between executive compensation and that of the average worker (the pay gap) has generated a fierce debate about its causes and effects. This paper studies the determinants and performance effects of the pay gap through the prism of Tournament Incentives and the Equity Fairness Theory. Results show that the size of the pay gap is caused primarily by the size of the firm and by the standards of its industry and also by the unionization rate and whether the Chairman is also the CEO. The paper Concludes by showins that the pay gap has a positive effect on firm performance in the United States Keywords:

Effect of a national primary care pay for performance scheme on emergency hospital admissions for ambulatory care sensitive conditions: controlled longitudinal study.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the impact of a national primary care pay for performance scheme, the Quality and Outcomes Framework in England, on emergency hospital admissions for ambulatory care sensitive conditions (ACSCs). DESIGN: Controlled longitudinal study. SETTING: English National Health Service between 1998/99 and 2010/11. PARTICIPANTS: Populations registered with each of 6975 family practices in England. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Year specific differences between trend adjusted emergency hospital admission rates for incentivised ACSCs before and after the introduction of the Quality and Outcomes Framework scheme and two comparators: non-incentivised ACSCs and non-ACSCs. RESULTS: Incentivised ACSC admissions showed a relative reduction of 2.7% (95% confidence interval 1.6% to 3.8%) in the first year of the Quality and Outcomes Framework compared with ACSCs that were not incentivised. This increased to a relative reduction of 8.0% (6.9% to 9.1%) in 2010/11. Compared with conditions that are not regarded as being influenced by the quality of ambulatory care (non-ACSCs), incentivised ACSCs also showed a relative reduction in rates of emergency admissions of 2.8% (2.0% to 3.6%) in the first year increasing to 10.9% (10.1% to 11.7%) by 2010/11. CONCLUSIONS: The introduction of a major national pay for performance scheme for primary care in England was associated with a decrease in emergency admissions for incentivised conditions compared with conditions that were not incentivised. Contemporaneous health service changes seem unlikely to have caused the sharp change in the trajectory of incentivised ACSC admissions immediately after the introduction of the Quality and Outcomes Framework. The decrease seems larger than would be expected from the changes in the process measures that were incentivised, suggesting that the pay for performance scheme may have had impacts on quality of care beyond the directly incentivised activities.

Paying for long-term performance: restructuring bankers’ pay for risk regulation

The purpose of this paper is to propose hybrid capital securities as a new approach to compensation for senior bank executives and risk-takers instead of cash or equity-based compensation currently adopted by the industry. The global financial turmoil indicated that misaligned pay-for-performance compensation arrangements encouraged management short-termism and rewarded excessive risk-taking behaviour in Anglo-Saxon system. Rather than regulating specific instruments and processes, we believe that it is much more efficient to overhaul the compensation scheme to align it with risk management and governance. This empirical paper investigates the European hybrid market by employing data from the Merrill Lynch Global Index System from 2000 to 2010. Our paper contributes to both literature and practices by designing a structured scheme to tie the executive’s interests to long-term performance of the bank, the goal of regulators and the economy at large which consequently reduce the probability of future bank failures.

Pay for performance does not always increase performance

Pay for performance can have a positive or a negative influence on actual performance. The aim of this study was to give an explanation for this contradiction.We demonstrated that the variability of the payment can act as a stressor. According to the transactional model of stress, the influence on performance depends on the subjective interpretation of the variability as challenge or threat. Therefore we manipulated the degree of variability. The data showed decreasing performance for participants who preferred less-variable payments. They performed better under a less-variable rather than more-variable payment. The participants who preferred more-variable payment schemes showed the opposite pattern. These participants showed a higher performance under a more-variable rather than less-variable payment scheme.