CEO inside debt and internal capital market efficiency

Agency theory argues that managerial equity-based incentives are more effective when firm solvency is likely while debt-based incentives are more effective when firms face a greater likelihood of bankruptcy. We examine the relation between chief executive officers' (CEOs') inside debt holdings and the internal capital market allocation of multi-segment firms. We find that CEO inside debt holdings are associated with conservative capital allocation to firm segments, with the result driven by financially distressed firms. Further analysis indicates that although CEO inside debt, on average, is negatively related to firm value, the relation is positive for financially distressed firms. Our evidence indicates that inside debt holdings align the interests of managers and external creditors, inducing managers to pursue conservative capital allocation strategies that appear to be optimal for firms facing insolvency.     

CEO inside debt holdings and credit ratings

In this paper we investigate the relationship between chief executive officer (CEO) inside debt holdings (pension benefits and deferred compensation) and long-term credit ratings. We provide evidence that firms with a higher level of inside debt holdings enjoy better credit ratings. Our results are robust to the use of alternative regression estimation and alternative measures of key variables. We employ instrumental variable–based two-stage least squares regression and instrumental variable regression estimation using heteroskedasticity-based instruments to mitigate the endogeneity concern. In addition, we employ propensity-matched sample and entropy balancing estimates to alleviate endogeneity concerns. Our cross-sectional analyses reveal that the relationship between CEO inside debt holdings and credit ratings is more pronounced in firms with a poor information environment, a weak monitoring mechanism, and powerful CEOs. Overall, findings from our study suggest that credit rating agencies evaluate CEO insider debt holdings positively in assessing the creditworthiness of a firm.     

CEO Inside Debt Incentives and Corporate Tax Sheltering

This paper examines the relation between CEO inside debt holdings (pension benefits and deferred compensation) and corporate tax sheltering. Because inside debt holdings are generally unsecured and unfunded liabilities of the firm, CEOs are exposed to risk similar to that faced by outside creditors. As such, theory (Jensen and Meckling [1976]) suggests that inside debt holdings negatively impact CEO risk‐appetite. To the extent that corporate tax shelters are likely to result in high cash flow volatility in the future, we expect that inside debt holdings will curb CEOs from engaging in tax shelter transactions. Consistent with the prediction, we document a negative association between CEO inside debt holdings and tax sheltering. Additional analyses suggest that the effect of inside debt on tax sheltering is more (less) pronounced in the presence of high default risk and liquidity threats (cash‐out options in pension packages). Overall, our results highlight the importance of investigating the implication of CEO debt‐like compensation for corporate tax policies.     

Seeking safety: The relation between CEO inside debt holdings and the riskiness of firm investment and financial policies

CEO inside debt holdings (pension benefits and deferred compensation) are generally unsecured and unfunded liabilities of the firm. Because these characteristics of inside debt expose the CEO to default risk similar to that faced by outside creditors, theory predicts that CEOs with large inside debt holdings will display lower levels of risk-seeking behavior (Jensen and Meckling, 1976). Consistent with the theoretical predictions, we find a negative association between CEO inside debt holdings and the volatility of future firm stock returns, R&D expenditures, and financial leverage, and a positive association between CEO inside debt holdings and the extent of diversification and asset liquidity. Collectively, our results provide empirical evidence suggesting that CEOs with large inside debt holdings prefer investment and financial policies that are less risky.     

CEO inside debt and corporate debt maturity structure

This paper examines the relation between chief executive officer (CEO) inside debt holdings and corporate debt maturity. We provide robust evidence that inside debt has a positive effect on short-maturity debt and that this effect is concentrated in financially unconstrained firms that face lower refinancing risk. Our analysis further shows that CEO inside debt helps reduce the cost of debt financing. Overall, our results indicate that managerial holdings of inside debt facilitate access to external debt financing and reduce refinancing risk, thus incentivizing managers to use less costly shorter term debt.     

What's good for you is good for me: The effect of CEO inside debt on the cost of equity

We find an overall negative relation between CEO inside debt holdings and the cost of equity capital. Such a negative relation holds in an instrumental-variable analysis, a test using changes in variables due to CEO turnover events, a test using seasoned equity offering (SEO) underpricing as an alternate cost of equity measure, and a difference-in-differences test based on the implementation of Internal Revenue Code Section 409A Final Regulations. Additionally, the negative relation between inside debt and the cost of equity capital is nonlinear, suggesting the existence of optimal inside debt compensation that can minimize cost of capital. The negative relation is less pronounced in firms with pre-funded executive pension plans and in firms that provide executives with the pension lump-sum option. We also provide evidence that inside debt lowers the cost of equity more for excessively levered firms. Collectively, these findings suggest that shareholders value the beneficial role of CEO debt-like compensation in constraining excessive managerial risk taking.     

Managerial risk-reducing incentives and social and exchange capital

This study investigates the impact of managerial risk-reducing incentives on the firm's social and exchange capital. Using CEO inside debt holdings to proxy for the incentives of risk-averse managers, we find that CEOs with more inside debt holdings are likely to invest more in building social capital, which targets broader society and potentially offers anti-risk protection advantages, to shield the value of their inside debt. However, our results further show that managerial risk-reducing incentives have no impact on firms' exchange capital, suggesting the need to recognize the difference between social and exchange capital. These findings corroborate the view that CEOs invest in social capital as a risk management strategy. Furthermore, this paper presents an understanding of the role that institutional investors play in moderating the impact of managerial risk-reducing incentives on social capital. Our results suggest that institutional investors constrain CEOs that have greater inside debt incentives from investing in social capital. However, they are still willing to increase the investment in social capital for risk management purposes when firm risk is high.     

Why Do Canadian Firms Cross‐list? The Flip Side of the Issue

We investigate the relation between managerial incentives and the decision to cross‐list by comparing Canadian firms cross‐listed on US stock exchanges to industry‐ and size‐matched control firms. After controlling for firm and ownership structure characteristics, we find a positive association between substantial holdings of vested options held by CEOs prior to cross‐listing and the decision to cross‐list. Further, firms managed by CEOs with substantial holdings of vested options exhibit positive announcement returns and negative post‐announcement long‐run returns. CEOs of cross‐listed firms seem to take advantage of the aforementioned market behaviour, because they abnormally exercise vested options and sell the proceeds during the year of listing only when their firms underperform during the subsequent year. In addition, there is a positive relation between substantial holdings of vested options and discretionary accruals during the year of listing, consistent with the view that CEOs manage earnings to keep stock prices at high levels. Overall, these results have significant implications for the cross‐listing literature, suggesting an association between cross‐listing and CEO incentives to maximize CEO private benefits.     

Inside debt and firm risk-taking: Evidence from the UK pension reform

This paper provides new evidence on the relation between CEO inside debt and firm risk-taking by exploiting the change in the tax treatment of UK pensions following two pension amendments. The 2006 pension reform introduces the annual and lifetime allowance for UK pension schemes, significantly increasing income taxes associated with CEO inside debt. The 2011 allowance cut, which substantially reduces the annual allowance introduced in 2006, further increases income taxes on inside debt. We find that CEO inside debt, in the form of executive pensions declines after the 2006 reform while cash-in-lieu increases significantly. This effect is more severe after the 2011 allowance cut than the 2006 pension reform. UK firms appear to substitute away from pensions towards cash-in-lieu, where income taxes are less punishing. If the association between CEO inside debt and firm risk-taking is causal, we should observe a change of risk-taking after the decline of inside debt. Our results, which exploit the exogenous nature of the reforms, show that the decline of CEO pensions does not lead to any change in firm risk-taking. This result suggests that no causal relationship exists between CEO inside debt and firm risk-taking. Our results extend the inside debt literature, where empirical evidence is mainly documented in the US. Contrary to findings in the US, our evidence suggests that the use of CEO inside debt is motivated to minimise income tax rather than a tool to moderate firm risk.     

Awe culture and corporate social responsibility: Evidence from China

By proxying ‘awe culture’ (i.e., reverence for life and ethical behaviour) with regional induced abortion rates, we examine the impact of awe culture on corporate social responsibility (CSR) in a sample of Chinese firms. We find that firms located in areas with higher induced abortion rates spend less funds on CSR activities and obtain lower CSR scores. The findings remain intact after an array of robustness tests. Further analysis shows that the effect of awe culture on CSR is more pronounced in areas with weaker law enforcement and where the local government emphasises economic growth targets. However, the effect becomes insignificant when firms are well-represented by top executives with overseas experience, foreign directors, and a high proportion of female board members. The significance of the effect also diminishes for non-state-owned firms, and firms with higher institutional ownership and higher cash holdings. Moreover, the lack of awe culture attenuates the positive impact of CSR on firm value. Overall, we document that awe culture, as an informal institution, shapes CSR behaviours.     

CEO inside debt and investment‐cash flow sensitivity

This paper provides a new explanation for investment‐cash flow sensitivity from the perspective of CEO inside debt holdings. We examine the effect of CEO pensions and deferred compensation (inside debt) on investment‐cash flow sensitivity for a sample of U.S. manufacturing firms from 2006 to 2012. We find that the firms with higher relative CEO leverage ratios (CEO's debt/equity ratio scaled by the firm's debt/equity ratio) generate higher investment‐cash flow sensitivity. Moreover, one standard deviation increase in the logarithm of the relative CEO leverage ratio enlarges investment‐cash flow sensitivity by 50 per cent. This positive relationship still holds even after we take account of endogeneity and financial constraints.     

The dynamics of CEO equity vs. inside debt and firm performance

This paper provides new evidence on the comparative dynamic effects of CEO inside debt and equity compensation on firm performance as measured by Tobin’s Q. In contrast to the extant literature, we find significant empirical evidence supporting the classic Jensen and Meckling (1976) premise that managers should receive debt vs. equity compensation in proportion to the capital structure of the firm. We also provide new evidence showing that the effects of the CEO compensation structure on firm performance are dependent on the CEO’s time horizon, as measured by the expected period of employment to retirement. We show that the incremental benefits of equity compensation to performance increase with the CEO’s projected time to retirement. A similar, but insignificant relationship is observed for CEO inside debt compensation. Cash compensation is more beneficial to the firm when concentrated near the end of the CEO’s tenure.     

Outsider CEOs and corporate debt

We examine the extent to which outsider chief executive officers (CEOs) influence corporate financial leverage policies. We define an outsider CEO as one who appears in the reporting year and became CEO either immediately upon joining or within 3 months of joining a firm. There are arguments in the literature that the selection of an outsider CEO can either increase or decrease financial leverage. We investigate this issue using 11,118 Australian firm-year observations from 1216 firms listed during the period 2001–2015. Our findings suggest that, in the short-term after their appointment, outsider CEOs reduce firm dependence on debt. This result is robust to several additional tests and four measures to minimize endogeneity concerns. However, with an increase in their tenure at the firm, outsider CEOs revert to greater dependency on corporate debt. After supplementary analyses, we determine that the outsider CEOs short-term strategy of reducing financial leverage involves using cash reserves and restricting dividends to reduce existing debt. Instead, outsider CEOs finance capital expenditure projects thus providing a positive signal to the market that such CEOs are more creditworthy. Our results also suggest that outsider CEOs exercise more control over financial leverage when they have specialist attributes.     

CEO tournament incentives and corporate debt contracting

This study examines the relation between CEO tournament incentives, proxied by the difference between CEO pay and the median pay of the senior executives of a given firm, and corporate debt contracting. We find negative relations between CEO pay gap and the cost of debt and default risk, and a positive relation between CEO pay gap and debt maturity. Further analysis indicates that the results are stronger for firms with near-retirement CEOs, which are more likely to run CEO tournaments. Our evidence suggests that creditors view tournament incentives favorably and are willing to provide better debt terms.     

Talented inside directors and corporate social responsibility: A tale of two roles

We examine the effect of inside directors with outside directorship, denoted as talented inside directors (TIDs), on corporate social responsibility (CSR) using 17,668 U.S. firm-year observations from 1998 to 2016. We find a significantly negative association between TIDs and excessive CSR and the result remains unchanged after correcting for endogeneity concern. We further shed light on how TIDs reduce excessive CSR through playing monitoring and advisory roles. The result showing a high sensitivity of CEO turnover to excessive CSR in firms with TIDs renders support to the monitoring hypothesis of TIDs. We further demonstrate that the baseline result is more pronounced for TIDs who are more likely to replace CEOs, for positive CSR activities that are more likely to enhance CEOs' personal benefits, and in firms that agency problems are more severe, providing additional evidence to support the monitoring hypothesis. This study also supports the advisory role of TIDs by showing that the baseline result is more pronounced in firms with high demand for board advice. Finally, we show that investors perceive that TIDs improve the value of CSR. Taken together, this study provides promising evidence that TIDs improve the efficiency of CSR investment by monitoring and advising CEOs.     

Labor unemployment risk and firm risk

This paper examines the effect of labor unemployment risk on firm risk. Using unemployment insurance benefits as a proxy for unemployment risk, we find an economically significant positive relation between unemployment risk and firm risk. This positive relation is more pronounced for firms that are more labor-intensive, have a higher layoff propensity and are more financially constrained. While existing literature that employs corporate policy measures such as debt and cash holdings suggests an opposite relationship, our paper presents evidence that the effects stemming from earnings management, earnings quality and reporting quality appear to dominate.     

Short-term debt maturity,monitoring and accruals-based earnings management

Most prior studies assume a positive relation between debt and earnings management, consistent with the financial distress theory. However, the empirical evidence for financial distress theory is mixed. Another stream of studies argues that lenders of short-term debt play a monitoring role over management, especially when the firm’s creditworthiness is not in doubt. To explore the implications of these arguments on managers’ earnings management incentives, we examine a sample of US firms over the period 2003–2006 and find that short-term debt is positively associated with accruals-based earnings management (measured by discretionary accruals), consistent with the financial distress theory. We also find that this relation is significantly weaker for firms that are of higher creditworthiness (i.e. investment grade firms), consistent with monitoring benefits outweighing financial distress reasons for managing earnings.     

The Level and Stability of Institutional Ownership and Firm Performance: Evidence from Taiwan

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the influence of shareholding stability of institutional investors on firm performance. We analyze 647 sample companies listed in the Taiwan Stock Exchange from 2005 to 2009 using the coefficient of variance of institutional holding proportion as the measure for ownership stability. The empirical results show that increasing stability of institutional holdings is related to better firm performance. The low-risk and younger firms with higher CEO incentive compensation, larger insider holdings, and higher growth usually have better performance. Furthermore, when the long-term institutional shareholdings, particularly of foreign institutions, are higher, the firm performance is better.     

CEO overconfidence and corporate cash holdings

This study proposes chief executive officer (CEO) overconfidence to be an alternative explanation to corporate cash holdings. We find positive effects of CEO overconfidence on the level of cash holdings and the value of cash, which are mainly due to the investment environments faced by firms. The positive effects of CEO overconfidence on cash holdings level and cash value are barely affected by the traditional motives of cash holdings based on trade-off and agency theories. The analysis of cash sources further explains why firms with overconfident CEOs can aggressively pursue risky investments and maintain large cash holdings at the same time. Although the prior literature indicates that overconfident CEOs tend to avoid equity issues for their capital investments, the contribution to cash savings from equity is higher than that from debt. Additional robustness tests also support our empirical findings.     

CEO's Inside Debt and Dynamics of Capital Structure

Debt‐type compensation (inside debt) exacerbates the divergence in risk preferences between the chief executive officer (CEO) and shareholders and, in turn, affects capital structure decisions. An excessively risk‐averse CEO tends to use less debt than the shareholders desire, reduce debt quickly when the firm is overlevered, but is reluctant to increase debt when the firm is underlevered. We find that higher CEO's inside debt ratio (i.e., inside debt as a percentage of total incentive compensation) is associated with lower firm leverage and faster (slower) leverage adjustments toward the shareholders’ desired level for overlevered (underlevered) firms. The CEO's inside debt ratio most conducive to capital structure rebalancing is around 10% of the firm's market debt ratio.