Executive stock-based compensation and firms’ cash payout: the role of shareholders’ tax-related payout preferences

We hypothesize that the structure of executive stock-based compensation helps to align managers’ payout choices with shareholders’ tax-related payout preferences. Specifically, stock options, which are not dividend-protected, can deter self-interested executives from using dividends as a form of payout. In contrast, restricted stock, which is dividend-protected, is more likely to induce the use of dividends. Relatedly, shareholders’ preferences for dividends, which are taxed as ordinary income, can depend on the income tax consequences of dividends relative to those of long-term capital gains. To test our hypothesis, we investigate whether the exogenous changes in shareholders’ tax-related payout preferences following the 2003 dividend tax rate reduction result in predictable shifts in executive stock-based compensation and in managers’ payout choices. Consistent with our prediction, we find a positive relation between the increased use of dividends in firms’ payouts and the increased (decreased) use of restricted stock (stock options) in executive compensation, particularly for firms with a greater percentage ownership by individual investors and with lower costs associated with modifying the structure of their compensation plans. Our investigation of the role of shareholders’ tax-related payout preferences in the design of executive stock-based compensation extends the prior literature that has largely focused on the role of incentive contracts in inducing managerial effort, risk taking, and retention.     

ALIGNMENT EXPOSED: HOW CEOS ARE PAID, AND WHAT THEIR SHAREHOLDERS GET FOR IT

This article begins by arguing that, for many companies, there is a significant "disconnect" between how managers are paid and what is actually achieved for shareholders. This paper answers two questions of prime importance to investors: Is there a way to know beforehand whether managers' incentives are well aligned with those of its shareholders? And does such alignment actually make a difference in the returns one is likely to see?
In answering the first question, the author argues that cash bonuses and performance-based equity grants (i.e., grants based on managers' meeting accounting-based operating targets) are likely to provide stronger, more cost-effective incentives than grants of stock or options because the former are generally based on measures over which managers have significantly more control than the stock price. Using this insight, the author develops a method for evaluating compensation structures based on the variability of compensation, the number and type of compensation metrics purportedly driving that variability (including the award of performance shares or options), the stability of those metrics over time, and the apparent level of discretion in the use of those metrics to either fund or distribute bonuses (including equity). All these elements are disclosed to varying degrees in the proxy statements or annual reports of companies.
Using his compensation scores for 140 companies and their return history over the last eight years, the author concludes that "high alignment" companies outperform their "low alignment" peers by more than 5% per year in total shareholder returns. Furthermore, increases in alignment scores by individual companies over time tend to lead to higher total shareholder returns, and degradation of scores lead to lower returns. In short, observable improvements in compensation structure appear to pay off in the form of significant abnormal returns.     

Split Share Structure Reform,corporate governance,and the foreign share discount puzzle in China

We examine the impact of the Split Share Structure Reform on the well-known foreign share discount puzzle in China. Existing literature confirms that foreign investors are more concerned about insider expropriation because of their information disadvantage relative to domestic investors. The split share structure of the ownership of Chinese listed firms created a conflict of interests between state and private shareholders. Since, before the reform, state shareholders held restricted shares that denied them any wealth effect from share price movements, they had a limited incentive to work with private shareholders to ensure that managers maximized the stock market value of the firm. By abolishing the trading restrictions for state shareholders, this reform has increased the incentive alignment between state and private shareholders, encouraging them to monitor managers. If foreign investors’ concerns over the corporate governance implications of the split share structure at least partly contributed to their discounting of Chinese listed firms, then this discount should be reduced following the reform. Indeed, our evidence confirms this prediction, especially among Chinese listed firms with more state ownership or restricted shares. Our findings imply that this significant institutional reform of the Chinese stock market has benefitted minority investors.     

Stock option compensation and the likelihood of meeting analysts' quarterly earnings targets

One role of stock options in executive compensation packages is to counterbalance the inherently short-term orientation of base salary and annual bonuses. Managerial compensation plans frequently include stock options in order to better align the interests of managers and outside shareholders and reduce agency problems. However, since option values are sensitive to fluctuations in stock prices, and investors reward firms that meet or exceed earnings expectations, executives of firms with sizable option components in their compensation plans have increased incentives to report earnings that meet or exceed analysts' forecasts. We show that the propensity to meet or exceed analysts' quarterly earnings forecasts is positively related to the use of options in top executives' compensation plans. Further, firms that employ relatively more options in their compensation plans more frequently report earnings surprises that exceed analysts' forecast by small amounts (between 0 and 1 cent per share). These results suggest that the use of stock-based compensation intensifies top executives' focus on financial analysts' short-term earnings forecasts.     

Letting Go of Norm: How Executive Compensation Can Do Better Than "Best Practices"

With executive pay under the media spotlight, the corporate search for “best practices” is in reality a drive toward common practices as cautious boards gravitate toward a safe norm. But are current trends in compensation structure as good for shareholders as they are for the consultants who implement them? This article explores some of these trends and derives some conclusions about their role in shareholder value creation based on detailed data on executive plans and stock price performance for the S&P 500. One key finding is that rewarding managers for profit growth produces higher stock price returns than rewards based on multiple measures or balanced scorecards. Also, the popular practice of adding long‐term incentive plans to the compensation mix does not appear to improve long‐term performance. Finally, the granting of equity based on the past year's performance rather than in annual fixed‐value amounts appears to be good for shareholders because of additional incentives created by performance‐based grants as well as the elimination of the perverse incentive of rewarding poor stock price performance with more shares.     

SIX CHALLENGES IN DESIGNING EQUITY-BASED PAY

The past two decades have seen a dramatic increase in the equitybased pay of U.S. corporate executives, an increase that has been driven almost entirely by the explosion of stock option grants. When properly designed, equity‐based pay can raise corporate productivity and shareholder value by helping companies attract, motivate, and retain talented managers. But there are good reasons to question whether the current forms of U.S. equity pay are optimal. In many cases, substantial stock and option payoffs to top executives–particularly those who cashed out much of their holdings near the top of the market–appear to have come at the expense of their shareholders, generating considerable skepticism about not just executive pay practices, but the overall quality of U.S. corporate governance. At the same time, many companies that have experienced sharp stock price declines are now struggling with the problem of retaining employees holding lots of deep‐underwater options. This article discusses the design of equity‐based pay plans that aim to motivate sustainable, or long‐run, value creation. As a first step, the author recommends the use of longer vesting periods and other requirements on executive stock and option holdings, both to limit managers' ability to “time” the market and to reduce their incentives to take shortsighted actions that increase near‐term earnings at the expense of longer‐term cash flow. Besides requiring “more permanent” holdings, the author also proposes a change in how stock options are issued. In place of popular “fixed value” plans that adjust the number of options awarded each year to reflect changes in the share price (and that effectively reward management for poor performance by granting more options when the price falls, and fewer when it rises), the author recommends the use of “fixed number” plans that avoid this unintended distortion of incentives. As the author also notes, there is considerable confusion about the real economic cost of options relative to stock. Part of the confusion stems, of course, from current GAAP accounting, which allows companies to report the issuance of at‐the‐money options as costless and so creates a bias against stock and other forms of compensation. But, coming on top of the “opportunity cost” of executive stock options to the company's shareholders, there is another, potentially significant cost of options (and, to a lesser extent, stock) that arises from the propensity of executives and employees to place a lower value on company stock and options than well‐diversified outside investors. The author's conclusion is that grants of (slow‐vesting) stock are likely to have at least three significant advantages over employee stock options:

• ? they are more highly valued by executives and employees (per dollar of cost to shareholders);
• ? they continue to provide reasonably strong ownership incentives and retention power, regardless of whether the stock price rises or falls, because they don't go underwater; and
• ? the value of such grants is much more transparent to stockholders, employees, and the press.

     

Option-based compensation: a survey

Despite empirical research and theoretical validity, there is mixed evidence on whether employee stock options align interests between management and shareholders by turning managers into owners. What used to be a functional tool introduced in the 1950s, has gotten out of hand, as perceived by the press and popular literature. The main catalyst is the accounting treatment stock options receive. This paper provides an overview of the empirical research in the field and discusses the current accounting treatment of employee stock options and impending changes. We conclude by proposing alternative compensation tools.     

The Growing Executive Compensation Advantage of Private Versus Public Companies

Private companies have a natural governance advantage over public companies—one that stems mainly from the presence on their boards of their largest owners. This governance advantage is reflected in the greater effectiveness of private company executive pay plans in balancing the goals of management retention and incentive alignment against cost. Private company investor‐directors are more likely to make these tradeoffs efficiently because they have both a much stronger interest in outcomes than public company directors and more company‐specific knowledge than public company investors. Furthermore, private company boards do not have to contend with the external scrutiny of CEO pay and the growing number of constraints on compensation that are now faced by the directors of public companies. Such constraints focus almost entirely on one dimension of compensation governance—cost—in the belief that such constraints are required to limit the ability of directors to overpay their CEOs. In practice, any element of compensation can serve to improve retention or alignment, as well as being potentially costly to shareholders. Furthermore, any proscribed compensation element can be “worked around” by plan designers, provided the company is willing to deal with the complexity. For this reason, rules intended to deter excessive CEO pay are now effectively forcing even well‐intentioned public company boards to adopt suboptimal or overly complex compensation plans, while doing little to prevent “captured” boards from overpaying CEOs. As a result, it is increasingly difficult for public companies to put in place the kinds of simple, powerful, and efficient incentive plans that are typically seen at private companies—plans that often feature bonuses funded by an uncapped share of profit growth, or upfront “mega‐grants” of stock options with service‐based vesting.     

Top Management Compensation and the Structure of the Board of Directors in Commercial Banks

We examine the relationship between top management compensation and thestructure of the board of directors for a sample of commercial banks. Wefind that boards with more reputable outside directors compensate managersmore heavily with long-term incentives (stock and stock options) than withcash (salary and bonus). We also find a significant positive correlationbetween the future performance of our sample banks and the proportion oftheir managers' compensation in the form of long-term incentives. Taken together, these results suggest that boards with highly reputed outsidedirectors are more effective in providing managers with the appropriateincentives and thus ensuring better future firm performance. Anotherindication of the effectiveness of these boards is our finding that theycompensate managers more heavily with long-term incentives (instead ofcash) when these managers are more entrenched. We also find very little evidence of mutually beneficial back-scratching or collusion betweenoutside directors and senior managers when setting management compensation.But boards with long-serving outside directors are less effective increating appropriate management incentives.     

Stock‐Based Compensation in a Concentrated Ownership Setting: An Empirical Investigation

Stock‐based compensation has been viewed as an important mechanism for tying managers’ wealth to firm performance, and thus alleviating the agency conflict between the shareholders and the managers when ownership is diffused. However, in a concentrated ownership structure, controlling owners are usually the management of the firm; they can engage in self‐dealing activities to the detriment of minority shareholders’ interests. Yet, outside investors may anticipate the problem and discount the share price for the entrenchment behaviors they observe. In this study, we investigate how controlling owners trade off the benefits and the costs of using stock‐based compensation. Based on a sample of Taiwanese firms, our evidence shows that stock‐based compensation is negatively related to the agency problem embedded in a concentrated ownership structure. This relationship is evident among firms with more frequent equity offerings. Overall, our empirical evidence suggests that controlling owners consider the negative price effects of stock‐based compensation and trade off these costs with the benefits of expropriating minority shareholders’ interests, particularly when firms seek more external equity capital. Our results hold after controlling for selection bias and share collateral by controlling owners.     

Do executive stock options induce excessive risk taking?

We examine whether executive stock options can induce excessive risk taking by managers in firms’ security issue decisions. We find that CEOs whose wealth is more sensitive to stock return volatility due to their option holdings are more likely to choose debt over equity as a capital-raising vehicle. More importantly, the pattern holds not only in firms that are underlevered relative to their optimal capital structure but also in overlevered firms. This evidence is inconsistent with executive stock options aligning the interests of managers and shareholders; rather, it supports the hypothesis that stock options sometimes make managers take on too much risk and in the process pursue suboptimal capital structure policies.     

Top Management Compensation and the Structure of the Board of Directors in Commercial Banks

We examine the relationship between top management compensationand the structure of the board of directors for a sample ofcommercial banks. We find that boards with more reputable outsidedirectors compensate managers more heavily with long-term incentives(stock and stock options) than with cash (salary and bonus).We also find a significant positive correlation between thefuture performance of our sample banks and the proportion oftheir managers’ compensation in the form of long-termincentives. Taken together, these results suggest that boardswith highly reputed outside directors are more effective inproviding managers with the appropriate incentives and thusensuring better future firm performance. Another indicationof the effectiveness of these boards is our finding that theycompensate managers more heavily with long-term incentives (insteadof cash) when these managers are more entrenched. We also findvery little evidence of mutually beneficial back-scratchingor collusion between outside directors and senior managers whensetting management compensation. But boards with long-servingoutside directors are less effective in creating appropriatemanagement incentives.     

Accounting rules? Stock buybacks and stock options: Additional evidence

This paper finds that CEO stock options influence the choice, amount, and timing of funds distributed as a buyback. These results favor a managerial opportunism motive for buybacks over other theories and support two key research expectations – that buybacks impose option-induced agency costs on outside shareholders, and that managers benefit from weak governance and unclear accounting in this choice. CEOs increase their insider selling following a buyback, which also supports a managerial opportunism perspective. Once we control for these agency factors, we find no evidence that buyback activity associates reliably with EPS accretion from the reduction in common shares. We conclude that the popular use of stock buybacks as a form of cash distribution derives significantly from a strong contemporaneous relation between buybacks and CEOs’ use of stock options as additional compensation.     

Executive Stock Options: To Expense or Not?

In analyzing the decision to expense stock options, we find a greater likelihood of options expensing for firms with greater transparency and a closer alignment of interests between managers and shareholders. These results provide indirect evidence that expensing is more likely in firms that practice good corporate governance. We show that firms are less likely to expense when option usage is higher and that this negative relation is stronger for firms that are smaller, have high growth, and are less profitable. We also find that the announcement period returns are not significantly different from zero.     

Stock options and managerial incentives for risk taking: Evidence from FAS 123R

We provide new evidence on the relation between option-based compensation and risk-taking behavior by exploiting the change in the accounting treatment of stock options following the adoption of FAS 123R in 2005. The implementation of FAS 123R represents an exogenous change in the accounting benefits of stock options that has no effect on the economic costs and benefits of options for providing managerial incentives. Our results do not support the view that the convexity inherent in option-based compensation is used to reduce risk-related agency problems between managers and shareholders. We show that all firms dramatically reduce their usage of stock options (convexity) after the adoption of FAS 123R and that the decline in option use is strongly associated with a proxy for accounting costs. Little evidence exists that the decline in option usage following the accounting change results in less risky investment and financial policies.     

Bank Risk Taking at the Onset of the Current Banking Crisis

We analyze bank governance, share ownership, CEO compensation, and bank risk taking in the period leading to the current banking crisis. Using a sample of large U.S. bank holding companies (BHCs), we find that BHCs with greater managerial control, achieved through various corporate governance mechanisms, take less risk. BHCs that pay CEOs high base salaries also take less risk, while BHCs that grant CEOs more in stock options or that pay CEOs higher bonuses take more risk. The evidence is generally consistent with BHC managers exhibiting greater risk aversion than outside shareholders, but with several factors affecting managers’ risk‐taking incentives.     

The role of equity compensation in reducing inefficient investment in labor

We investigate whether equity compensation incentivizes executives to make efficient labor investment decisions. In doing so, we examine the extent to which stock options and restricted stock differentially influence labor investment decisions. Consistent with theoretical predictions, we find that stock options exacerbate, while restricted stock mitigates, inefficient labor investment. The effect of stock options (restricted stock) are weaker (stronger) for financially constrained firms. Our results are robust to alternative proxies for inefficient labor investment and when addressing a range of endogeneity concerns. Our research demonstrates that stock options and restricted stock matter in executives' labor investment decisions, but in different ways. Our findings have implications for future research, suggesting that stock options and restricted stock need to be separately considered when examining the impact equity compensation has on capital or investment decision making; and for executive remuneration practice.     

Share reacquisitions,surplus cash,and agency problems

Share repurchases help alleviate agency costs of surplus cash by restricting management’s scope to waste corporate resources. But why do self-interested managers agree to disgorge surplus cash in the first place? This study examines the intervening effect of managerial monitoring and incentive alignment mechanisms on the decision to distribute excess cash through a share repurchase. Findings indicate that repurchases substitute for cash retention decisions that would otherwise prove costly for shareholders, and that better managerial incentive alignment and closer monitoring by external shareholders are important factors stimulating such payouts.     

Should there exist secondary markets for executive stock options?

This paper investigates the potential disadvantages of the secondary markets for executive stock options (ESOs). The benefits of such markets are evident, but they might also have negative effects for shareholders. Executives might, for example, use inside information to time their ESO selling. We investigate two personal motives of managers that can be assumed to affect their optimal selling decision, that is, managers' personal portfolio management issues and the use of inside information. We explore these motives by analyzing unique data from Finland, where there are secondary markets for ESOs. The results of the study support the traditional portfolio diversification hypothesis according to which managers tend to sell their ESOs when holding an ESO is equivalent to holding the underlying stock; that is, in such a case a manager's wealth is closely tied to the stock price of the firm. With respect to the use of inside information the results indicate that ESO selling activity is not related to future stock price behaviour, suggesting that managers do not use inside information to determine the selling time of their ESOs. These results imply that the existence of secondary markets for ESOs does not weaken the usefulness of ESOs as the management compensation, although the benefits of such markets are evident.     

Rethinking “Strength of Incentives” for Executives of Financial Institutions

The recent crisis has caused some finance theorists and practitioners to rethink the effects of managerial incentives on the total enterprise value of large financial institutions. This re-examination has identified and analyzed a number of potential problems with the use of equity-based compensation, including insufficiently long managerial time horizons as well as the temptation for excessive risk-taking provided by “asymmetric” payoff structures in which shareholders have virtually all the upside while debtholders bear most of the downside risk. In an attempt to address such problems, finance and governance scholars have increasingly explored the possible value of aligning managerial interests with those of not only shareholders, but other important corporate claimants such as debtholders and taxpayers. After reviewing the latest thinking about risk and managerial incentives at financial institutions, the authors come to the following conclusions:

• • The design of incentives for value maximization needs to reflect a healthy appreciation of downside risk as well as upside reward, and both senior and subordinated debt may be ideal instruments for establishing that balance. At the same time, most senior executives should continue to receive equity-linked compensation in addition to significant proportions of “inside debt.”
• • Since decision-makers below the highest level executives of large financial institutions collectively wield enormous power to assume and manage risks, this “upper-middle” tier of managers deserves special attention. Rather than rewarding these managers with stock or options, the authors suggest use of a combination of uncapped but “held-at-risk” bonuses denominated in subordinated inside debt as the best way of rewarding effort and competence while controlling opportunities for risk-shifting.