THE GOVERNANCE OF CEO INCENTIVES IN ENGLISH NHS HOSPITAL TRUSTS

Institutional arrangements for the governance of CEO pay and turnover in English NHS Hospital Trusts replicate best practice for listed companies but with the additional feature of centrally imposed performance measurement. In this paper we investigate the impact of this unique combination of incentives on the relationship between CEO pay/turnover and Trust financial and operating performance in the period 1998–2005. We identify a strong association between poor Trust performance and CEO turnover but find little evidence that remuneration committees relate pay to performance in the best performing Trusts. Our findings raise questions about the economic rationale for remuneration committees in the governance of NHS Hospital Trusts.     

The Use of Performance‐based Remuneration: High versus Low‐growth Firms

This study analyses the CEO remuneration structure and level for 100 Australian‐listed entities. Consistent with expectations, it finds that high‐growth firms pay their CEOs a greater proportion of performance‐based pay, when equity‐based rewards only are considered. High‐growth firms also place greater reliance on market and/or non‐financial performance standards for the award of performance‐based pay. The extent to which performance‐based remuneration is used as a component of CEO pay is positively associated with firm size and growth options. Other potential determinants of performance‐based pay, such as financial performance, are not significantly associated with the use of performance‐based remuneration.     

The monitoring role of independent directors in CEO pay–performance relationship: the case of Malaysian government linked companies

This study looks into the pay-performance and monitoring issues in Malaysian government linked companies (GLCs). Our study utilizes 21 Malaysian public listed GLCs data from financial year 2001 until 2006. We adopt panel regression to study pay–performance relationship while the internal monitoring mechanism is measured by board independence. In our analysis, chief executive officer (CEO pay is regressed to individual performance as well as benchmarked against industry average. Generally, we document that the pay–performance relationship in Malaysian GLCs is sporadically significant, implying that CEO pay is not properly aligned to performance. However, pay-earning-sensitivity (EPS) is high and statistically significant when individual performances are benchmarked against industry average in GLCs with more than 50% independent directors (majority board). This implies that for Malaysian GLCs, a majority independent board is required to ensure effective monitoring on CEOs' performance.     

Which came first,CEO compensation or firm performance? The causality dilemma in European companies

This study uses both a functionalist paradigm of social theory and agency theory assumptions to examine whether CEO remuneration is performance sensitive and, vice versa, whether companies that pay their CEOs more perform better. Our analysis is based on the sample of 330 large European firms for the period from 2009 to 2013. The findings of panel data analysis confirm that CEO compensation is positively associated with corporate performance, and vice versa. The simultaneous estimation, in which we treat both compensation and firm performance as endogenous using a two-stage least squares method, shows that companies tie bonuses to accounting-based measures and this incentive pay enhances corporate internal performance. However, compensation linked to market-based measures does not improve firm performance.     

Gentlemen do not talk about money: Remuneration dispersion and firm performance relationship on British boards

Using a sample of 781 U.K. firms over the period 2000–2008 we study the relationship between remuneration dispersion at executive board level and firm performance. We find that this relationship is sensitive to nationality composition of the executive boards. In contrast with findings on American data, British companies are characterized by a negative dispersion–performance relationship, i.e., the greater the dispersion is, the worse firm performance is, however, boards with American CEOs or at least 30% of American nationality non-CEO executives are characterized by a positive dispersion–performance relationship. The results are robust when controlling for various firm, board and CEO characteristics, including cross-listing on U.S. exchanges and having sales in the U.S. Implications for executive remuneration reforms and board diversity are discussed.     

Disclosure,shareholder oversight and the pay–performance link

This paper investigates the effect of increased shareholder oversight and disclosure about executive remuneration on the pay–performance relation, while controlling for contemporaneous changes in corporate governance practice. Our sample consists of 240 ASX-listed firms with annual reports available for each year over the period 2001–2009, a period which straddles the timing of regulatory change. We initially document the conjectured improvements in remuneration disclosure and shareholder oversight in the form of the advisory vote on the remuneration report. Following, we find as predicted a general strengthening of the pay–performance relation over the study period, with the increased sensitivity of reported CEO remuneration to firm performance being primarily related to enhanced remuneration disclosure and the non-binding shareholder vote on the remuneration report. Our results lead us to conclude that enhanced oversight over executive remuneration arrangements brought about by regulatory change has positively impacted the executive remuneration process by strengthening the pay–performance relation and making the process appear more accountable.     

Holes at the top. Why CEO firings backfire

When a company does well, its CEO is showered with money and adulation. When it does poorly, the CEO gets the blame--and the boot. For better or worse, investors now view chief executives as the primary determinant of corporate performance. But the reality is that most companies perform no better after they dismiss their CEOs than they did in the years leading up to the dismissals. Worse, the organizational disruption created by a rushed firing can leave a company with deep and lasting scars. Far from being a silver bullet, the replacement of a CEO often amounts to little more than a self-inflicted wound. The blame for such poor results, the author argues, lies squarely with boards of directors. Boards often lack the strategic understanding of the business necessary to give due diligence to choosing a replacement CEO. Concern over restoring investor confidence quickly--rather than doing what's right for the company--drives the selection process. And all too often, companies continue to be dogged by the same old problems after the new CEOs come on board. But a good board can make a CEO replacement pay off if its members first develop a better understanding of the business context, worry less about pleasing the investment community and more about a replacement's strategic fit, and take an active role in overseeing the new CEO and the performance and direction of the company. In the long run, such approaches are likely to foster stability at the helm--making it less likely a company will have to fire its CEO in the first place.     

Australian chief executive officer remuneration: pay and performance

International studies document strong evidence that chief executive officer (CEO) remuneration is positively correlated with corporate performance. Prior Australian studies, however, find no positive link between CEO pay and market performance. In the present paper we re‐examine the association between Australian CEO remuneration and firm performance using standard empirical models from the international literature. We find that in every respect the Australian evidence is consistent with international findings for firms of the USA, UK and Canada. In particular, we document CEO pay–performance association as positive and statistically significant.     

Executive compensation and corporate governance in China

We investigate executive compensation and corporate governance in China's publicly traded firms. We also compare executive pay in China to the USA. Consistent with agency theory, we find that executive compensation is positively correlated to firm performance. The study shows that executive pay and CEO incentives are lower in State controlled firms and firms with concentrated ownership structures. Boardroom governance is important. We find that firms with more independent directors on the board have a higher pay-for-performance link. Non-State (private) controlled firms and firms with more independent directors on the board are more likely to replace the CEO for poor performance. Finally, we document that US executive pay (salary and bonus) is about seventeen times higher than in China. Significant differences in US-China pay persist even after controlling for economic and governance factors.     

Do powerful chief executives influence the financial performance of UK firms?

Drawing on a framework from agency theory, we examine the relation between the decision-making power of Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) and the financial performance of 468 United Kingdom (UK) publicly listed companies (plcs) using a dynamic panel data estimation method for the six years 2003–2008. We measure CEO power using a ‘power index’ which captures the extent to which the autonomy of the CEO to make unilateral decisions could influence firms' financial performance. To test for robustness, our analysis is conducted using different measures of financial performance. Our results reveal that, consistent with previous UK research, CEO power, as defined by CEO-Chair duality, CEO-tenure and CEO share ownership, is negatively related to financial performance. We also find that concentrated ownership is inversely related to the performance of UK plcs. CEO's compensation and board structure, however, do not appear to be related to the financial performance of the UK plcs.     

Us knows us in the UK: On director networks and CEO compensation

We analyze the relation between CEO compensation and networks of executive and non-executive directors for all listed UK companies over the period 1996-2007. We examine whether networks are built for reasons of information gathering or for the accumulation of managerial influence. Both indirect networks (enabling directors to collect information) and direct networks (leading to more managerial influence) enable the CEO to obtain higher compensation. Direct networks can harm the efficiency of the remuneration contracting in the sense that the performance sensitivity of compensation is then lower. We find that in companies with strong networks and hence busy boards the directors' monitoring effectiveness is reduced which leads to higher and less performance-sensitive CEO compensation. Our results suggest that it is important to have the ‘right’ type of network: some networks enable a firm to access valuable information whereas others can lead to strong managerial influence that may come at the detriment of the firm and its shareholders. We confirm that there are marked conflicts of interest when a CEO increases his influence by being a member of board committees (such as the remuneration committee) as we observe that his or her compensation is then significantly higher. We also find that hiring remuneration consultants with sizeable client networks also leads to higher CEO compensation especially for larger firms.     

GOLF TOURNAMENTS AND CEO PAY—UNRAVELING THE MYSTERIES OF EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

Leading financial economists and activist institutional investors have long argued that the proper alignment of manager and shareholder interests requires the use of performance based compensation. Partly in response to these pressures, and in combination with a change in the tax code that encourages performance-based pay, corporate boards have dramatically increased their use of stock grants and executive stock options. Combine this development with the longest bull market in U.S. financial history, and the result is unprecedented levels of CEO pay at the close of the 20th century. This review of executive compensation reveals that the economic theory of tournaments may provide a rationale for the pattern, if not the level, of executive pay. Specifically it finds that the total compensation of the five highestpaid executives in a cross-section of new and old-economy firms is very similar to the pattern of payouts to players in a golf tournament. The author also reports that recent studies show a significant increase in the pay-for-performance correlation throughout the 1990s. But whether that correlation is as high as it should be, and whether current levels of CEO pay are socially "optimal," are questions that remain unanswered.     

How do public companies adjust their board structures?

We show that public companies frequently changed their board structures before implementation of the Sarbanes–Oxley Act, with two-thirds of firms changing board size or independence during an average two-year period. Board changes were associated with changes in firm-specific fundamentals, but the rate of change toward predicted structures was negatively associated with the level of CEO influence. Companies changed board structures in either direction as underlying firm fundamentals changed, consistent with the pursuit of economically efficient board structures. However, board changes have become less frequent since the Sarbanes–Oxley Act was enacted. We provide some evidence that companies became less likely to decrease board independence when changes in fundamentals suggested they should, which may reflect a loss of economic efficiency.     

Do corporate governance mechanisms influence CEO compensation? An empirical investigation of UK companies

The aim of this paper is to empirically examine the influence of corporate governance mechanisms, that is, ownership and board structure of companies, on the level of CEO compensation for a sample of 414 large UK companies for the fiscal year 2003/2004. The results show that measures of board and ownership structures explain a significant amount of cross-sectional variation in the total CEO compensation, which is the sum of cash and equity-based compensation, after controlling other firm characteristics. We find that firms with larger board size and a higher proportion of non-executive directors on their boards pay their CEOs higher compensation, suggesting that non-executive directors are not more efficient in monitoring than executive directors. We also find that institutional ownership and block-holder ownership have a significant and negative impact on CEO compensation. Our results are consistent with the existence of active monitoring by block-holders and institutional shareholders. Finally, the results show that CEO compensation is lower when the directors’ ownership is higher.     

Remuneration committees,shareholder dissent on CEO pay and the CEO pay–performance link

We provide evidence on whether the adoption of the full Australian Securities Exchange recommendations for remuneration committee formation and structure are associated with a lower shareholder dissenting vote or a stronger CEO pay–performance link. We find some evidence that a minority‐ and majority‐independent remuneration committee and a committee size of at least the recommended three members are associated with lower shareholder dissent. Companies with an independent committee have a stronger CEO pay–performance link. In addition, a majority‐independent committee strengthens the link between performance and growth in CEO pay.     

CEO Pay and Corporate Governance in the U.S.: Perceptions,Facts, and Challenges

This article brings a broad range of statistical studies and evidence to bear on three common perceptions about the CEO compensation and governance of U.S. public companies: (1) CEOs are overpaid and their pay keeps increasing; (2) CEOs are not paid for their performance; and (3) boards do not penalize CEOs for poor performance. While average CEO pay increased substantially during the 1990s, it has declined since then— by more than 30%—from peak levels that were reached around 2000. Moreover, when viewed relative to corporate net income or profits, CEO pay levels at S&P 500 companies are the lowest they've been in the last 20 years. And the ratio of large‐company CEO pay to firm market value is roughly similar to its level in the late 1970s, and lower than the levels that prevailed before the 1960s. What's more, in studies that begin with the late '70s, private company executives have seen their pay increase by at least as much as public companies. And when set against the compensation of other highly paid groups, today's levels of CEO pay, although somewhat above their long‐term historical average, are about the same as their average levels in the early 1990s. At the same time, the pay of U.S. CEOs appears to be reasonably highly correlated with corporate performance. As evidence, the author cites a 2010 study reporting that, over the period 1992 to 2005, companies with CEOs in the top quintile (top 20%) of realized pay in any given year had generated stock returns that were 60% higher than the average companies in their industries over the previous three years. Conversely, companies with CEOs in the bottom quintile of realized pay underperformed their industries by almost 20% in the previous three years. And along with lower pay, the CEOs of poorly performing companies in the 2000s faced a significant increase in the likelihood of dismissal by their own boards. When viewed together, these findings suggest that corporate boards have done a reasonably good job of overseeing CEO pay, and that factors such as technological advances and increased scale have played meaningful roles in driving the pay of both CEOs and others with top incomes—people who are assumed to have comparable skills, experience, and opportunities. If one wants to use increases in CEO pay as evidence of managerial power or “board capture,” one also has to explain why the other professional groups have experienced similar, or even higher, growth in pay. A more straightforward interpretation of the evidence reviewed in this article is that the market for talent has driven a meaningful portion of the increase in pay at the top. Consistent with this conclusion, top executive pay policies at roughly 97% of S&P 500 and Russell 3000 companies received majority shareholder support in the Dodd‐Frank mandated “Say‐on‐Pay” votes in 2011 and 2012, the first two years the measure was in force.     

CEO Turnover and Retention Light: Retaining Former CEOs on the Board

Prior CEO turnover literature characterizes the board's decision as a choice between retaining versus replacing the CEO. We focus instead on the CEO's decision rights and introduce a third option in which the incumbent CEO is removed but retained on the board for an extended period, which we call Retention Light. Firms may benefit from Retention Light because former CEOs possess unique monitoring and advising abilities, but the former CEO could also exploit available decision rights for personal benefit. A Retention Light CEO's decision rights generally exceed those of CEOs who exit the firm entirely but fall short of the rights of a retained CEO. We find that when prior firm performance is better, the former CEO is more likely to be retained on the board (Retention Light) than to exit the firm. However, this relation is weaker when the CEO reaches normal retirement age at which time CEO power becomes more important. We also provide evidence on how the nature of the CEO's bargaining power varies with his personal attributes and board characteristics in its influence on the Retention Light decision. Retention Light firms are more likely than CEO‐exit firms to select a successor CEO with relatively weaker bargaining power. Finally, Retention Light involving a nonfounder CEO is negatively associated with the firm's postturnover financial performance. Overall, Retention Light is a distinct CEO turnover option that has important consequences for board decisions and firm performance.     

How Board Oversight Can Drive Climate and Sustainability Performance

The authors present persuasive evidence that board leadership is essential for solving critical sustainability issues like climate change. As fiduciaries to investors and stewards of a company's performance and success, corporate directors have a critical role to play in providing oversight of material risks to corporate strategy and performance, especially those posed by climate change. Drawing upon a report by Ceres and KKS Advisors, the authors show that perhaps most important among best practices for companies intent on establishing effective board governance are the creation of formal board mandates for sustainability, the recruitment of directors with sustainability expertise, and the linking of executive pay to sustainability performance. The authors' study also provides compelling evidence that when companies put in place such governance features, their sustainability performance improves notably. The international banking group BNP Paribas and the electric utility Iberdrola are held up as illustrations of governance systems that are likely to be effective in helping companies respond to climate change.     

Corporate Performance,Corporate Governance and Top Executive Turnover in Finland

This paper empirically investigates how corporate governance forces and firm performance affect top executive turnover in Finnish listed companies. I document an increase in CEO, top management, and board turnover in response to poor stock price performance and operating losses. The sensitivity of the relation between stock price performance and CEO turnover is significantly higher in firms with a two‐tier board structure (when the CEO is not the chairman), but significantly lower when the CEO or a board member is the controlling shareholder. These results suggest that both the ownership structure and the board design have implications for the disciplining of managers.     

Board structure and market performance: Does one solution fit all?

We investigate the relationship between internal corporate governance and market performance across multiple countries, utilizing a comprehensive data set comprising 77,440 firm observations from 15 European Union countries over the period 2002-2018. Specifically, we examine the impact of board characteristics, including size, independence, gender diversity, CEO duality, and classified boards, on market performance. Our findings reveal that CEO duality is generally negatively related to returns, whereas independent directors and board diversity are positively related to market performance. We observe a positive association between staggered boards and market performance as well as Tobin's Q, aligning with the EU's emphasis on stakeholder investments. Upon analyzing the data at the country level, we identify that the links between board structure and performance vary by country, and there isn't a single variable that is consistently related to market returns or Tobin's Q. These divergent findings indicate that there is no universally applicable corporate governance solution that can be recommended for companies throughout Europe.