权力型国有企业高管支付了更高的职工薪酬吗?

管理层权力假说从个人私利角度解释管理层权力与高管、职工薪酬的正相关关系,但国内文献并未关注管理层权力如何影响职工薪酬。本文以2007～2010年间A股国有上市公司为样本,研究了我国国有企业管理层权力对职工薪酬的影响及其成因。结果显示:(1)权力大的国有企业CEO更倾向于支付较低的职工薪酬。(2)CEO权力大的国有企业更可能超额雇员,超额雇员是国有企业CEO权力与职工薪酬负相关的一种可能解释。(3)进一步分析表明,职工力量、职工监事、管理层持股等内外部制约因素并未有效制约管理层权力,反而增强了CEO权力对职工薪酬的负向影响。本文从超额雇员角度解释了我国国有企业管理层权力与职工薪酬的负相关关系,有助于丰富薪酬的管理层权力假说。     

管理层权力、高管薪酬变动与公司并购行为分析

本文探究了不同产权性质下管理层权力对薪酬利益驱动所带来的大规模并购行为的作用机制。研究表明,在中央国有上市企业和聘请职业经理人担任高管的民营上市公司中,管理层权力解释了公司间薪酬水平变动、并购后市场业绩的明显差异。地方国有上市公司在并购活动中其高管薪酬的变动受到高管权力的影响甚微,企业规模起到了决定性因素,而控股股东或家族成员直接担任高管的民营公司在发生并购时其管理层薪酬的变动与并购交易的规模、并购的复杂程度和CEO努力程度更加相关,相对而言薪酬安排更具有契约有效性。本文的研究丰富了管理层权力和公司并购的理论内涵,并为管理层权力影响下的并购行为提供了更为深入和细致的经验证据。     

企业CEO权力强度会加剧股价崩盘风险吗?

本文探讨了企业CEO权力强度与股价崩盘风险之间的内在关系,并考察企业的监督机制能否缓解CEO权力对股价崩盘风险的影响,研究发现:CEO权力强度对企业股价崩盘风险有显著的正向影响;相比非国有企业,国有企业CEO权力对股价崩盘风险的影响更大;企业的监事会规模会加剧CEO权力和股价崩盘之间的正相关关系,而独立董事对两者关系有着负向影响,但统计上并不显著.     

CEO薪酬会影响股价崩盘风险吗?——来自中国A股上市公司的经验证据

近年来,股价暴跌引发的股价崩盘风险严重影响了我国资本市场稳定和实体经济发展。因此,针对股价崩盘风险影响因素展开研究,具有较强的现实意义和理论价值。本文以2010~2015年沪深A股上市公司为样本,系统考察了CEO薪酬对股价崩盘风险的影响。研究发现,CEO薪酬水平会降低股价崩盘风险,在控制了内生性等问题后,该结论依然成立。而且,随着CEO权力的增大,两者之间的负相关关系会减弱,但随着董事会中独董人数的增大,两者的负相关关系会得到增强。进一步研究发现,CEO薪酬降低股价崩盘风险主要是通过降低委托代理成本来发挥作用的。本文结论丰富了CEO薪酬和股价崩盘风险的相关研究,同时也为相关部门进一步认识CEO薪酬的作用及防范股价崩盘风险提供政策参考。     

CEO激励提高了内部控制有效性吗?——来自国有上市公司的经验证据

本文以国有上市公司为样本,全面讨论了CEO激励对内部控制有效性的作用机制。研究发现,(1)给予CEO适度的超额薪酬激励和股权激励有助于内部控制有效性的提高;(2)与一般CEO相比,具有行政经历的CEO会削弱激励机制在内部控制有效性中的提升作用。本文的经验证据表明,CEO激励是现阶段提升内部控制有效性的关键,但国有上市公司尚存在的行政任命制度扭曲了市场化激励机制,削弱了内部控制有效性。     

谁能免予薪酬惩罚?——基于ST公司的研究

本文以我国A股410个ST上市公司为样本,侧重从业绩信息的异质性和管理层权力两个方面,研究我国上市公司高管免于薪酬惩罚问题。研究发现:业绩信息异质性越强,管理层权力越大的ST公司高管越有可能免予薪酬惩罚。同时发现短期负债是上市公司高管不能免于薪酬惩罚的重要因素,而开董事会次数越多越能免予薪酬惩罚。本文研究结论证明了最优契约受业绩信息异质性和管理层权力影响,具体而言国有企业主要受管理层权力影响,非国有企业主要受业绩信息异质性影响。     

管理层权力、高管人力资本激励与企业绩效

合理的高管人力资本激励机制是发挥高管人力资本效用进而提高企业绩效的有效途径。本文通过实证检验管理层权力、高管人力资本激励与企业绩效的关系,结果表明:高管货币薪酬与企业绩效显著正相关,与国有企业相比,非国有企业的相关性更明显;管理层权力削弱了高管货币薪酬对企业绩效的激励作用。国有企业的在职消费与企业绩效显著负相关,但非国有企业其二者之间的相关性并不显著;管理层权力加大了在职消费对企业绩效的负向影响。高管团队内部薪酬差距与企业绩效显著正相关,且非国有企业比国有企业的相关性更明显;管理层权力削弱了高管团队内部薪酬差距对企业绩效的激励作用。     

上市银行CEO薪酬与董事薪酬的影响因素

本文利用沪深两市14家上市银行2005～2009年面板数据，以广义最小二乘法分析了上市银行CEO薪酬、董事薪酬的影响因素。研究发现，CEO薪酬与公司治理变量及代表股东权益的EPS显著相关，这表明CEO薪酬已经与企业绩效初步关联；独立董事薪酬与银行规模、股权结构、公司治理、CEO薪酬以及ROA及其滞后变量显著相关，而关联...     

商业银行运营效率与董事会治理

本文在对中国16家上市商业银行绩效进行前沿效率分析的基础上,建立以董事会规模、外部董事监事占比、CEO薪酬和管理层人均薪酬为基础的二元选择模型,对中国商业银行运营效率同董事会治理的关系进行了实证研究。结果表明,独立董事在商业银行公司治理中的作用并不明显,CEO薪酬和董事会规模对商业银行业绩并无显著影响,董事会规模过大无...     

控股股东干预与国有上市公司薪酬契约有效性:来自董事长/CEO纵向兼任的经验证据

以董事长/CEO在非上市控股股东单位兼任为切入点,本文分析控股股东干预对国有上市公司薪酬契约有效性的影响。结果发现,董事长/CEO纵向兼任会提高企业薪酬水平,降低薪酬—业绩敏感度。进一步的检验发现,董事长/CEO纵向兼任会显著降低高管薪酬、提高员工薪酬、降低员工薪酬—业绩敏感度,缩小高管-员工薪酬差距。本文的研究结果支持国有上市公司董事长/CEO纵向兼任的"和谐目标"假说,即纵向兼任增强了非上市控股股东的干预程度,导致上市公司承担更多的员工和谐目标,进而降低国有上市公司薪酬契约有效性。就监管政策而言,本文的研究结果意味着,我国需要同时进行非上市国有股东和国有上市公司的市场化改革,以提高国有企业的效率。     

CEO excess compensation: The impact of firm size and managerial power

Chief executive officer (CEO) compensation has received a great deal of attention over the past several decades. Critics assert that CEO compensation is “excessive” because it is only weakly linked to firm performance (i.e., managerial rent-extraction). On the other hand, defenders suggest that CEO compensation is “justified” given the incremental shareholder wealth created by CEOs, or that large CEO compensation packages merely reflect labor market forces. Prior research documents that CEO power and firm size are associated with larger compensation, but providing evidence that the larger compensation is excessive (i.e., not economically justified) has proven difficult. For each test firm we identify a potential replacement CEO (i.e., an executive-specific, within-country (US) compensation benchmark) and create an empirical test of excess compensation. We also examine the possibility that excess compensation is conditional upon firm size or CEO power. In spite of an inherent bias against finding excess compensation, the results suggest that the most powerful CEOs receive compensation that is not economically justified. We find no evidence of CEO excess compensation in the largest firms.     

The influence of firm- and manager-specific characteristics on the structure of executive compensation

We analyze the influence of firm and managerial characteristics on executive compensation. Consistent with theory, we find monitoring difficulties result in greater use of options while CEO and blockholder ownership result in less. Risky investment is positively related to options and negatively related to cash bonus and restricted stock, suggesting that firms use options to encourage managers to take risks. We find a negative (positive) relation between options and leverage (convertible debt) consistent with minimizing the agency costs of debt. Finally, we provide new evidence on managerial horizon and incentives, documenting a concave relation between cash bonus and CEO age.     

CEO power and the structure of CEO pay

This paper fleshes out the rent extraction view of CEO compensation put forward by the managerial power theory (Bebchuk, Fried, & Walker, 2002), and tests its main implications on the relation between CEO power and the structure of CEO pay. For a measure of CEO power most relevant to managerial power theory, we use the CEO pay slice due to Bebchuk, Cremers, and Peyer (2011). Based on the sample of S&P 500 firms for the period of 1999–2008, we find that the implied relation between power and pay is largely supported. Our findings suggest that the managerial power theory has relevance in explaining the relation between power and pay when the focus is on managerial bargaining power. Given the multiple dimensions of CEO power, however, the scope of power may need to be broadened for a better understanding of how managerial power affects firm performance.     

Excessive managerial entrenchment,corporate governance,and firm performance

This paper investigates the differential impact of positive and negative excessive managerial entrenchment on the CEO turnover-performance sensitivity, CEO compensation, and firm performance. We measure the degree of managerial entrenchment using the E-index introduced by Bebchuk et al. (2009). Our findings suggest that an increase in excess CEO entrenchment reduces the likelihood of CEO turnover due to poor performance. We also show a positive association between excessive entrenchment and CEO compensation as managers gain more power and authority when they are entrenched. On the other hand, excess CEO entrenchment has an inverse correlation with firm performance and firm value. Overall, we propose that excessive managerial entrenchment has a converse impact on board monitoring and shareholders’ welfare.     

CEO power,M&A decisions,and market reactions

In this study we examine the relationship between CEO power, corresponding acquisition activities and market reactions to mergers and acquisitions (M&A) announcements with a Canadian M&A dataset (1997–2005). We use CEO excess pay as a proxy for CEO power. Our empirical results show that the market reactions to M&A announcements are not related to CEO power. It implies that powerful CEOs do not necessarily make value destroying acquisitions. Our results further show that CEO power levels are significantly higher for acquiring firms compared to the CEOs of non-acquiring firms. In other words, CEOs with more relative power make more acquisitions. Such acquisitions will increase the size of the firm and will allow CEOs to demand a higher compensation level for managing larger asset pools and to derive higher performance incentives that are also generally tied to firm size.     

CEO Stock Options and Equity Risk Incentives

Abstract:   We test the hypothesis that the risk incentive effects of CEO stock option grants motivate managers to take on more risk than they would otherwise. Using a sample of mergers we document that the ratio of post‐ to pre‐merger stock return variance is positively related to the risk incentive effect of CEO stock option compensation but this relationship is conditioned on firm size, with firm size having a moderating effect on the risk incentive effect of stock options. Using a broader time‐series cross‐sectional sample of firms we find a strong positive relationship between CEO risk incentive embedded in the stock options and subsequent equity return volatility. As in the case of the merger sample, this relationship is stronger for smaller firms.     

CEO compensation,director compensation,and firm performance: Evidence of cronyism?

We model CEO and director compensation using firm characteristics, CEO characteristics, and governance variables. After controlling for monitoring proxies, we find a significant positive relationship between CEO and director compensation. We hypothesize that this relationship could be due to unobserved firm complexity (omitted variables), and/or to excess compensation of directors and managers. We also find evidence that excess compensation (both director and CEO) is associated with firm underperformance. We therefore conclude that the evidence is consistent with excessive compensation due to mutual back scratching or cronyism. The evidence suggests that excessive compensation has an effect on firm performance that is independent of the poor governance variables discussed by previous studies.     

A path analysis investigation of the relationships between CEO pay ratios and firm performance mediated by employee satisfaction

We posit that information about CEO pay ratios is important to investors because employees' perceived fairness of their firm’s CEO pay ratio has consequences for firm performance. We use path analysis to examine the association between firm performance and (1) the predicted CEO pay ratio as determined by economic factors (the fair component of CEO pay ratio) and (2) the predicted CEO pay ratio as determined by non-economic factors (the unfair component of CEO pay ratio). We test for the existence and relative importance of direct and indirect paths using two measures of employee satisfaction and two measures of firm performance. We find that pay equity, a larger CEO pay ratio driven by economic factors, is associated with employee contributions to better firm performance. Conversely, we show that pay inequity, a larger CEO pay ratio driven by non-economic factors, is associated with employees' contributions to poorer firm performance. Consistent with the view that managerial entrenchment may amplify the negative effects of the CEO pay ratio, we find that the negative indirect path between pay inequity and firm performance, mediated by employee satisfaction, is more pronounced in firms with entrenched CEOs. Our findings contribute to the accounting compensation literature because they are consistent with CEO pay ratio information having economic consequences.     

高管薪酬:激励还是自利?——来自中国上市公司的证据

近年来中国上市公司的高管薪酬增长迅速并引起社会的广泛关注。本文收集了2004-2008年中国上市公司前三名高管的薪酬水平,考察高管薪酬与公司绩效、高管控制权、政府管制及代理成本之间的关系。研究发现:(1)高管薪酬仅与ROA显著正相关,但与资产获现率(经营净现金/总资产)及股票收益率没有显著的正相关关系。(2)高管的薪酬水平随着其控制权的增加而显著提高。(3)对比国有公司,非国有公司的高管更容易利用其控制权来提高自身的薪酬水平。(4)高管高薪并未有效降低公司的代理成本,反而提高了代理成本。本文的研究结果证实了我国上市公司的高管在其薪酬制定中存在明显的自利行为,且这种自利行为降低或者消除了薪酬的激励作用。     

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.