Does Sensationalism Affect Executive Compensation? Evidence from Pay Ratio Disclosure Reform

Beginning in 2018, U.S. public firms were required to report the ratio of the chief executive officer's (CEO) compensation to their median employee's compensation in the annual proxy statement. Exploiting the staggered reporting of pay ratios, we find little evidence that total CEO compensation changes in response to pay ratio disclosure reform. However, we do find that boards significantly adjust the mix of compensation awarded by reducing the sensitivity of CEO pay to equity price changes, particularly when the CEO is likely to garner media scrutiny, and by reducing reliance on stock-based and other compensation components that are most susceptible to media coverage surrounding the pay ratio disclosure. Firms ultimately disclosing higher pay ratios garner more media coverage around the filing of their proxy statement, and more negative-toned coverage in the subsequent month. Finally, we find evidence that greater pay disparity is associated with greater selling activity by retail investors and more negative say-on-pay votes following pay ratio reform, consistent with a broad set of investors responding to public scrutiny resulting from pay ratio disclosures.     

Boards,Executive Excess Compensation,and Shared Power: Evidence from Nonprofit Firms

We investigate how executives, the board, and excess compensation jointly affect the performance of nonprofits. Since the common measure of nonprofit performance often includes salaries, we also use expenses that directly benefit the targeted population. Our results suggest that above average compensation for executives is associated with poor firm performance. However, the negative relation of CEO pay to performance occurs for firms with only one executive, the CEO. We conclude that a powerful CEO with autonomy can harm firm performance, but other executives can mitigate these agency problems. The board also appears to monitor direct community benefits more than indirect benefits.     

A Remedy for the Executive Pay Problem: The Case for "Compensation Discussion and Analysis"

After acknowledging the strengths of Bebchuk and Fried's case for managerial power in setting executive pay, this article expresses three major reservations:
First, concerns about the apparent lack of pay for performance do not alone provide a sufficient framework for understanding the controversy over CEO pay or devising a remedy. In fact, such concerns may well take a backseat to popular unrest about the levels of pay, a problem that Bebchuk and Fried largely ignore.
Second, many of the compensation practices identified as "smoking guns" of managerial power, such as the failure to index stock and options and the use of "stealth compensation," may have benign explanations. For example, since the vast majority of employee stock options are awarded to people well below the executive ranks, the absence of indexing may help to preserve a simple, visible score-card (however flawed) for motivating all levels of the organization. And the use of stealth pay may be justified as a means of preventing public scrutiny from distorting private decisions.
Third, even if corporate governance needs improvement, the best remedy may be not a wholesale expansion of shareholder power, but rather a tailored series of measures designed to bolster the defacto independence of the compensation committee. Most important, the SEC should require proxy disclosure of a "Compensation Discussion and Analysis" statement, signed by all the members of the compensation committee, that summarizes and justifies all compensation elements for all senior executives. The resulting process "ownership" and reputation-staking will strengthen the committee's hand against managerial pressure. In addition, serious thought should be given to a shareholder approval vote on the CD&A following the new U.K. practice.     

Compensation discussion and analysis (CD&A): Readability and management obfuscation

This paper examines the relationship between the readability of the CD&A section in proxy statements and management motives to obfuscate executive compensation disclosures. Using the CD&As in the 2007 and 2008 proxy statements, we examine whether the CD&A readability is associated with the proportion of CEO pay not related to the economic determinants of compensation. We note that the average CD&A is difficult to read. We find that firms with CEO pay exceeding the benchmark pay have a more difficult to read CD&A in the 2007 proxy season. The result suggests that, in its first CD&A report, top management tends to cloak its compensation practices when the practices are not tied to the economic determinants of pay. However, we also find those firms with CEO pay exceeding the benchmark pay improve the readability of their CD&As in the 2008 proxy season, suggesting that executive compensation disclosure improves under regulatory oversight and public pressure.     

Performance volatility,information availability,and disclosure reforms

Using the 2002 Sarbanes–Oxley reform as an exogenous disclosure shock, we find that high, relative to low, volatility firms opt for lower levels of information availability pre reform and experience increases in information availability, CEO turnover-to-performance sensitivity, myopic behavior, CEO compensation with a structure tilted towards more cash pay, and a reduction in firm value post the reform. Our findings suggest that mandating high levels of information availability across the board increases managerial evaluation risk and produces additional agency costs for firms with volatile performance.     

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.     

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.     

The differential CEO dominance-compensation and corporate governance-compensation relations: Pre- and post-SOX

We examine the relationship between corporate governance (as measured by traditional corporate governance variables and a new measure of corporate governance, called CEO dominance) and executive compensation, pre- and post-SOX. We conceptualize CEO dominance as a measure of a CEO's power and define it as the difference between CEO pay and the next highest executive's pay divided by the CEO's pay. We argue that for traditional corporate governance variables, the inverse governance-compensation relation that exists pre-SOX will improve post-SOX. On the other hand, we expect a strong and positive CEO dominance-compensation relation to exist both pre- and post-SOX. Consistent with expectations, our results indicate that SOX has changed the relationship between CEO duality and compensation relation, but it has not changed the CEO dominance-compensation relation. This suggests that SOX regulatory reforms do not limit the ability of CEO power to obstruct traditional corporate governance mechanisms in extracting compensation-related rents.     

Unintended consequences of compensation peer groups on corporate innovation

When companies select and use compensation peers to determine chief executive officer (CEO) compensation, they create unintended peer effects on corporate innovation due to the similarities between these companies and their compensation peers in terms of product markets, CEO characteristics, and compensation schemes. After controlling for industry and geography peer groups, the findings confirm that the average innovation activity of compensation peers is a significant and distinct predictor of corporate innovation. Further analysis showed that (1) the peer effect is stronger in firms and compensation peers that pay their CEOs using long-term compensation, in firms with stronger labor market competition and board monitoring, and in peer companies that experience higher innovation competition and are closer to the median peer company in the peer group; (2) the obtained results are likely not attributable to the knowledge spillover mechanism and are more consistent with the peer pressure mechanism; and (3) the Securities and Exchange Commission's 2006 executive compensation disclosure rules may have generated peer effects.     

CEO compensation,family control,and institutional investors in Continental Europe

This paper investigates the impact of family control and institutional investors on CEO pay packages in Continental Europe, using a dataset of 754 listed firms with 3731 firm-year observations from 14 countries during 2001–2008. We find that family control curbs the level of CEO total and cash compensation, and the fraction of equity-based compensation. Moreover, we do not observe a significant effect of family control on the excess level of total and cash compensation. This evidence indicates that controlling families do not use CEO compensation to expropriate wealth from minority shareholders. We show that institutional ownership is associated with higher levels of CEO cash and total compensation in Continental Europe, especially in family firms. Also, foreign institutional investors have a positive and significant impact on CEO compensation level. Finally, results indicate that institutional investors affect CEO pay structure: they increase the use of equity-based compensation in both family and non-family firms.     

Corporate governance, compensation consultants, and CEO pay levels

This study investigates the relation between corporate governance and CEO pay levels and the extent to which the higher pay found in firms using compensation consultants is related to governance differences. Using proxy statement disclosures from 2,110 companies, we find that CEO pay is higher in firms with weaker governance and that firms with weaker governance are more likely to use compensation consultants. CEO pay remains higher in clients of consulting firms even after controlling for economic determinants of compensation. However, when consultant users and non-users are matched on both economic and governance characteristics, differences in pay levels are not statistically significant, indicating that governance differences explain much of the higher pay in clients of compensation consultants. We find no support for claims that CEO pay is higher in potentially “conflicted” consultants that also offer additional non-compensation-related services.     

Effect of mandatory pro forma earnings disclosure on the relation between CEO share bonuses and firm performance

This paper examines the effect of mandatory pro forma earnings disclosure on the alignment of CEO share bonuses and firm performance (i.e., annual stock returns). Using 6,583 executive-level observations from 986 non-financial firms in Taiwan over the period 1999–2004, we find a significant shift in the CEO share bonus pay-earnings relation caused by a marked reduction in bonus shares after the new disclosure rule becomes effective. The change in CEO compensation structure in turn leads to a closer link between CEO stock bonuses and annual stock returns. The result suggests that a more transparent earnings disclosure could positively affect board choices regarding compensation arrangements, thus inducing a better convergence of manager and shareholder interests.     

CEO incentives-its not how much you pay, but how

The arrival of spring means yet another round in the national debate over executive compensation. But the critics have it wrong. The relentless attention on how much CEOs are paid diverts public attention from the real problem-how CEOs are paid. The authors present an in-depth statistical analysis of executive compensation. The study incorporates data on thousands of CEOs spanning five decades. Their surprising conclusions are at odds with the prevailing wisdom on CEO pay: Despite the headlines, top executives are not receiving record salaries and bonuses. Cash compensation has increased over the past 15 years, but CEO pay levels are just now catching up to where they were 50 years ago. Annual changes in executive compensation do not reflect changes in corporate performance. For the median CEO in the 250 largest public companies, a $1,000 change in shareholder value corresponds to a change of just 6.7 cents in salary and bonus over a two-year period. With respect to pay for performance, CEO compensation is getting worse rather than better. CEO stock ownership-the best link between shareholder wealth and executive well-being-was ten times greater in the 1930s than in the 1980s. Compensation policy is one of the most important factors in an organization's success. Not only does it shape how top executives behave but it also helps determine what kind of executives an organization attracts. That's why it's so urgent that boards of directors reform their compensation practices and adopt systems that reward outstanding performance and penalize poor performance.     

Compensation consultants and CEO pay

The study examines the practice of employing multiple compensation consultants. Examining data of a sample of UK companies over the period 2003–2006 we find that CEOs receive higher equity-based pay when firms employ more than one compensation consultant. An increase in the number of compensation consultants is also associated with an increase in CEO equity-based pay, whereas no decline in CEO pay takes place when firms reduce the number of pay consultants. We also observe that the market shares of compensation consultant are positively related to CEO equity-based pay.     

Pay Without Performance: Overview of the Issues

In their recent book, Pay Without Performance: The Unfulfilled Promise of Executive Compensation , the authors of this article provided a comprehensive critique of U.S. executive pay practices and the corporate governance processes that produce them, and then offered a number of proposals for improving both pay and governance. This article presents an overview of their analysis and proposals.
The authors' analysis suggests that the pay-setting process in U.S. public companies has strayed far from the economist's model of "arm's-length contracting" between executives and boards in a competitive labor market. In place of this conventional model, which is standard in corporate law as well as economics, the authors argue that managerial power and influence play a major role in shaping executive pay, and in ways that end up imposing significant costs on investors and the economy.
The main concern is not the levels of executive pay, but rather the distortion of incentives caused by compensation practices that fail to tie pay to performance and to limit executives' ability to sell their shares. Also troubling are "the correlation between power and pay, the systematic use of compensation practices that obscure the amount and performance insensitivity of pay, and the showering of gratuitous benefits on departing executives."
To address these problems, the authors propose three kinds of changes:

• 1)

  increases in transparency , accomplished in part by new SEC rules requiring annual corporate disclosure that provides "the dollar value of all forms of compensation" (including "stealth compensation" in the form of pensions and other post-retirement benefits) and an analysis of the relationship between the past year's pay and performance, as well as more timely and informative disclosure of insider stock purchases and sales;

       
  
  

Related Party Transactions,Corporate Governance and CEO Compensation

Examining the years 2001–2012, we document a decrease in reported CEO related party transactions (RPTs) and an increase in reported outside director RPTs, with the largest change occurring around the 2006 Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) RPT disclosure changes. Our analysis of the determinants of RPTs and their association with CEO compensation also shows an impact of the SEC disclosure change, as we find support for the weak governance hypothesis in the pre‐2006 period and some support for the efficient contracting hypothesis post‐2005. While our results vary by model, pre‐2006, consistent with weak governance we find that outside director RPTs are positively associated with CEO compensation, with our estimates of the impact ranging from 8 to 18% depending on the model. In the post‐2005 period, this result dissipates, and we find some evidence consistent with the efficient contracting hypothesis. Overall we find that the SEC RPT disclosure change appears to have had a significant impact on reported RPTs, the determinants of those RPTs, and the impact of those RPTs on CEO compensation.     

行政垄断、公司规模与CEO权力薪酬

由于国有企业CEO薪酬由国资委决定,CEO权力无法影响自身薪酬,因此国有企业CEO薪酬可能并不适用管理层权力假说,但现有文献结论并非如此。规模、行政垄断以及业绩是高管薪酬契约最主要的决定因素,管理层权力对其影响较弱,因此仅仅在回归中控制行业、规模、所有制等因素,所得结论可能并不稳健。本文以2007—2010年间4277个A股上市公司为样本的研究发现:在控制行政垄断与规模因素后,非国有企业CEO权力与CEO薪酬显著正相关,而国有企业CEO权力与CEO薪酬不符合管理层权力假说。本文研究有助于丰富薪酬管理层权力假说,有助于理解CEO权力在薪酬决定中的作用。     

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.     

The efficiency of compensation contracting in China: Do better CEOs get better paid?

Over recent years, China adopted a number of ‘western-style’ reforms of corporate governance and executive compensation. We investigate whether boards of Chinese firms evaluate CEO ability and remunerate their CEOs accordingly, an essential tenet of efficient compensation contracting. Using Data Envelopment Analysis to measure CEO ability, we do not find any evidence that CEO ability matters in compensation contracting decisions—it does not lead to either higher pay, stronger pay-for-performance sensitivity, or a higher likelihood of equity grants. This is surprising, since we find evidence that higher ability CEOs achieve superior firm performance. In contrast, we find that powerful CEOs do not overperform, while they enjoy large abnormal pay. Overall, our results suggest that Chinese firms fail to embrace new corporate governance reforms and are unable to fully utilize the reforms’ benefits.

     

Are all CEOs above average? An empirical analysis of compensation peer groups and pay design

Companies can potentially use compensation peer groups to inflate pay by choosing peers that are larger, choosing a high target pay percentile, or choosing peer firms with high pay. Although peers are largely selected based on characteristics that reflect the labor market for managerial talent, we find that peer groups are constructed in a manner that biases compensation upward, particularly in firms outside the Standard & Poor's (S&P) 500. Pay increases close only about one-third of the gap between the pay of the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and the peer group, however, suggesting that boards exercise discretion in adjusting compensation. Preliminary evidence suggests that increased disclosure has reduced the biases in peer group choice.