Search,product market competition and CEO pay

We develop a market equilibrium model to show how search frictions in the CEO market, agency conflicts and product market characteristics interact to affect CEO market tightness, firm size and CEO incentive pay. The theory generates novel implications that link firms' product markets with CEO markets. Different determinants of competition—the entry cost, product substitutability, and market size—have contrasting effects on CEO market tightness, CEO pay and firm size. We also derive new predictions for the impact of product market risk on firm size and CEO incentive compensation. We show empirical support for several cross-sectional hypotheses derived from the theory for how CEO pay, CEO incentives, firm size and market tightness vary with product market characteristics.     

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.     

Charitable inclination and the chief executive officer's pay package

Using chief executive officers’ (CEOs’) lifetime nonemployment experience in prominent charitable organizations to create a proxy for CEO charitable inclination, I find that charitably inclined CEOs receive a significant pay premium. The pay premium sensitivity to CEO charitable inclination is particularly pronounced for male, external, and specialist CEOs who are employed at firms that are undiversified, larger, less debt reliant, poor performing, facing high product‐market competition, and that keep nonmanipulative financial statements and demonstrate high inclination to social responsibility in the area of diversity, employee relations, and internal governance. This research contributes to the broader debate on labor market pricing of CEO characteristics.     

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.     

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.     

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 Compensation and Firm Performance: an Empirical Investigation of UK Panel Data

This paper examines the link between CEO pay and performance employing a unique, hand‐collected panel data set of 390 UK non‐financial firms from the FTSE All Share Index for the period 1999–2005. We include both cash (salary and bonus) and equity‐based (stock options and long‐term incentive plans) components of CEO compensation, and CEO wealth based on share holdings, stock option and stock awards holdings in our analysis. In addition, we control for a comprehensive set of corporate governance variables. The empirical results show that in comparison to the previous findings for US CEOs, pay‐performance elasticity for UK CEOs seems to be lower; pay‐performance elasticity for UK CEOs is 0.075 (0.095) for cash compensation (total direct compensation), indicating that a ten percentage increase in shareholder return corresponds to an increase of 0.75% (0.95%) in cash (total direct) compensation. We also find that both the median share holdings and stock‐based pay‐performance sensitivity are lower for UK CEOs when we compare our findings with the previous findings for US CEOs. Thus, our results suggest that corporate governance reports in the UK, such as the Greenbury Report (1995) that proposed CEO compensation be more closely linked to performance, have not been totally effective. Our findings also indicate that institutional ownership has a positive and significant influence on CEO pay‐performance sensitivity of option grants. Finally, we find that longer CEO tenure is associated with lower pay‐performance sensitivity of option grants suggesting the entrenchment effect of CEO tenure.     

Does the use of peer groups contribute to higher pay and less efficient compensation?

We provide empirical evidence on how the practice of competitive benchmarking affects chief executive officer (CEO) pay. We find that the use of benchmarking is widespread and has a significant impact on CEO compensation. One view is that benchmarking is inefficient because it can lead to increases in executive pay not tied to firm performance. A contrasting view is that benchmarking is a practical and efficient mechanism used to gauge the market wage necessary to retain valuable human capital. Our empirical results generally support the latter view. Our findings also suggest that the documented asymmetry in the relationship between CEO pay and luck is explained by the firm's desire to adjust pay for retention purposes and is not the result of rent-seeking behavior on the part of the CEO.     

Blockholder monitoring and the efficiency of pay-performance benchmarking

In this article I examine how the performance sensitivity of CEO compensation is related to the level and turnover of outside block ownership. Separating firm performance into firm-specific (Skill) and exogenous (Luck) components, I find that pay sensitivity to Luck increases with blockholder turnover, whereas pay sensitivity to Skill increases with blockholding size. Furthermore, when blockholder turnover is higher, CEO pay increases more with positive Luck but does not decrease as much with negative Luck; also, excess CEO compensation is larger. Thus, the rent accruing to CEOs via asymmetric pay sensitivity to Luck is partly explained by short investment horizons of large shareholders.     

The Relationship between Shareholder Return and CEO Pay over a CEO's Full Period of Service

The author reports the findings of his examination of the relationship between CEO pay and performance, as measured by shareholder returns, using measures of compensation and returns that span a CEO's full period of service. Unlike studies that look at annual measures of CEO pay and stock returns—which are distorted by the widespread use of options and the arbitrary effects of when CEOs choose to exercise their options—the author finds a statistically significant connection between total compensation and shareholder return measured over full periods of service for 521 S&P 500 CEOs. Indeed, after one adjusts for differences in the length of a CEO's service, shareholder return is arguably the most important determinant of variation in the amount paid CEOs over their complete tenures. Besides answering the legion of critics of CEO pay, the author's analysis refutes the claim that bull markets are the main force driving executive pay by demonstrating that the increases in career pay attributable to increases in shareholder returns are almost exactly offset by reductions in pay when the Value‐Weighted (S&P 500) Index increases by the same amount. In other words, CEOs’ cumulative career pay is effectively driven by the extent to which their stock returns outperform the broad market. The analysis also casts doubt on the popular claim that the link between CEO pay and corporate size provides incentives to undertake even value‐reducing acquisitions to boost size. As the author's analysis shows, the estimated losses in career CEO pay associated with even small declines in shareholder returns are likely to be offset by the pay increases attributable to size.     

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.     

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.     

Optimal CEO Compensation with Search: Theory and Empirical Evidence

We integrate an agency problem into search theory to study executive compensation in a market equilibrium. A CEO can choose to stay or quit and search after privately observing an idiosyncratic shock to the firm. The market equilibrium endogenizes CEOs’ and firms’ outside options and captures contracting externalities. We show that the optimal pay‐to‐performance ratio is less than one even when the CEO is risk neutral. Moreover, the equilibrium pay‐to‐performance sensitivity depends positively on a firm's idiosyncratic risk and negatively on the systematic risk. Our empirical tests using executive compensation data confirm these results.     

Are Interlocked Directors Effective Monitors?

This paper examines whether the presence of interlocked directors on a board is associated with weak governance. For a sample of 3,566 firm‐years spanning 2001 to 2003, we find that firms with lower industry‐adjusted firm performance are more likely to have interlocked directors. We document that shareholders react negatively to the formation of director interlocks and find that the presence of interlocked directors is associated with lower than optimal pay‐performance sensitivity of CEO incentive compensation and reduced sensitivity of CEO turnover to firm performance. Collectively, our results suggest that the presence of interlocked directors is indicative of weak governance.     

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.     

Changing board behaviour: The role of the ‘Two Strikes’ rule in improving the efficacy of Australian Say-on-Pay

This article analyses whether the transition from the 2004 CLERP 9 advisory Say-on-Pay regime to the ‘Two Strikes’ rule in 2012 influenced CEO pay in Australian firms. Analysing a panel of 2,074 firm-years (2005–2015), we find that (i) CEO pay is a positive predictor of shareholder dissent; (ii) firm performance has a reducing effect on shareholder dissent; (iii) excessive shareholder dissent moderated CEO pay under the ‘Two Strikes’ rule relative to the CLERP 9 regime, and (iv) the market responded favourably to the introduction of the ‘Two Strikes’ rule and negatively to ‘strike’ instances after its introduction.     

CEO Influence and Executive Compensation

The sales-maximization hypothesis and the shareholder wealth-maximization hypothesis have been suggested in prior finance literature to explain the determinants of CEO pay. This paper proposes that CEO influence over the board is an additional explanation for the size of CEO pay. Evidence from the 1989–1991 period indicates that CEO pay is positively related to measures of CEO influence over the board. Results of this study suggest that CEO salary levels are mostly a function of CEO influence over the board, the growth in sales and the size of the firm.     

Auditor independence, executive pay and firm performance

This paper investigates whether compensation committees actively intervene to adjust accounting performance‐based incentive schemes for the real, or perceived, reduced earnings credibility signalled by the purchase of non‐audit services. Using a nonlinear, two‐stage least‐squares method that accounts for the simultaneity of executive pay, firm performance and non‐audit fees, we find a significant negative relationship between non‐audit fees and the sensitivity of chief executive officer (CEO) pay to firm performance. Point estimates suggest that the reduced weight applied to accounting performance lowers the incentive component of executive pay between roughly 5 and 8 per cent for the CEO of the ‘average firm’.     

CEO power,product market competition and the acquisition motive for going public

This study finds that CEO power and product market competition differentially influence post‐IPO growth strategy and its economic consequences. Powerful CEOs are more likely to prefer acquisition growth over internal investment. Further, while CEO power is positively related to the likelihood, frequency and size of post‐IPO acquisitions, it is unrelated to the post‐IPO performance of acquisitive firms. In contrast, product market rivalry does not increase post‐IPO acquisitiveness but is positively related to the performance of acquirers. Finally, CEO power enhances the performance of acquisitive IPO firms only when faced with intense competitive rivalry.     

Motivating high‐impact innovation: Evidence from managerial compensation contracts

We investigate the relationship between Chief Executive Officer (CEO) compensation and firm innovation and find that long‐term incentives in the form of options, especially unvested options, and protection from managerial termination in the form of golden parachutes are positively related to corporate innovation, and particularly to high‐impact, exploratory (new knowledge creation) invention. Conversely, non‐equity pay has a detrimental effect on the input, output and impact of innovation. Tests using the passage of an option expensing regulation (FAS 123R) as an exogenous shock to option compensation suggest a causal interpretation for the link between long‐term pay incentives, patents and citations. Furthermore, we find that the decline in option pay following the implementation of FAS 123R has led to a significant reduction in exploratory innovation and therefore had a detrimental effect on innovation output. Overall, our findings support the idea that compensation contracts that protect from early project failure and incentivize long‐term commitment are more suitable for inducing high‐impact corporate innovation.