Does executive compensation reflect corporate productivity?

Recent literature has given attention to the effect of CEO-specific productivity on the structure of CEO compensation. Our paper instead focuses on the effect of a different productivity factor—which we call “corporate productivity”—on CEO compensation. In particular, we show that corporate productivity affects the trade-off between incentive and risk in a non-monotonic fashion, which the literature has not yet recognized. Using various empirical proxies for corporate productivity, we show that our results are consistent with the non-monotonic relation and thus contribute to the debates in the incentive-risk trade-off literature. Second, our findings also contribute to the internal capital market literature by exploring the relation between the structure of CEO compensation and excess value.     

Does firm heterogeneity lead to differences in relative executive compensation?

Cost heterogeneity is an important source of performance disparity among firms. This heterogeneity conditions the strategic decisions that firms make in the product market and can lead to heterogeneity in the design of managerial compensation contracts. I investigate the effect of cost heterogeneity in a strategic product market environment where firms compete à la Cournot. The paper offers new predictions on how executive compensation contracts that account for relative performance must be adjusted for cost differences.     

Does tunneling explain the sensitivity of executive compensation to other member firms’ performance?

This study examines how executive compensation is set when a firm is a business group member. Using Korea's unique setting of family-controlled business groups, we find that a member firm's executive cash compensation is positively linked to the stock performance of other member firms as well as its own. Further analyses reveal that this positive link is consistent with the hypothesis that corporate managers are rewarded for their decision to benefit the controlling family at the expense of the firm they manage. Specifically, we find that the sensitivity of executive pay to other member firms’ performance exists only in respect to firms in which the cash flow rights of the controlling family exceed those of the subject firm. We also find that this sensitivity is strengthened if the controlling family's control–ownership disparity in the subject firm is above the sample median.     

Does internal control over financial reporting really alleviate agency conflicts?

This study investigates whether internal control over financial reporting (ICFR) alleviates the managerial expropriation of corporate resources. We do this by examining the potential effects of material weaknesses in internal control on the values of corporate cash holdings and capital expenditures. Our findings suggest that ICFR facilitates the scrutiny and discipline of capital markets and thus alleviates the agency problems. Our results support the premise that high financial reporting quality impairs managers’ abilities to use corporate resources in a self‐serving manner.     

Does OTC derivatives reform incentivize central clearing?

Regulatory changes in the over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives market seek to reduce systemic risk. The reforms require that standardized derivatives be cleared through central counterparties (CCPs), and they set higher capital and margin requirements for non-centrally cleared derivatives. We investigate whether these requirements create a cost incentive in favor of central clearing, as intended. We compare the total capital and collateral costs when banks transact fully bilaterally and when they clear all contracts through CCPs. We calibrate our model using data on the OTC market collected by the Federal Reserve. We find that the cost incentive may not favor central clearing. The main factors driving the cost comparison are netting benefits, the margin period of risk, and CCP guarantee fund requirements. Lower guarantee fund requirements lower the cost of clearing but make CCPs less resilient.     

Do managers seek control and entrenchment?

A unique dataset of post-IPO thrifts with heterogeneous initial insider ownership allows us to use revealed preferences to determine the level of ownership insiders believe to be optimal. We find strong evidence that insider ownership converges to the 20% to 30% range, whether insiders begin with diffuse or concentrated ownership. This range of ownership has been found consistent with entrenchment and control in the literature. Our results are robust to a battery of variables related to insider ownership such as moral hazard, adverse selection, market timing, insider characteristics, and firm characteristics. Furthermore, we find that managers with diffuse ownership accumulate shares most aggressively during the period of regulatory anti-takeover protection, consistent with an entrenchment motive. We find that managers with above-average pay are more likely to seek higher ownership, consistent with the existence of private benefits of control. Finally, we find that insider ownership determines equity issuance, leverage, and share liquidity in ways consistent with expected accumulation or reduction in insider ownership for control purposes.     

Does societal trust make managers more trustworthy?

This study examines the effects of shareholders' trust on managers' bad news hoarding. Using a large sample of listed firms from 33 countries, we find that firms domiciled in countries with higher societal trust have higher stock price crash risk, which indicates that managers may exploit shareholders' trust to conceal bad news and that a low-trust society can be beneficial in restraining management misconduct due to the monitoring undertaken by low-trust outsiders. We also find that the positive association between societal trust and crash risk is less pronounced (1) when low-trust foreign shareholders have greater control over a country's firms, in line with the view that low-trust shareholders' concerns about being expropriated by managers and the consequent strong efforts at monitoring; (2) when long-term investors have greater control over a country's firms, suggesting that long-term investors playing a complementary role in monitoring corporate governance; and (3) when a country has strong formal institutions, such as investor protection and financial accounting systems, suggesting that robust formal institutions are substitute for social norms.     

Does the disclosure of internal control deficiency matter for accrual quality? Evidence from China

Using a sample of Chinese listed firms that are required to audit and disclose any internal control deficiency (ICD), this paper examines the effect of mandatory ICD disclosure on accrual quality (AQ) in China. We find that relative to voluntary ICD disclosure, mandatory ICD disclosure is associated with poorer AQ, as proxied by abnormal accruals, suggesting that the mandated disclosure of ICD effectively identifies financial reporting quality in Chinese firms. This relationship is enhanced by government control of firms (especially the central government) and by the intensity of government inspections and is stronger in undeveloped regional markets. The results are robust to the application of the PSM-DID method and use of different measures and samples. Our findings demonstrate the critical role of the mandated disclosure of ICD and improve our understanding of internal control mechanisms in emerging markets.     

What's wrong with executive compensation? A roundtable moderated by Charles Elson

The value that many superpaid CEO superstars supposedly created has largely disappeared, and the likelihood that it will be recovered anytime soon seems remote. On top of that, a good number of top executives treated their companies like ATMs, awarding themselves millions of dollars in corporate perks. It's hard to dispute the idea that executives were corrupted by the sums of money dangled in front of them. What's wrong with executive compensation, and what can we do about it? HBR and the University of Delaware's Center for Corporate Governance convened a round-table of compensation experts last October on the university's campus in Newark, Delaware. The 12 panelists, from CEOs to investors, from the professionals who advise them to a chief justice who rules on their disputes, provided an extraordinary diversity of viewpoints. The panelist began by debating ways to align the interests of the senior executives with the long-term interests of the company-weighing the relative benefits of stock options versus stock grants, for instance. But the discussion expanded to cover broader questions of corporate governance and company values. "The main reason compensation increases every year is that most boards want their CEO to be in the top half of the CEO peer group," said Ed Woolard,Jr., a former CEO of DuPont. And compensation lawyer Joe Bachelder pointed out the danger of structuring pay in such a way that it dampens risk taking among executives. It was a lively and wide-ranging discussion of one business's most pressing issues.     

Do managers listen to the market?

There are competing theories as to whether managers learn from stock prices. Dye and Sridhar (2002), for example, argue that capital markets can be better informed than the firm itself, while Roll [Roll, R., 1986, “The hubris hypothesis of corporate takeovers,” Journal of Business 59, 97–216.] argues managers may ignore market signals due to hubris. In this paper, we examine whether managers listen to the market in making major corporate investments, and whether agency costs and corporate governance mechanisms help explain managers' propensity to listen. We find that, on average, managers listen to the market: they are more likely to cancel investments when the market reacts unfavorably to the related announcement. Further, we find mixed evidence consistent with the notion that managers' propensity to listen is related to agency costs. We find that firms tend to listen to the market more when more of their shares are held by large blockholders, and when their CEOs have higher pay-performance sensitivities.     

Does it pay to have friends? Social ties and executive appointments in banking

We exploit a unique sample to analyze how homophily (affinity for similar others) and social ties affect career outcomes in banking. We test if these factors increase the probability that the appointee to an executive board is an outsider without previous employment at the bank compared to being an insider. Homophily based on age and gender increase the chances of the outsider appointments. Similar educational backgrounds, in contrast, reduce the chance that the appointee is an outsider. Greater social ties also increase the probability of an outside appointment. Results from a duration model show that larger age differences shorten tenure significantly, whereas gender similarities barely affect tenure. Differences in educational backgrounds affect tenure differently across the banking sectors. Maintaining more contacts to the executive board reduces tenure. We also find weak evidence that social ties are associated with reduced profitability, consistent with cronyism in banking.     

What drives risk-taking incentives embedded in bank executive compensation? Some international evidence

This paper analyzes the country determinants of risk-taking incentives embedded in bank executive compensation using hand-collected international panel data on 135 publicly-traded banks in 26 countries. We exploit time-series changes in investor protection within a country and confirm that stronger protection leads to a higher vega. Moreover, the positive effect on vega is higher in countries where stronger bank competition and more extensive safety nets increase bank shareholders' risk-taking incentives. Our analysis controls for changes in bank regulation, systemic banking crises, and government bailouts. The results are robust to alternative specification models, alternative proxies for country determinants, and remain when we apply a more traditional cross-sectional analysis.     

Does internal board monitoring affect debt maturity?

Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting - Using the Sarbanes–Oxley Act (SOX) as an exogenous shock to board structure, we identify internal monitoring via board independence and...     

Does consistency in management control systems design choices influence firm performance? An empirical analysis

This study examines the impact on firm performance of theoretically consistent relationships between three management control systems (MCS) design choices – delegation, performance measurement, and incentive compensation. Based upon the ‘three-legged stool’ model and agency theory, the hypothesis is that theoretically consistent MCS design choices are associated with enhanced firm performance. Using survey data from large Australian firms, the findings support the hypothesis, suggesting that an appropriate MCS design is a determinant of firm performance. The study contributes to the literature by moving beyond a focus on the antecedents of the three key MCS design choices to the consequence of alignment of those choices.     

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.     

Does shareholder approval requirement of equity compensation plans matter?

This paper studies the impact of the 2003 SEC Regulation requiring shareholder approval of all equity-based executive compensation plans on executive compensation policies and practices at S&P 500 firms. Following the 2003 Regulation, firms with shareholder approved equity plans in place or those with strong performance, while not those with non-approved plans or weak performance, increase their equity compensation proposal submission activity. The quality of equity compensation proposals improves in the after-regulation period, and shareholders exhibit greater scrutiny and monitoring of executive compensation through increased voting rights. We find a decline in the equity pay component while an increase in the cash component of total executive compensation after the 2003 Regulation and also provide evidence that the 2003 Regulation contributes to this change in compensation structure.     

New development: Integrating risk management in management control systems—lessons for public sector managers

Exploring multiple dimensions of management control systems (MCS), this article proposes a new framework to integrate risk management with strategy, MCS and performance measurement systems (PMS). Considering the public sector as a focal point, the article points to some enterprise risk management (ERM) issues and argues that ERM-enabled MCS has potential to improve PMS and strategic decision-making, leading to a more proactive risk management framework and a culture that promotes performance driven accountability. Consequently, the article calls for further research towards solving the public sector’s risk management problems, motivating its managers to adopt best practices, and stimulating suitable policy developments.     

Does CEO inside debt compensation benefit both shareholders and debtholders?

Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting - We examine whether the proportion of CEO inside debt holdings (pension and deferred compensation) to stock holdings benefit both shareholders and...     

Does corporate control determine the cross-listing location?

This paper explains the choice of the cross-listing location with particular emphasis on the level of investor protection provided by the host market. We find that firms with concentrated control, with a higher level of risk and those with more pronounced financing needs cross-list on a market with better investor protection. We also find support for the bonding hypothesis as firms from markets with weak shareholder protection tend to cross-list on markets with significantly higher shareholder protection.