On REIT CEO Compensation: Does Board Structure Matter?

In a perfect world where the board of directors is independent of CEO influence, CEO pay-for-performance compensation contracts should be a function of performance only. If the CEO can influence board structure through his ownership of company stock or chairmanship of the board, however, performance contracts are sub-optimal and agency problems arise, which allow the CEO to extract rent and demand compensation in excess of the equilibrium level. As such, models of compensation contracts must include board and ownership structure variables, in addition to the traditional economic determinants. Our analyses with REITs corroborate this notion. Our data demonstrate that the structure of REIT boards are not independent of CEO influence, and significant agency problems exist allowing the CEO to design boards that reward him at the cost of shareholder wealth. CEO compensation in REITs depends significantly on the usual economic measures of performance including firm size and return on assets; more importantly, CEO compensation is higher in REITs where the board is weak in monitoring because of large size, and older directors; the effect of a blockholder is adverse, however. This study provides additional evidence to the growing literature that observed board structures are ineffective in monitoring and governance.     

A game of thrones—Dynamics of internal CEO succession and outcome

We examine the implications of chief executive officer (CEO) succession methods for firm outcomes and executive incentives. Focusing on internal CEO successions, we find that the largest U.S. firms typically rely on two types of succession methods, namely, heir apparent and horse race successions. Although heir apparent and horse race CEO candidates have similar qualifications, the consequences of these two succession methods differ significantly. We find that horse race successions induce conflict and are detrimental to firm performance but not necessarily to the newly appointed CEOs. Our findings suggest succession method influences firm performance, executive incentives and CEO labour markets.     

Corporate Governance, Board Diversity, and Firm Value

This study examines the relationship between board diversity and firm value for Fortune 1000 firms. Board diversity is defined as the percentage of women, African Americans, Asians, and Hispanics on the board of directors. This research is important because it presents the first empirical evidence examining whether board diversity is associated with improved financial value. After controlling for size, industry, and other corporate governance measures, we find significant positive relationships between the fraction of women or minorities on the board and firm value. We also find that the proportion of women and minorities on boards increases with firm size and board size, but decreases as the number of insiders increases.     

Is an Outside Chair Always Better? The Role of Non‐CEO Inside Chairs on Corporate Boards

Proponents of separating the CEO and chairman positions advocate having an outside chairperson, although having an inside chairperson can be valuable for some firms. I find inside chairs are more likely where firm‐specific human capital is more important and, in these firms, inside chairs are associated with higher firm valuation and better operating performance. Furthermore, skilled inside chairs increase forced CEO turnover sensitivity to performance. The evidence suggests that certain inside chairs can be valuable when firm‐specific information is important for monitoring and an outside chair may be costly.     

Bankers in the Boardroom and Firm Performance in China

We use a dataset comprising the appointments of commercial bankers as board of directors at Chinese listed firms and find that financially distressed firms are more likely to recruit a commercial banker as a director of the board. The presence of a banker on the board increases access to bank loans, yet many investors react negatively to announcements of such appointments. We also find that such appointments are typically followed by a drop in the appointing firm’s operating performance, and an increase in rent-seeking activities. This suggests that bank directors cannot strengthen corporate governance. Most financial resources are expropriated by corporate insiders.     

Determinants of board members' financial expertise — Empirical evidence from France

Very few countries require directors to be financially literate. This article investigates the determinants of boards' financial expertise using a sample of 95 nonfinancial French listed firms. We construct a measure of financial expertise based on educational and career background data for 943 individuals occupying 1140 posts in our sample and explore the determinants of average per-firm financial expertise using a Tobit analysis. We find that average financial expertise is negatively associated with board type (two-tier versus one-tier) and growth opportunities and positively associated with board independence, ownership concentration, and institutional ownership. These findings are robust to sensitivity analyses.     

Governance structure and the weighting of performance measures in CEO compensation

We empirically examine how governance structure affects the design of executive compensation contracts and in particular, the implicit weights of firm performance measures in CEO’s compensation. We find that compensation contracts in firms with higher takeover protection and where the CEO has more influence on governance decisions put more weight on accounting-based measures of performance (return on assets) compared to stock-based performance measures (market returns). In additional tests, we further find that CEO compensation in these firms has lower variance and a higher proportion of cash (versus stock-based) compensation. We further find that CEOs’ incentives (measured as changes in CEO annual wealth which includes expected changes in the value of the CEO’s equity holdings in addition to yearly compensation) do not vary across governance structures. These findings are consistent with CEOs in firms with high takeover protection and where they have more influence on governance negotiating different contracts.

建立独立董事制度 完善公司治理结构

为了规范上市公司的法人治理结构，使董事会更公正地代表股东利益尤其是中小股东的利益，借鉴国际市场经验，笔者认为，在上市公司中引入独立董事制度是完善中国上市公司治理结构的重要步骤。     

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.     

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.     

The Importance of Board Quality in the Event of a CEO Death

We examine board quality and executive replacement decisions around deaths of senior executives. Stock price reactions to executive deaths are positively related to board independence. Controlling for such factors as the deceased's stockholdings, outside blockholdings, board size, and whether the deceased was a founder, board independence is the most significant factor explaining abnormal returns. Board independence is particularly important when there is no apparent successor and firm performance is poor. The results are consistent with independent boards being reluctant to discipline poorly performing incumbent managers, but nevertheless using the opportunity of an executive death to improve the quality of management.     

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.     

Board Composition in New Zealand: An Agency Perspective

This paper looks at board composition determinants in New Zealand. We document that the proportion of outside board members is inversely related to insider equity ownership supporting the notion that these variables are substitute mechanisms in controlling agency problems. We also find that board composition is directly related to debt, ownership concentration, and profitability and inversely related to growth and firm size. There is evidence that firms with influential CEOs have lower outside board representation. Finally, we document that the passage of the legislation reforming company and securities laws in 1993 was associated with increased outside members on the board.     

The impact of bank merger growth on CEO compensation

We examine the impact of bank mergers on chief executive officer (CEO) compensation during the period 1992–2014, a period characterised by significant banking consolidation. We show that CEO compensation is positively related to both merger growth and non‐merger internal growth, with the former relationship being higher in magnitude. While CEO pay–risk sensitivity is not significantly related to merger growth, CEO pay–performance sensitivity is negatively and significantly related to merger growth. Collectively, our results suggest that, through bank mergers, CEOs can earn higher compensation and decouple personal wealth from bank performance. Furthermore, we document a more severe agency problem in CEO compensation as a consequence of bank mergers relative to mergers in industrial firms. Finally, we find that the post‐financial crisis regulatory reform of executive compensation in banks has limited effectiveness in curbing the merger–pay links.     

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.     

The Nature of Board Nominating Committees and Their Role in Corporate Governance

This study examines the association between the employment and composition of nominating committees with board and ownership characteristics. First, the results suggest that the likelihood of using a nominating committee is inversely related to the level of inside ownership and positively weakly, related to the independence, but not the number, of outside board members. Second, the percentage of insiders participating in the committee is positively related to inside ownership, and negatively related to proxies for outside director quality. Finally, outside directors are more likely to serve on the nominating committee the more outside directorships they hold, and the longer their tenure in the firm. The likelihood of insider committee membership rises with a director's equity investment, with board tenure, and with other committee memberships. Taken together, the results are consistent with nominating committees substituting inside ownership in controlling management, mostly improving board quality, and being staffed with independent, experienced, and knowledgable members.     

Non-compensation-related consultant service and CEO compensation

This study examines how consultants’ non-compensation-related consulting service (NCS) affects the contractual usefulness of accounting and stock information in executive compensation, as reflected in pay-performance sensitivity. The hypothesis is based on anecdotal evidence suggesting that consultants’ provision of NCS is likely to adversely affect the quality of CEO compensation plans. We investigate whether the consultants providing NCS are involved in potential conflicts of interest. The results show that CEO pay is higher in companies where consultants provide NCS and have a higher NCS fee ratio. The pay-performance sensitivity in CEO compensation decreases when consultants engage in NCS. The overall results are consistent with NCS representing a conflict of interest and compromising the quality of compensation committees.     

Media coverage,board structure and CEO compensation: Evidence from Taiwan

This paper investigates the relationship between CEO cash compensation and media coverage of firms, analyst forecasts and board structure using data from the Taiwan Stock Exchange. We find that, other things being equal, CEO cash compensation is much higher for firms with greater media coverage, firms with more positive news, firms with more analyst forecasts, and firms with larger institutional holdings. There is little evidence that board size and board independence affect CEO cash compensation, and CEO duality is negatively associated with CEO cash compensation     

The Increasing Use of Non-Executive Directors: Its Impact on UK Board Structure and Governance Arrangements

The last decade has seen a sharp increase in the number of non-executive directors (NEDs) on the boards of UK listed firms. Using a sample period spanning the publication of the Cadbury Report (1992), this paper evaluates the implications of this increase. The main findings can be summarised as follows. First, the increased demand for NEDs has been more pronounced for firms classified as having proportionately too many executive board members in the pre-Cadbury period. Secondly, the probability of compliance with the Cadbury Report's proposal for a minimum of three NEDs is positively related to the magnitude of the expected net benefits of adding further non-executives to the board. Finally, there is little evidence that the increased use of NEDs caused firms to make costly adjustments to other elements of their control systems in an attempt to re-equilibrate their governance portfolios. These findings are consistent with claims that the recent trend towards greater NED representation on UK boards may have helped to raise general governance standards.