薪酬委员会在高管薪酬激励有效性中的治理效应研究——基于2002-2010年A股上市公司的实证研究

本文考察了薪酬委员会在高管薪酬考核与评价中对高管薪酬与会计业绩关系的调整。研究发现,当盈余波动性较大时,薪酬委员会会减弱高管薪酬与会计业绩之间的相关性。与应计利润相比,薪酬委员会会增强经营活动现金流对高管薪酬的影响。本文还发现了薪酬委员会降低薪酬粘性给公司薪酬激励造成的不利影响。我们的研究表明,薪酬委员会对高管薪酬与会计业绩之间关系的调整是积极、有效的,设立薪酬委员会的公司对高管薪酬的考核与评价也更加客观、合理。     

超募资金与高管薪酬契约

文章探讨首次公开发行超募资金对上市公司高管薪酬契约有效性的影响。研究发现,总体而言,当超募资金用于补充流动资金的程度增加时,上市公司高管薪酬业绩敏感性显著降低,薪酬粘性显著提高。表明超募资金补充公司流动性的行为增加了公司代理成本,降低了高管薪酬契约有效性,弱化了高管激励。进一步研究显示,超募资金补充流动性对薪酬契约的不利影响在低竞争行业的公司中表现的更为显著;大股东两权分离会加剧超募资金补充流动性对高管薪酬契约的负面影响。募集资金的有效使用依赖于相关治理机制的建设。文章的结论丰富了IPO募集资金使用效率方面的文献,对于政策制定者具有重要的参考价值。     

货币性私有收益与避税寻租

复杂不透明的避税交易为公司高管的自利行为提供了机会。国企高管薪酬激励扭曲程度较大,所握权力缺乏监督,当他们从显性薪酬契约中获得的货币性私有收益较低时,可以通过避税交易寻租,此时国有上市公司避税程度较大;国有上市公司与子公司、受同一母公司控制的其他公司发生的异常关联交易、以及对异常经营活动现金流的操纵是国企高管避税寻租的实现途径。但是,"四大"审计并不能对高管避税寻租产生治理作用。     

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。     

高管现金薪酬激励效应研究——短期绩效相关还是长期绩效相关?

高管薪酬与企业绩效之间的关联性一直以来都是企业激励高管人员、降低股东和管理者之间冲突的基础。不少研究证实我国高管薪酬与企业绩效之间存在正相关关系,但是高管寻租谋取暴利的案件仍接连发生,"天价"薪酬也越来越多地引起社会各界的关注,这都说明现有的"薪酬—绩效"契约存在缺陷。本文选取2002—2010年上市公司作为样本,分别考察了高管薪酬与公司短期和长期绩效指标之间的敏感性。研究发现,上市公司高管现金薪酬的决定主要依赖于短期业绩指标,缺乏长期绩效的相关性,在现有高管薪酬构成中普遍缺乏股权激励因素的情形下,我国企业高管薪酬结构不合理,高管薪酬的决定机制仍不能满足企业发展的需求,与股东谋求长期价值的意愿相背离,我国企业高管薪酬制度亟待改善。     

公司社会声望与高管薪酬:公共服务抑或职业声誉

本文基于“隐性—显性”契约激励研究范式,探讨公司社会声望对高管薪酬的影响以及作用机制。本文选取2009—2017年间的非金融A股上市公司为样本,研究发现,拥有较高社会声望的公司,其高管显性薪酬较低。具体而言,公共地位较高的国有企业、具有较高市场声誉的民营上市公司,其高管薪酬平均而言分别比其他上市公司低4.97%和6.30%。进一步地,我们发现公司声望对我国高管显性薪酬契约存在两种作用机制:一方面,公共地位较高的国有企业,可以为高管带来较高的社会声誉和社会认可,满足了“公共服务”类高管的社会声望偏好,从而降低了显性薪酬的支付水平;另一方面,市场声誉较高的民营企业,可以为高管带来较高的职业声誉和未来职业利益,符合“以商为荣”类高管的社会声望偏好,使高管愿意接受较低的显性薪酬。本文的结论为公司声望作为一种有价值的资源,可以对高管显性薪酬形成议价能力提供了重要证据,揭示了公司声望对高管显性契约激励的影响路径;同时,为国有企业高管薪酬契约设计以及激励机制提供了一定启示。     

公司社会声望与高管薪酬:公共服务抑或职业声誉

本文基于“隐性—显性”契约激励研究范式,探讨公司社会声望对高管薪酬的影响以及作用机制。本文选取2009—2017年间的非金融A股上市公司为样本,研究发现,拥有较高社会声望的公司,其高管显性薪酬较低。具体而言,公共地位较高的国有企业、具有较高市场声誉的民营上市公司,其高管薪酬平均而言分别比其他上市公司低4.97%和6.30%。进一步地,我们发现公司声望对我国高管显性薪酬契约存在两种作用机制:一方面,公共地位较高的国有企业,可以为高管带来较高的社会声誉和社会认可,满足了“公共服务”类高管的社会声望偏好,从而降低了显性薪酬的支付水平;另一方面,市场声誉较高的民营企业,可以为高管带来较高的职业声誉和未来职业利益,符合“以商为荣”类高管的社会声望偏好,使高管愿意接受较低的显性薪酬。本文的结论为公司声望作为一种有价值的资源,可以对高管显性薪酬形成议价能力提供了重要证据,揭示了公司声望对高管显性契约激励的影响路径;同时,为国有企业高管薪酬契约设计以及激励机制提供了一定启示。     

（武汉大学 经济与管理学院会计系，湖北 武汉430072）

复杂不透明的避税交易为公司高管的自利行为提供了机会。国企高管薪酬激励扭曲程度较大,所握权力缺乏监督,当他们从显性薪酬契约中获得的货币性私有收益较低时,可以通过避税交易寻租,此时国有上市公司避税程度较大;国有上市公司与子公司、受同一母公司控制的其他公司发生的异常关联交易、以及对异常经营活动现金流的操纵是国企高管避税寻租的实现途径。但是,“四大”审计并不能对高管避税寻租产生治理作用。     

投资者情绪、经理激励契约与企业投资

本文基于中国上市公司经理激励契约安排的制度背景,把经理激励契约纳入投资者非理性分析框架,就投资者情绪与经理激励契约如何相互作用影响企业投资进行了理论分析,并进行了实证检验。结果发现,高管持股会诱发高管利用投机的股市进行过度投资,而与股价弱相关的货币薪酬没有这种作用,而且经理薪酬的这种作用因企业实际控制人性质不同而有所差异。本研究表明高管持股在企业投资决策中具有负面的公司治理效应。     

机构投资者持股、高管权力与现金分红研究

上市公司不分红或少分红一直是我国资本市场治理的热点和难点问题。笔者将管理权力理论纳入现金分红治理研究框架,利用A股上市公司2009—2013年数据为样本对高管权力集中与上市公司现金分红之间的关系进行实证检验,并探究机构投资者在其中的治理作用。研究发现,高管权力集中公司现金分红的可能性小、支付的现金红利较少;进一步研究发现,机构投资者可以促进高管权力集中上市公司的现金分红,抑制高管权力集中产生的代理问题。该研究拓展了我国资本市场现金分红治理的研究视角,丰富了股利理论的研究文献。引导机构投资者积极发挥外部治理作用、逐步完善高管权力制衡机制以及将现金分红水平纳入高管绩效评价体系或写进高管薪酬契约将有助于解决上市公司的不分红或少分红难题。     

Impact of managerial ownership on investment and liquidity constraints: Evidence from Chinese listed companies

We examine the impact of managerial ownership on investment and financial constraints in the context of China. Using the system generalized method of moments estimation of an investment Euler equation, we find that investment decisions are related to managerial ownership in two ways. First, managerial ownership exerts a positive direct effect on corporate investment decisions by aligning management’s incentives with the interests of shareholders. Second, managerial ownership helps to reduce the degree of financial constraints faced by firms, suggesting that managerial ownership acts as a form of credible guarantee to lenders, signaling the quality of investment projects to the capital markets. Our findings suggest that recent policies enacted by the Chinese government, aimed at reforming ownership structure and encouraging managerial ownership in listed firms, help reduce agency costs and asymmetric information; thereby facilitating firms’ investment efficiency. Our findings will be of interest to scholars, practitioners, and policy makers interested in the financial impacts of management-compensation contracts.     

Executive compensation and dividend policy

This study examines the use of dividend provisions in executive compensation contracts to influence dividend policy. A sample is constructed with the largest companies in the oil and gas, defense/aerospace and food processing industries, where dividend-related agency costs are expected to be high. The results indicate that the existence of a dividend incentive in the compensation plan is positively associated with higher dividend payouts and yields, and higher annual changes in dividend levels. Evidence is also provided on firm characteristics associated with the use of a compensation contract with a dividend provision. The results are consistent with the theory that firms link compensation incentives to dividend payments to reduce conflicts between shareholders and management over dividend decisions.     

The incentive to give incentives: On the relative seniority of debt claims and managerial compensation

We show that the relative seniority of debt and managerial compensation has important implications for the design of remuneration contracts. Whereas the traditional literature assumes that debt is senior to remuneration, there are in reality many cases in which remuneration contracts are de facto senior to debt claims in financially distressed firms and in workouts. We theoretically show that risky debt changes the incentive to provide the manager with performance-related incentives (a “contract substitution” effect). In other words, the relative degree of seniority of managers’ claims and creditors’ claims in case a bankruptcy procedure starts is crucial to determine the optimal incentive contract ex-ante. If managerial compensation is more senior than debt, higher leverage leads to lower power incentive schemes (lower bonuses and option grants) and a higher base salary. In contrast, when compensation is junior, we expect more emphasis on pay-for-performance incentives in highly-levered firms.     

Can the agency costs of debt and equity explain the changes in executive compensation during the 1990s?

Contracting theory predicts that greater equity-related compensation will decrease the agency problems of equity but may exacerbate the agency problems of debt. We present evidence that the agency costs of debt may have declined during the 1990s. Specifically, changes in the financial characteristics of our sample firms suggest that underinvestment, asset substitution, and financial distress became less likely. Furthermore, agency costs of equity increased during the 1990s, primarily because firms became more difficult to monitor. Together, the findings provide an explanation for why more firms used option-based compensation in the latter 1990s, and why the proportion of options in compensation structure increased throughout the decade of the 1990s.     

Executive Compensation: A Model of Disclosure Choice

Recent public policy debates have led to increased calls for full transparency of executive compensation. However, in practice, many firms are reluctant to disclose the full details of how they link executive compensation to performance. One possible reason for lack of full disclosure is that managers use their power to hide the details of their compensation plan in order to disguise opportunistic rent extraction. If this is the reason for secrecy, then public policy designed to force firms to provide full disclosure is unlikely to be resisted by shareholders. However, another possible explanation for less than full transparency is that some degree of secrecy about executive compensation may be in the interest of the company and its shareholders. If this explanation is correct, then public policy moves to increase transparency may be met by counter moves designed to protect managers and shareholders from such policies. In this paper we investigate if full disclosure of executive compensation arrangements is always optimal for shareholders. We develop a model where optimal executive remuneration solves a moral hazard problem. However, the degree to which the moral hazard problem affects the shareholders depends on hidden information, so that disclosure of the executive compensation scheme will typically reveal the hidden information, which can be harmful to shareholders. The model derives, therefore, the optimal disclosure policy and the optimal remuneration scheme. We find that the shareholders are better off pre‐committing not to disclose the executive compensation scheme whenever possible. Executive directors are shown to be better off too in the absence of disclosure of executive compensation schemes. An argument for mandating disclosure is that it provides better information to shareholders but our analysis demonstrates that disclosure does not necessarily achieve this objective. The results suggest that less than full disclosure can be in the interest of shareholders, the reason for this being that disclosures cannot be made selectively to shareholders but will also be made to strategic opponents. This will be the case if the board of directors and the remuneration committee includes enough independent directors. Whether or not non‐disclosure to shareholders is in their interest is however an empirical matter involving a trade‐off between the proprietary costs associated with disclosure to shareholders and the costs of potential collusion between executive and non‐executive directors associated with non‐disclosure.     

Managerial risk incentives and investment related agency costs

We assess the impact of compensation based incentives together with monitoring mechanisms on investment related agency costs. The results indicate that well structured compensation based incentives significantly reduce agency costs. Managerial firm based wealth delta has a significant, negative effect on agency costs for firms in all size categories. The significance of managerial firm based wealth vega in reducing agency costs is concentrated in small firms, suggesting that vega exposure is more effective where risk is higher. The significance of cash compensation in reducing agency costs is concentrated in the large firms. This result implies that higher cash compensation reduces agency costs by allowing risk-averse managers the opportunity to diversify outside the firm.     

Stock‐Based Compensation in a Concentrated Ownership Setting: An Empirical Investigation

Stock‐based compensation has been viewed as an important mechanism for tying managers’ wealth to firm performance, and thus alleviating the agency conflict between the shareholders and the managers when ownership is diffused. However, in a concentrated ownership structure, controlling owners are usually the management of the firm; they can engage in self‐dealing activities to the detriment of minority shareholders’ interests. Yet, outside investors may anticipate the problem and discount the share price for the entrenchment behaviors they observe. In this study, we investigate how controlling owners trade off the benefits and the costs of using stock‐based compensation. Based on a sample of Taiwanese firms, our evidence shows that stock‐based compensation is negatively related to the agency problem embedded in a concentrated ownership structure. This relationship is evident among firms with more frequent equity offerings. Overall, our empirical evidence suggests that controlling owners consider the negative price effects of stock‐based compensation and trade off these costs with the benefits of expropriating minority shareholders’ interests, particularly when firms seek more external equity capital. Our results hold after controlling for selection bias and share collateral by controlling owners.     

The Impact of Managerial Entrenchment on Agency Costs: An Empirical Investigation Using UK Panel Data

This paper empirically investigates the relationship between managerial entrenchment and agency costs for a large sample of UK firms over the period 1999–2005. To measure managerial entrenchment, we use detailed information on ownership and board structures and managerial compensation. We develop a managerial entrenchment index, which captures the extent to which managers have the ability and incentives to expropriate wealth from shareholders. Our findings, which are based on a dynamic panel data analysis, show that there is a strong negative relationship between managerial entrenchment and our inverse proxy for agency costs, namely asset turnover ratio. There is also evidence that short‐term debt and dividend payments work as effective corporate governance devices for UK firms. Finally, our findings reveal that agency costs are persistent over time. The results are robust to a number of alternative specifications, including varying measures of managerial entrenchment and agency costs.     

Auditors’ Economic Incentives and the Sensitivity of Managerial Pay to Accounting Performance

The use of managerial incentives to manage earnings in order to enhance accounting performance‐based compensation is greater when auditors have economic incentives to compromise their independence. Hence, compensation committees face more difficulties in determining cash compensation when earnings quality declines. This study investigates whether boards of directors can mitigate the agency problems between managers and shareholders by being aware of the opportunistic earnings management encouraged by auditors’ economic incentives and actively adjusting performance‐based compensation for the reduced earnings quality. To this end, it examines how auditors’ economic incentives affect the sensitivity of managerial pay to accounting performance. The findings show a negative association between the client's economic importance to the auditor and the sensitivity of managerial pay to accounting performance, with this association more pronounced for firms that opportunistically inflate earnings, suggesting that boards mitigate agency problems by actively intervening to modify performance‐based compensation schemes for the reduced earnings quality. Additional analyses show that board effectiveness in determining compensation depends on its characteristics. These results suggest the urgent need to oblige companies to establish compensation committees, particularly in countries that lack such a mandatory requirement or where few companies have such committees.     

Executive stock-based compensation and firms’ cash payout: the role of shareholders’ tax-related payout preferences

We hypothesize that the structure of executive stock-based compensation helps to align managers’ payout choices with shareholders’ tax-related payout preferences. Specifically, stock options, which are not dividend-protected, can deter self-interested executives from using dividends as a form of payout. In contrast, restricted stock, which is dividend-protected, is more likely to induce the use of dividends. Relatedly, shareholders’ preferences for dividends, which are taxed as ordinary income, can depend on the income tax consequences of dividends relative to those of long-term capital gains. To test our hypothesis, we investigate whether the exogenous changes in shareholders’ tax-related payout preferences following the 2003 dividend tax rate reduction result in predictable shifts in executive stock-based compensation and in managers’ payout choices. Consistent with our prediction, we find a positive relation between the increased use of dividends in firms’ payouts and the increased (decreased) use of restricted stock (stock options) in executive compensation, particularly for firms with a greater percentage ownership by individual investors and with lower costs associated with modifying the structure of their compensation plans. Our investigation of the role of shareholders’ tax-related payout preferences in the design of executive stock-based compensation extends the prior literature that has largely focused on the role of incentive contracts in inducing managerial effort, risk taking, and retention.