What do employees know? Quality perception and ‘over-satisfaction’ in firms going public

Should IPO investors pay attention to employees' views on firm quality and work satisfaction (e.g., work-life-balance)? We track employees' opinions (Glassdoor) in private firms that subsequently go public. Employees' pre-IPO views are informative: positive reviews of firm/manager quality predict stronger post-IPO stock performance, while dispersion in opinions correlates with post-IPO return volatility. A striking finding is that employees' satisfaction in excess of that predicted by firm quality opinions (over-satisfaction) is negatively related to post-IPO performance. Finally, positive initial-day stock returns enhance employees' views regarding firm quality, suggesting that IPO underpricing may secure a boost in employees' morale.     

Firm Characteristics,Shareholder Sophistication and the Incidence of a ‘First Strike’ Under the ‘Two Strikes’ Rule in Australia

To restrain ‘excessive’ executive pay, Australia introduced new legislation in 2011, commonly known as the ‘two strikes’ rule. This rule has predictable consequences for publicly listed firms and their directors. In this study, we investigate which firm characteristics are associated with the incidence of a ‘first strike’ under the two strikes rule. We find that the incidence of a first strike is positively associated with higher levels of CEO pay, lower ownership concentration, smaller firm size, higher level of institutional ownership and CEO duality. Additional analysis suggests that shareholders fail to differentiate between CEO pay, which is related to the economic characteristics of a firm, and the pay that is not related to firm characteristics. This finding suggests that, unlike US shareholders, Australian shareholders do not appear to have a sophisticated understanding of CEO pay structure.     

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.     

The determinants and effects of CEO–employee pay ratios

We study the determinants and effects of the relative compensation of top executives and lower-level employees. First, we show that CEO–employee pay ratios depend on the balance of power between the CEO (relative to the board) and ordinary employees (relative to management). Second, our results suggest that employees do not perceive higher pay ratios as an inequitable outcome to be redressed via costly behaviors that lower productivity. We do not find a negative relation between relative pay and employee productivity, either in our full sample or in subsamples where employees are well-informed about executive pay and are protected against career retributions. Rather, we find that productivity increases with relative pay when the firm has fewer employees who are well-informed, and when promotion decisions are predominantly merit-based. We also find that firm value and operating performance both increase with relative pay. We conclude that ordinary employees appear to perceive an opportunity in higher pay ratios but the extent to which such perception incentivizes them depends on the likelihood of success in a series of sequential promotion tournaments.     

Executive compensation and corporate governance in China

We investigate executive compensation and corporate governance in China's publicly traded firms. We also compare executive pay in China to the USA. Consistent with agency theory, we find that executive compensation is positively correlated to firm performance. The study shows that executive pay and CEO incentives are lower in State controlled firms and firms with concentrated ownership structures. Boardroom governance is important. We find that firms with more independent directors on the board have a higher pay-for-performance link. Non-State (private) controlled firms and firms with more independent directors on the board are more likely to replace the CEO for poor performance. Finally, we document that US executive pay (salary and bonus) is about seventeen times higher than in China. Significant differences in US-China pay persist even after controlling for economic and governance factors.     

Rank-Order Tournaments and Incentive Alignment: The Effect on Firm Performance

We investigate simultaneously the impact of promotion-based tournament incentives for VPs and equity-based (alignment) incentives for VPs and the chief executive officer (CEO) on firm performance. We find that tournament incentives, as measured by the pay differential between the CEO and VPs, relate positively to firm performance. The relation is more positive when the CEO nears retirement and less positive when the firm has a new CEO, and weakens further when the new CEO is an outsider. Our analysis is robust to corrections for endogeneity of all our incentive measures and to several alternative measures of tournament incentives and firm performance.     

The timing of changes in CEO compensation from cash bonus to equity-based compensation: Determinants and performance consequences

This study examines the determinants and performance consequences of changes in CEO compensation structure. The study uses the unique setting when Australian companies have changed from cash bonus to equity-based compensation. While most US CEOs receive some form of equity-based compensation, Australian CEOs have not always been paid equity-based compensation. According to efficient contracting theories, we argue that the change to equity-based compensation is driven by changes in firm characteristics and by the occurrence of CEO turnover, the latter of which provides a less costly opportunity for such change. Our results are consistent with the above arguments. We also document a significant negative association between changes in compensation structure and subsequent firm performance in the following year, even after controlling for CEO turnover and poor governance environments. Overall, our results suggest that the initial change to equity-based compensation is part of an error learning process made by firms that leads them towards efficient CEO compensation contracts.     

Estimating product market competition: Methodology and application

In oligopolies, firms behave strategically and commit to actions that elicit favorable responses from rivals. Firm actions consequently are a function of the nature of these strategic interactions. In this paper, we develop a methodology for the empirical estimation of strategic interactions in product markets. We then apply our measure of strategic interactions to CEO compensation. We use quarterly data on profits and sales from Compustat to estimate the slope of firm’s reaction function. When the slope is negative and marginal profits decrease with an increase in the rival’s actions the firm is classified as a strategic substitute. When the slope is positive and marginal profits increase with an increase in the rival’s actions the firm is classified as a strategic complement. As predicted by theory, we find significant evidence that strategic substitutes decrease the pay for performance incentives of their CEOs. On the other hand, strategic complements significantly increase CEO pay for performance incentives. The empirical measure developed can be used to test a wide variety of strategic models.     

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 determinants of CEO compensation: Rent extraction or labour demand?

CEO compensation is topical and controversial and accordingly receiving considerable attention by various stakeholders. We investigate whether rent extraction or labour demand explains CEO compensation level in Australia. We do so by examining the determinants (economic, governance and ownership) of CEO compensation level and explore the relationship between predicted excess compensation and subsequent firm performance. Our results suggest that governance and ownership attributes, in addition to economic attributes, are significant determinants of CEO compensation. However, these attributes differentially determine the various components of CEO compensation. Our evidence is consistent with: (1) the determination of fixed salary and share-based compensation reflecting a firm's demand for a high-quality CEO; and (2) the CEO's ability to extract rent through bonus and options compensation, particularly for smaller firms or firms with above average performance. However, the rent extraction is not economically significant and does not persist beyond one year. This is in sharp contrast to the US evidence where rent extraction through CEO compensation is pervasive, economically significant and persistent [Core, J., Holthausen, R., Larcker, D., 1999. Corporate governance, chief executive officer compensation, and firm performance. Journal of Financial Economics 51, 371–406].     

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.     

Tournament-based incentives and mergers and acquisitions

This research examines the relation between tournament-based incentives, which are proxied by the difference between a firm's CEO pay and the median pay of the senior managers, and mergers and acquisitions (M&As). We find that tournament-based incentives are positively related to firm acquisitiveness and acquiring firms' stock and operating performance. Further analysis indicates that positive acquisition performance increases the likelihood of the CEO being promoted from inside the acquiring firm. Our evidence is consistent with the view that tournament-based incentives motivate acquiring firms' managers to make greater efforts and take more risk that result in superior acquisition performance.     

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.     

Air pollution and executive incentive: Evidence from pay-performance sensitivity

Based on the China's non-state-owned listed corporates in 2014–2020, we adopt the real-time air quality index data published by the Ministry of Environmental Protection of China as the proxy of air pollution to examine how air pollution affects firm's CEO pay–performance sensitivity (PPS). The results of logistic regression show that air pollution is negatively correlated with the executives' PPS. We also find that industrial and regional characteristics is heterogeneous by exploring the interaction effect of CEO. In addition, our study indicates that the influence of air pollution on PPS is more significant in companies with improved performance and we provide a possible explanation of this based on the theory of resource category equivalence. The mechanism test shows that air pollution increases the firms' difficulty to motivate executives, it also destroys the effectiveness of compensation contracts and significantly reduces the PPS by increasing explicit and implicit incentive. Furthermore, we investigate the economic consequences of air pollution. Results show that air pollution would damages the firm value directly and also affect their PPS. Overall, our study reveals how air pollution affects executives' incentive, therefore provides policy support to developing countries to balance the relationship between economic development and environmental protection.     

The bright side of co‐opted boards: Evidence from firm innovation

This study documents a positive and robust effect of co‐opted boards on firm innovation. This effect is mainly driven by co‐opted independent directors. Firms with more co‐opted independent directors are associated with lower sensitivities of CEO pay and turnover to performance. It suggests that co‐opted boards promote innovation by insulating managers’ career concerns from innovation risk and supporting incentive contracts that motivate innovation. Overall, our study provides new evidence on co‐opted boards benefiting firm innovation.     

Narcissism is a bad sign: CEO signature size,investment, and performance

Using the size of CEO signatures in SEC filings to measure individual narcissism, we find that CEO narcissism is associated with several negative firm outcomes. We first validate signature size as a measure of narcissism but not overconfidence using two laboratory studies, and also find that our measure is correlated with employee perceptions of CEO narcissism used in prior research. We then use CEO signatures to study the relation between CEO narcissism and the firm’s investment policies and performance. CEO narcissism is associated with overinvestment, particularly in R&D and M&A expenditures (but not in capital expenditures). Firms led by narcissistic CEOs experience lower financial productivity in the form of profitability and operating cash flows. Despite this negative performance, narcissistic CEOs enjoy higher absolute and relative compensation. Our results are robust to several alternative specifications, including controlling for a popular options-based overconfidence measure used in prior research.     

Political connection,CEO gender,and firm performance

The political connection of a CEO is a determinant of firm performance. Shocks to the CEO's political connection can create fluctuations in firm performance. However, the underlying economic mechanisms between the CEO gender gaps in firm performance and CEO's political connections are not well understood. Using the political leadership transition in 2012 in China as an exogenous shock, we find that the CEO gender gap in firm performance is diminished in response to the more destruction of female CEOs' political connections. We control the firm characteristics by the propensity score matching method, suggesting the change of the political connection is the main reason for the narrowing of the CEO gender gap in firm performance.     

CEO and board chair roles: To split or not to split?

We examine the performance and compensation implications of firms' decisions to combine the roles of CEO and board chairman (duality). We document that firms that split the CEO and chairman positions due to investor pressure have significantly lower announcement returns and subsequent performance, and lower contributions of investments to shareholder wealth. Further, these performance outcomes are more negative for firms with higher predicted probabilities of duality based on a model of economic determinants of board leadership structure. We also find that pay-performance sensitivity in CEO compensation contracts are significantly lower following a split in the CEO and chairman positions, and significantly higher following a combination in these positions. Our evidence suggests that on average, board leadership choices by firms and market responses are consistent with efficiency arguments, and recent proposals for all firms to separate the CEO and chairman roles warrant more careful consideration.     

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.     

Accounting and economic consequences of CEO paycuts

Boards sometimes cut a CEO’s pay following poor performance. This study examines whether such CEO paycuts really work. We identify 1,496 instances of large CEO paycuts during the period 1994–2013. We then create a propensity-score-matched control group of firms that did not cut their CEOs’ pay and employ a difference-in-differences approach to examine the consequences of paycuts. Our results show that, following a paycut, CEOs are likely to engage in earnings management in an attempt to accelerate improvement in the reported performance and to achieve a speedier restoration of their pay to pre-cut levels. Further, we find that improvement in long-term performance after a paycut occurs only for those firms with lower levels of earnings management after the paycut. Finally, we show that paycuts are more likely to lead to unintended value-destroying consequences in the absence of high institutional ownership or when the CEO is sufficiently entrenched, thereby impairing the effectiveness of internal monitoring by boards.