Deviations from optimal CEO ownership and firm value

The transaction cost theory of managerial ownership and firm value predicts that deviations from optimal managerial ownership reduce firm value. This paper empirically tests the transaction cost theory by studying the relation between deviations on either side of optimal CEO ownership and firm value. We find that both above-optimal and below-optimal deviations reduce firm value. We find that a change in CEO ownership is associated with a higher (lower) abnormal return if it moves the ownership towards (away from) the optimal level. These findings are consistent with the transaction cost theory of managerial ownership and firm value.     

CEO ownership, external governance, and risk-taking

This paper shows the relation between CEO ownership and firm valuation hinges critically on the strength of external governance (EG). The relation is hump-shaped when EG is weak, but is insignificant when EG is strong. The results imply that CEO ownership and EG are substitutes for mitigating agency problems when ownership is low. However, very high levels of share ownership can reduce firm value by entrenching the CEO and discouraging him from taking risk, unless mitigated by strong EG. We identify channels through which CEO ownership affects firm value by examining R&D, which is discretionary and risky. We find CEO ownership similarly exhibits a hump-shaped relation with R&D when EG is weak, but no relation when EG is strong. Our results are robust to endogeneity issues concerning CEO ownership and EG.     

CEO Ownership and Discretionary Investments

Abstract:  This study investigates empirically the relationship between CEO ownership and discretionary investments such as R&D and capital expenditures. We assert that the under-investment problem is high for R&D-intensive projects, while the over-investment problem is high for capital expenditures because of differences in risk between the two types of investments. Building on the linkages between investments and investment-related agency problems, we hypothesize that the relationship between CEO ownership and investments depends on whether increasing ownership mitigates or exacerbates the under- or over-investment problem. We find a non-linear association between CEO stock ownership and R&D investments; R&D investments increase and then decline across increasing levels of ownership. Further, we find that R&D investments and CEO stock options are positively associated at high levels of option holdings. In contrast, capital expenditures do not vary with CEO ownership (stock or options). Finally, consistent with our underlying assumption, we find that the influence of R&D investments on future firm risk is significantly larger than that of capital expenditures. Our findings indicate that managerial risk aversion affects discretionary investments.     

Corporate performance, managerial ownership and endogeneity: A simultaneous equations analysis for the Athens stock exchange

This paper investigates the relationship between managerial ownership and firm performance by considering the endogenous nature of the ownership variables. We conducted our analysis by applying a simultaneous equations framework. We empirically controlled the direction and significance of this relationship, using a panel comprised of 146 firms quoted on the Athens Stock Exchange between 2000 and 2004. The main findings of our analysis indicated that when managerial ownership is treated as endogenous, there is a positive impact on corporate value. Given the particularly high degree of managerial ownership that is observed in the firms listed in the Athens Stock Exchange, we argue that the estimated positive relationship can be mainly explained by the existing high levels of managerial ownership.     

Can CEO dismissals be proactive?

We find significant variation in the prior stock returns of firms that dismiss their CEOs between 1996 and 2008. 49% of firms that dismiss their CEOs do so in the absence of negative industry-adjusted stock returns prior to dismissal (37% dismiss in the absence of negative raw returns). We find evidence for two reasons why boards may dismiss CEOs early, i.e., in the absence of significant poor prior stock performance. First, we find that early dismissals are more likely to be associated with corporate scandals, suggesting that CEOs that are found to engage in unethical or illegal activities are dismissed although their actions may not have a significant adverse impact on firm value. Second, we find support for the argument that early dismissals are proactive actions by boards to dismiss low ability CEOs. We find that firms with more equity-based compensation for directors and higher independent director ownership are more likely to dismiss their CEOs early. Boards with strong incentives are more likely to be proactive and act on their private information about the CEO than boards with poor incentives. Early dismissal firms experience a short-lived decline in operating performance around the date of CEO dismissal, and their operating performance recovers immediately after the CEO is replaced. On the other hand, the operating performance of late dismissal firms declines significantly prior to dismissal and improves substantially after dismissal. We also find that CEOs that are dismissed early are not more likely to find new CEO positions than CEOs that are dismissed late, supporting the idea that early dismissal CEOs may not have different ability than late dismissal CEOs.     

Performance and governance in microfinance institutions

We examine the relationship between firm performance and corporate governance in microfinance institutions (MFI) using a self-constructed global dataset on MFIs collected from third-party rating agencies. Using random effects panel data estimations, we study the effects of board and CEO characteristics, firm ownership type, customer-firm relationship, and competition and regulation on an MFI’s financial performance and outreach to poor clients. We find that financial performance improves with local rather than international directors, an internal board auditor, and a female CEO. The number of credit clients increase with CEO/chairman duality. Outreach is lower in the case of lending to individuals than in the case of group lending. We find no difference between non-profit organisations and shareholder firms in financial performance and outreach, and we find that bank regulation has no effect. The results underline the need for an industry specific approach to MFI governance.     

Seasoned equity offerings,repurchases, and deviations from optimal CEO ownership

This paper empirically tests the transaction cost theory of managerial ownership in the settings of seasoned equity offerings (SEOs) and repurchases. SEOs and repurchases result in changes of managerial ownership due to non-contracting reasons. We use a benchmark specification to obtain the measures of optimal CEO ownership and deviations from the optimum. We find that SEOs and repurchases are associated with a higher (lower) abnormal return if they move CEO ownership towards (away from) the optimal level. The findings are consistent with the transaction cost theory of managerial ownership.     

Managerial incentives and risk-taking

We provide empirical evidence of a strong causal relation between managerial compensation and investment policy, debt policy, and firm risk. Controlling for CEO pay-performance sensitivity (delta) and the feedback effects of firm policy and risk on the managerial compensation scheme, we find that higher sensitivity of CEO wealth to stock volatility (vega) implements riskier policy choices, including relatively more investment in R&D, less investment in PPE, more focus, and higher leverage. We also find that riskier policy choices generally lead to compensation structures with higher vega and lower delta. Stock-return volatility has a positive effect on both vega and delta.     

Value creation around merger waves: The role of managerial compensation

This paper examines the relation between executive compensation and value creation in merger waves. The sensitivity of CEO wealth to firm risk increases the likelihood of out-of-wave merger transactions but has no influence on in-wave merger frequency. CEOs with compensation linked to firm risk have better out-of-wave merger performance in comparison to in-wave mergers. We also present evidence that cross-sectional acquirer return dispersion is greater for in-wave acquisitions. Our results suggest that the underperformance of acquiring firms during merger waves can be attributed in part to ineffective compensation incentives, and appropriate managerial incentives can create value, particularly in non-wave periods.     

Managerial ownership,board monitoring and firm performance in a family‐concentrated corporate environment

Using data from Hong Kong, a market that has family‐concentrated ownership structure, we examine the relation between managerial ownership, the board of directors and firm performance. We first conduct analysis on the managerial ownership and firm performance to derive the turning points where either ‘convergence of interest’ or ‘entrenchment’ effect of managerial ownership is dominant. Based on these estimated turning points, we find that at low and high level of ownership, effective board mitigates the entrenchment effect associated with managerial ownership; at medium level of ownership, board effectiveness is less demanded. These findings suggest that managerial ownership and board monitoring are substitutes in mitigating the agency problem between managers and shareholders. We also find that effective board curbs the excessive compensation by entrenched managers to themselves at low level of managerial ownership.     

Us knows us in the UK: On director networks and CEO compensation

We analyze the relation between CEO compensation and networks of executive and non-executive directors for all listed UK companies over the period 1996-2007. We examine whether networks are built for reasons of information gathering or for the accumulation of managerial influence. Both indirect networks (enabling directors to collect information) and direct networks (leading to more managerial influence) enable the CEO to obtain higher compensation. Direct networks can harm the efficiency of the remuneration contracting in the sense that the performance sensitivity of compensation is then lower. We find that in companies with strong networks and hence busy boards the directors' monitoring effectiveness is reduced which leads to higher and less performance-sensitive CEO compensation. Our results suggest that it is important to have the ‘right’ type of network: some networks enable a firm to access valuable information whereas others can lead to strong managerial influence that may come at the detriment of the firm and its shareholders. We confirm that there are marked conflicts of interest when a CEO increases his influence by being a member of board committees (such as the remuneration committee) as we observe that his or her compensation is then significantly higher. We also find that hiring remuneration consultants with sizeable client networks also leads to higher CEO compensation especially for larger firms.     

The performance effect of managerial ownership: Evidence from China

By examining a sample of non-listed Chinese firms, we provide the first evidence from China for the effect of managerial ownership on firm performance. In matching-sample comparisons, we find that firms of significant managerial ownership outperform firms whose managers do not own equity shares. Our further results indicate the relation between firm performance and managerial ownership is nonlinear, and the inflection point at which the relation turns negative occurs at ownership above 50%. Compared with previous studies, our results are less likely to suffer from an endogeneity problem due to the non-list nature of our sample and the unique institutional environment in China.     

The effect of CEO ownership on the information content of reported earnings

This paper examines the relation between capital market perceptions of earnings quality and CEO equity ownership. Using the earnings response coefficients (ERCs) from annual returns–earnings regressions as a proxy for investor perceptions of earnings quality, we find that ERCs first increase and then decline across higher levels of CEO ownership with an inflection point around 25% ownership. Using analyst behavior as another proxy for the perceptions of financial analysts, we find that earnings forecasts are more accurate as ownership increases, but once ownership levels reach about 25%, accuracy declines with further increases in ownership. Forecast dispersion, forecast revision volatility, and analyst following decline and then increase across increasing levels of CEO ownership. Our results suggest that, for low levels of CEO ownership, earnings are perceived as being more informative about future firm performance as ownership increases. However, once ownership levels are high, earnings are perceived as being less informative with further increases in ownership.     

The effect of target managerial ownership on the choice of acquisition financing and CEO job retention

In this paper we report on our investigation into whether the level of target managerial ownership has an effect on acquisition financing choice and target CEO job retention. We find that cash is more likely used to finance acquisitions when target management ownership levels are high. This result is consistent with a reduced monitoring hypothesis, where bidding firm managers seek to avoid the formation of a large block holder that may become an active monitor. We also find evidence specific only to stock deals that the probability of target CEO job retention increases with the level of target managerial ownership. In these cases, it appears the potential benefits associated with retaining certain target managers outweighs any negative consequence associated with creating a new monitoring block.     

Managerial ownership dynamics and firm value

From 1988 to 2003, the average change in managerial ownership is significantly negative every year for American firms. We find that managers are more likely to significantly decrease their ownership when their firms are performing well and more likely to increase their ownership when their firms become financially constrained. When controlling for past stock returns, we find that large increases in managerial ownership increase Tobin's q. This result is driven by increases in shares held by officers, while increases in shares held by directors appear unrelated to changes in firm value. There is no evidence that large decreases in ownership have an adverse impact on firm value. We rely on the dynamics of the managerial ownership/firm value relation to mitigate concerns in the literature about the endogeneity of managerial ownership.     

Why do private acquirers pay so little compared to public acquirers?

Using the longest event window, we find that public target shareholders receive a 63% (14%) higher premium when the acquirer is a public firm rather than a private equity firm (private operating firm). The premium difference holds with the usual controls for deal and target characteristics, and it is highest (lowest) when acquisitions by private bidders are compared to acquisitions by public companies with low (high) managerial ownership. Further, the premium paid by public bidders (not private bidders) increases with target managerial and institutional ownership.     

Excessive managerial entrenchment,corporate governance,and firm performance

This paper investigates the differential impact of positive and negative excessive managerial entrenchment on the CEO turnover-performance sensitivity, CEO compensation, and firm performance. We measure the degree of managerial entrenchment using the E-index introduced by Bebchuk et al. (2009). Our findings suggest that an increase in excess CEO entrenchment reduces the likelihood of CEO turnover due to poor performance. We also show a positive association between excessive entrenchment and CEO compensation as managers gain more power and authority when they are entrenched. On the other hand, excess CEO entrenchment has an inverse correlation with firm performance and firm value. Overall, we propose that excessive managerial entrenchment has a converse impact on board monitoring and shareholders’ welfare.     

The relationship between managerial ownership and firm performance in high R&D firms

Several studies have examined the relationship between managerial ownership and firm performance/value (e.g., [Journal of Financial Economics 20 (1988) 293; Journal of Financial Economics 27 (1990) 595; Journal of Corporate Finance 5 (1999) 79]). Using different samples, these studies provide general support for the argument that increases in managerial ownership create countervailing interest alignment and entrenchment effects, leading to a nonlinear relationship between managerial ownership and firm performance. However, the actual form of this nonlinear relationship differs across the studies.The present paper examines the relationship between managerial ownership and performance for high R&D firms that are listed on the NYSE, AMEX and NASDAQ. We find that Tobin's Q initially declines with managerial ownership, then increases, then declines again and, finally, increases again—a W-shaped relationship. The findings from our study point to the importance of industry effects in the relationship between managerial ownership and firm performance.     

行政垄断、公司规模与CEO权力薪酬

由于国有企业CEO薪酬由国资委决定,CEO权力无法影响自身薪酬,因此国有企业CEO薪酬可能并不适用管理层权力假说,但现有文献结论并非如此。规模、行政垄断以及业绩是高管薪酬契约最主要的决定因素,管理层权力对其影响较弱,因此仅仅在回归中控制行业、规模、所有制等因素,所得结论可能并不稳健。本文以2007—2010年间4277个A股上市公司为样本的研究发现:在控制行政垄断与规模因素后,非国有企业CEO权力与CEO薪酬显著正相关,而国有企业CEO权力与CEO薪酬不符合管理层权力假说。本文研究有助于丰富薪酬管理层权力假说,有助于理解CEO权力在薪酬决定中的作用。     

The impact of board capital and board characteristics on firm performance

The purpose of this study is to investigate the effects of board capital on the relationship between CEO duality, board dependence, managerial share ownership and performance. We argue that board capital (the ability of board members to perform manager-monitoring activities and to provide advice and counsel to management) varies across board members. Highly qualified board members will be better at monitoring management and constitute a more valuable resource for firms. Based on a sample of U.S. companies listed in the Compustat S&P 500 and using both resource dependence and agency theories, we predict and find that CEO duality and board dependence negatively affect performance and that board capital mitigates the negative effects. We also predict and find that managerial share ownership positively affects performance and that board capital strengthens this positive relationship. The results are consistent with the view that firms benefit from board capital in terms of outside directors' ability to monitor managers and provide advice and counsel to managers.