Inefficient Investment,Information Asymmetry,and Competition for Managers

We investigate the possible inefficiency of investment when the manager has better information than the principal. We assume that projects can be grouped into two categories based on their information characteristics of soft and hard information. We consider a case in which the manager faces competition for appointment at the end of term. We consider several cases in which the competitor's ability is known, or proxied by the performance of other managers, or is uncertain. We find that hard information projects are preferred to soft information projects and that the efficiency in project selection critically depends on the competitor's ability. Interestingly, information asymmetry may be socially beneficial, because it can provide the manager with incentives to select high‐quality hard‐information projects. Welfare improvement can be made by a budget change that is in the opposite direction to the optimum. Several empirical implications of the theory are discussed.     

INTER-MARKET COMPETITION THROUGH BUNDLING IN THE PRESENCE OF COST ADVANTAGE

This paper presents a model of inter-market competition through bundling wherein each firm has a cost advantage in a different market and competes against fringe firms. Without cost saving through bundling, there is no equilibrium in which the bundled good is provided. However, with cost saving through bundling, there exist equilibria in which one firm provides bundling and the other does not. In this case, bundling can be used as a device for entry deterrence. Finally, we illustrate that bundling can reduce social welfare by discouraging the efficient entrant from entering the market.     

In Search of a Competition Policy in a Competitive Economy: The Case of Hong Kong

The authors propose an exploratory framework to study competition policy development in general and apply it in the context of Hong Kong. Competition policy (in the U.S., commonly referred to as antitrust policy) is defined here as concerned with the public policy prohibiting anticompetitive behavior and the abuse of dominant market power on the part of businesses. The framework identifies four core variables that are important in influencing the development and implementation of a competition policy. These variables are the consumer protection agenda, external pressure, the political landscape, and the size of the economy. It is proposed that the way government responded to these forces has been instrumental in shaping how and why the competition policy debate in Hong Kong evolved the way it did. It also underscores the importance of recognizing the indigenous nature in the development of competition policy in any economy. Future research directions to generalize the framework are also suggested. These include further development and expansion of the core variables, contextualization of the framework for cross‐national comparisons, and undertaking longitudinal studies to examine the sensitivities of the competition policy to changes in the core forces over time.     

Does Sensationalism Affect Executive Compensation? Evidence from Pay Ratio Disclosure Reform

Beginning in 2018, U.S. public firms were required to report the ratio of the chief executive officer's (CEO) compensation to their median employee's compensation in the annual proxy statement. Exploiting the staggered reporting of pay ratios, we find little evidence that total CEO compensation changes in response to pay ratio disclosure reform. However, we do find that boards significantly adjust the mix of compensation awarded by reducing the sensitivity of CEO pay to equity price changes, particularly when the CEO is likely to garner media scrutiny, and by reducing reliance on stock-based and other compensation components that are most susceptible to media coverage surrounding the pay ratio disclosure. Firms ultimately disclosing higher pay ratios garner more media coverage around the filing of their proxy statement, and more negative-toned coverage in the subsequent month. Finally, we find evidence that greater pay disparity is associated with greater selling activity by retail investors and more negative say-on-pay votes following pay ratio reform, consistent with a broad set of investors responding to public scrutiny resulting from pay ratio disclosures.