MANAGERIAL POWER, STOCK-BASED COMPENSATION, AND FIRM PERFORMANCE: THEORY AND EVIDENCE

This paper studies theoretically and empirically the relation among CEO power, CEO compensation and firm performance. Our theoretical model follows the rent extraction view of CEO compensation put forward by the managerial power theory, and proxies CEO power by the bargaining power the CEO exercises in the determination of his compensation contract. We show (i) when there is no constraint on the CEO's salary, the CEO's stock-based compensation and the pay-performance sensitivity of CEO compensation are both independent of CEO power, although firm performance net of CEO compensation worsens as CEO power increases, and (ii) when the CEO's salary has a binding cap, the CEO's stock-based compensation and the pay-performance sensitivity of CEO compensation are both increasing in CEO power, resulting in better firm performance gross of CEO compensation, but worse firm performance net of CEO compensation. We test our theoretical findings using the sample of S&P1500 firms over the period of 2001-2005. The predicted relation between power and pay is largely supported. However, the relation between power and firm performance as predicted by theory has mixed support. This suggests that, while the managerial power theory has clear relevance in explaining the relation between power and pay, the scope of power needs to be broadened to have better understanding of how managerial power affects firm performance.Managerial power, agency theory, stock-based incentives, firm performance, pay-performance sensitivity.

Executive Compensation and CEO Equity Incentives in China’s Listed Firms (CRI 2009-006)

This study investigates the economic, ownership and governance determinants of executive compensation and CEO equity incentives in China’s listed firms. Consistent with the agency theory, we find that executive compensation is positively correlated with firm size, performance, and growth opportunities. CEO incentives are negatively associated with firm size, positively linked with firm performance and growth opportunity. Firm risk has a negative effect on pay and incentives. Compensation and CEO incentives are significantly greater in privately-controlled firms compared to state-run firms and are lower in firms with concentrated ownership structures. Boardroom governance is important: firms with compensation committees or a greater fraction of independent directors on the board have higher executive pay and greater CEO equity incentives

Assessing Nonprofit CEO Compensation: Does the Media Provide a Fair Perspective?

The media plays an active role in forming external stakeholders’ perception of business matters. When it comes to nonprofit business, the media is a source of information that, in theory, works to bridge the gap between external stakeholders’ unfamiliarity with nonprofit regulation and what is actually required of the nonprofit sector. This concept is especially present regarding the topic of nonprofit CEO compensation. The goal of this paper is to discuss how media addresses nonprofit CEO compensation and to determine whether or not the media fairly portrays the entire story by assessing current data along with trends in historical data, namely of two organizations, the American Red Cross and Goodwill Industries, Inc. This study will enter into the discussion of nonprofit CEO compensation and discuss the nature of nonprofits, the requirements of nonprofit CEO compensation, and CEO compensation as it is portrayed by the media and therefore likely perceived by society. The purpose of the analysis is to determine whether nonprofits actually compensate their CEOs as the media suggests. With this information, external stakeholders will be better equipped to answer the above questions themselve

Keeping Up with CEO Jones: Benchmarking and Executive Compensation

This paper seeks to understand the role that peer comparisons play in the determination of executive compensation. I exploit a recent change in the Securities and Exchange Commission’s regulations that requires firms to disclose the peer companies used for determining the compensation of their top executives. Using a new dataset of S&P 900 companies’ choice of benchmarking firms during two fiscal periods (2007 and 2008), I investigate what determines the choice of comparison firms. I find that companies have a preference for choosing larger and higher-CEO-compensation firms as their benchmark. Though I find that companies prefer to choose as their benchmark peers with similar firm characteristics, for CEO compensation, this effect is countered by a preference for firms with higher-than-own CEO compensation. Using the complete map of firms’ choices, I implement an instrumental variable strategy that uses the characteristics of peers-of-peers to estimate the effect of others’ compensation on own compensation. For Fiscal Year 2007, I find an elasticity of 0.5

Distributive Justice and CEO Compensation

This paper develops a framework for studying individuals’ ideas about what constitutes just compensation for chief executive officers (CEOs) and reports estimates of just CEO pay and the principles guiding ideas of justice. The sample consists of students pursuing a Master of Business Administration (MBA) degree in Sweden and the United States. The framework, based on justice theory and making use of Rossi’s factorial survey method, enables assessment of ideas of fairness in CEO compensation, including (1) the just CEO compensation, in the eyes of each observer; (2) the principles of microjustice – observers’ ideas about “who should get what” based on characteristics of CEOs and their firms; and (3) principles of macrojustice – ideas about the just level and dispersion in compensation across all CEOs. Our estimates yield the following main results: First, there is broad agreement on the median just CEO compensation but substantial inter-individual variation in the principles of microjustice and the other principles of macrojustice. Second, there is remarkable similarity in the distributions of the principles of microjustice and macrojustice across the MBA groups. Other important results include a pervasive gender attentiveness among MBA students and tolerance for large variability in CEO pay.justice theory, fairness, CEO compensation, factorial survey method, MBA students, gender, inequality, Gini coefficient, Atikinson measure, Theil's inequality measures

Firm Expansion and CEO Pay

We study the extent to which decisions to expand firm size are associated with increases in subsequent CEO compensation. Controlling for past stock performance, we find a positive correlation between CEO compensation and the CEO's past decisions to increase firm size. This correlation is economically meaningful; for example, other things being equal, CEOs who in the preceding three years were in the top quartile in terms of expanding by increasing the number of shares outstanding receive compensation that is higher by one-third than the compensation of CEOs belonging to the bottom quartile. We also find that stock returns are correlated with subsequent CEO pay only to the extent that they contribute to expanding firm size; only the component of past stock returns not distributed as dividends is correlated with subsequent CEO pay. Finally, we find an asymmetry between increases and decreases in size: while increases in firm size are followed by higher CEO pay, decreases in firm size are not followed by reduction in such pay. The association we find between CEOs' compensation and firm-expanding decisions undertaken earlier during their service could provide CEOs with incentives to expand firm size.

Board committees, CEO compensation, and earnings management

We analyze the effect of committee formation on how corporate boards perform two main functions: setting CEO pay and overseeing the financial reporting process. The use of performance-based pay schemes induces the CEO to manipulate earnings, which leads to an increased need for board oversight. If the whole board is responsible for both functions, it is inclined to provide the CEO with a compensation scheme that is relatively insensitive to performance in order to reduce the burden of subsequent monitoring. When the functions are separated through the formation of committees, the compensation committee is willing to choose a higher pay-performance sensitivity as the increased cost of oversight is borne by the audit committee. Our model generates predictions relating the board committee structure to the pay-performance sensitivity of CEO compensation, the quality of board oversight, and the level of earnings management

Deregulation and the relationship between bank CEO compensation and risk taking

The deregulation of the banking industry during the 1990s provides a natural (public policy) experiment for investigating how firms adjust their executive compensation contracts as the environment in which they operate becomes relatively more competitive. Using the Riegle-Neal Act of 1994 as a focal point, we investigate how banks changed the equity-based component of bank CEO compensation contracts. We also examine the relationships between equity- based compensation and risk, capital structure, and investment opportunity set. Consistent with theoretical predictions, we find that after deregulation, the equity- based component of bank CEO compensation increases significantly on average for the industry. Additionally, we find that more risky banks have significantly higher levels of equity-based compensation, as do banks with more investment opportunities. But, more levered banks do not have higher levels of equity-based CEO compensation. Finally, we observe that most of these relationships become more powerful in our post- deregulation period.Corporate governance ; Bank supervision

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.Executive remuneration;Professional and social networks;Corporate governance;Managerial Power;Remuneration consultants

Because I'm worth it? CEO pay and corporate governance

Recently, there has been strong public outrage against current pay practices for corporate CEOs. To deal with this issue, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act signed into law by President Obama on July 21, 2010 will allow shareholders to vote on executive pay packages and federal regulators to oversee executive compensation at financial firms. Are there problems with CEO pay? According to a recent survey, 98 percent of respondents from major financial institutions “believe that compensation structures were a factor underlying the crisis.” In “Because I’m Worth It? CEO Pay and Corporate Governance,” Rocco Huang outlines what we know about how CEOs are paid, how the pay is set, how CEO compensation affects CEOs’ incentives and actions and their firms’ performance, and how government regulations affect CEO pay.Corporate governance ; Executives - Salaries ; Regulation