Executive Compensation Consultants and CEO Pay

This Article surveys recent empirical studies on the relation between compensation consultants and CEO pay. The economic rationale for using executive compensation consultants is that they supply valuable data, information, and professional expertise to client firms. However, critics argue that the consultant’s independence might be compromised because of conflicts of interest arising from the cross selling of business services or because of the consultant’s desire to obtain repeat business. The emergent empirical evidence suggests that pay consultants are important in explaining executive compensation, although the findings are sometimes mixed and the precise effects of consultants on pay are yet to be fully understood. In addition, this Article provides some new evidence on the correlation between CEO pay and consultants using U.S. and U.K. data. Adopting a slightly different approach to prior studies, I show that there is a positive cross-section correlation between executive pay and compensation consultants. Conditional on the estimation strategy, the existing evidence supports the hypothesis that CEOs of U.K. firms using consultants receive higher pay than those that do not use compensation consultants. There is less evidence that firms facing conflicts of interest, such as supplying other business services, are associated with higher levels of CEO pay. However, the findings may be sensitive to the type of estimation methods employed, and addressing this concern is a challenge for future research. I also find little support for the hypothesis that firms switch consultants as a mechanism of increasing CEO pay. Again, interpreting the data is fraught with difficulties because of selection effects and the possibility of reverse causation. Finally, the recent Dodd-Frank Act significantly upgrades disclosure about executive compensation and compensation advisors. Future research on the efficacy of compensation consultants will undoubtedly take advantage of these new provisions. At present, it is difficult to unambiguously conclude that pay consultants simply promote executive interests at the expense of shareholders, or that pay outcomes and contracts are not optimal

Compensation Consultants and Executive Pay (CRI 2009-010)

This chapter provides a review of the recent literature on compensation consultants and executive pay. Six major pay consulting firms dominate the market. These firms advise client firms about executive pay and frequently supply other services such as actuarial work. There is some evidence that CEO pay is higher in firms that use compensation consultants. However, the hypothesis that CEO pay is higher in firms whose consultants face potential conflicts of interest, such as cross-selling of other services, is not as empirically robust

CEO Turnover and Firm Performance in China’s Listed Firms (CRI 2009-012)

Manuscript Type: Empirical Research Question/Issue: This study investigates the relation between CEO turnover and firm performance in China’s listed firms. The study examines how the sensitivity of CEO turnover to firm performance is moderated by the private control of firms, the presence of a majority shareholder and the presence of independent directors on the board. Research Findings/Insights: Using a panel of about 1200 Chinese firms per year from 1999 to 2006 we find significant changes in the ownership and control of firms. The private control of firms and the fraction of independent directors on the board have increased considerably over time. The study finds a significant negative association between CEO turnover and firm performance consistent with the agency model. There is evidence that the CEO turnover sensitivity for poor performance is greater in firms that are privately controlled, or have a majority shareholder, or have a greater fraction of independent directors on the board. Theoretical/Academic Implications: This study provides empirical support for the agency model and the importance of internal corporate governance to attenuate agency costs. It provides important insights into firm governance in transition economies. Practitioner/Policy Implications: This study offers insights to policy makers interested in enhancing the design of internal corporate governance within transition economies

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

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

Executive pay and performance: did bankers’ bonuses cause the crisis?

This paper examines the pay-performance relationship between executive cash compensation (including bonuses) and company performance for a sample of large UK companies, focusing particularly on the financial services industry, since incentive misalignment has been blamed as one of the factors causing the global financial crisis of 2007–2008. Although we find that pay in the financial services sector is high, the cash-plus-bonus pay-performance sensitivity of financial firms is not significantly higher than in other sectors. Consequently, we conclude that it unlikely that incentive structures could be held responsible for inducing bank executives to focus on short-term results

Shared Modes of Compensation and Firm Performance: UK Evidence.

This paper examines the use and consequences of shared compensation plans (profit sharing, profit related pay, SAYE schemes and company stock option plans) in a sample of UK workplaces and firms in the 1990s. The use of these plans has increased over time, in part in response to government programs. The evidence shows that companies and workplaces adopting shared compensation practices have had higher productivity than other firms, but the effects vary among programs, suggesting that the particulars matter a lot in aligning shared compensation and work place activities. Consistent with incentive theory, the evidence also shows that firms and workplaces with shared compensation practices have a higher incidence of shared decision-making/information sharing practices.

Shared Modes of Compensation and Firm Performance: UK Evidence

This paper examines the use and consequences of shared compensation plans (profit sharing, profit related pay, SAYE schemes and company stock option plans) in a sample of UK workplaces and firms in the 1990s. The use of these plans has increased over time, in part in response to government programs. The evidence shows that companies and workplaces adopting shared compensation practices have had higher productivity than other firms, but the effects vary among programs, suggesting that the particulars matter a lot in aligning shared compensation and work place activities. Consistent with incentive theory, the evidence also shows that firms and workplaces with shared compensation practices have a higher incidence of shared decision-making / information sharing practices.

Are U.S. CEOs Paid More than U.K. CEOs? Inferences from Risk- Adjusted Pay (CRI 2009-003)

We compute and compare risk-adjusted pay for US and UK CEOs, where the adjustment is based on estimated risk premiums stemming from the equity incentives borne by CEOs. Controlling for firm and industry characteristics, we find that US CEOs have higher pay, but also bear much higher stock and option incentives than UK CEOs. Using reasonable estimates of risk premiums, we find that risk-adjusted US CEO pay does not appear large compared to that of UK CEOs. We also examine differences in pay and equity incentives between a sample of non-UK European CEOs and a matched sample of US CEOs, and find that risk-adjusting pay may explain about half of the apparent higher pay for US CEOs