Do Compensation Consultants Drive Up CEO Pay? Evidence from UK Public Firms

Do compensation consultants drive up CEO pay for the benefit of managers, or do they design pay packages to benefit firm owners? Using a large sample of UK firms from the FTSE All‐Share Index over the 2003–2011 period, we show a positive correlation between the presence of compensation consultants and CEO pay. Importantly, isolating this effect is somewhat dependent on the endogenous selection of consultants and the statistical modelling strategy deployed. We find evidence that compensation consultants improve CEO compensation design when their expertise is of greater importance (e.g. during the post‐financial crisis period, or for firms that have particularly weak compensation policies). In addition, our findings show that compensation consultants increase CEO pay–performance sensitivity. The balance of evidence supports optimal contracting theory more than managerial power theory, but the authors caution the limits to this verification. We are careful to note that the more compelling evidence for the positive effect of pay consultants on CEOs is based on advanced methods (such as propensity score matching and difference‐in‐differences), and that more standard approaches (such as OLS and fixed effects) are unlikely to reveal the same level of causality of consultants on CEO pay.     

CEO successor compensation: outside versus inside successions

We propose that outside CEO candidates will have greater bargaining power than insiders. As a result, outside CEO successors will likely receive greater total compensation than inside CEO successors. Outside successors, meantime, pose more risk to the hiring firm than inside successors due to higher information asymmetry. As a result, outside successor compensation packages are tilted towards more performance-related pay-at-risk, while inside successor packages have a higher percentage in salary. In addition, outside successors may want to utilize the structure of their compensation at their previous firm in their new contracts. Using a sample of 99 firms with outside successors who were not CEO in their prior firms, matched by industry and size to firms that hired inside candidates, we find evidence supporting these hypotheses.     

CEO compensation and firm competitive behavior: Empirical evidence from the U.S. pharmaceutical industry

Executive compensation is one of the most critically evaluated aspects of a firm. Driving this attention is the debate into what exactly are the consequences of executive pay. Since a majority of prior compensation research has aggregated industries into a single omnibus sample, it has been difficult to detect compensation effects that are likely industry specific. Accordingly, we focus on a high technology industry and examine how CEO incentive compensation affects firm competitive behavior. Utilizing a sample of U.S. pharmaceutical firms, we find that both short- and long-term incentives of a CEO are positively related to firm competitive aggressiveness. Moreover, our results show a positive relationship between long-term incentives of the top executive and the diversity of competitive moves undertaken by the firm. This study contributes to technology management, compensation, and strategy literatures and generates interesting possibilities for future research.     

Board size and firm value: evidence from Australia

We study the effect of board size on firm value in Australia. Using a large sample of Australian firms over the period 2001–2011, we find strong evidence of a negative relationship. We show that firms with a large board are associated with CEO compensation that is sensitive to firm size, but not to firm performance. This incentive to accumulate assets is congruent with the fact that firms with a large board also exhibit lower operating performance and higher operating costs. Furthermore, we find that the effect of board size is stronger in small firms. This result might explain why earlier studies, which focused on large Australian firms, found board size to have little impact on firm value.     

Hedging and accounting-based RPE contracts for powerful CEOs

Several firms prohibit their CEOs from trading in the stock of peer firms. This is puzzling since hedging by the CEO through private trading in the capital market can reduce the CEO’s exposure to systematic compensation risk. When the CEO’s incentive contract comprises relative performance evaluation, we find that the firm might want to disallow private hedging even though there are no technological interdependencies or strategic interactions to peer firms. In the analysis, we highlight two frequently observed characteristics of incentive contracts. First, the use of accounting benchmarks is widespread in compensation contracts for CEOs. Second, empirical and anecdotal evidence suggests that powerful CEOs have influence on the process of designing their own compensation. We find that in the presence of a powerful CEO, the firm can benefit from disallowing private hedging. In particular, the firm’s decision to allow or to disallow private hedging depends on the characteristics of the accounting benchmarks and the characteristics of the peer firms.     

Does location influence executive compensation? Evidence from Canadian SMEs

We examine the impact of geographic location on the level and structure of executive compensation of small and medium enterprises (SMEs) in Canada, using a panel data sample between 2008 and 2011. Our results show that SMEs pay a higher price for talent by paying a large proportion (71%) of compensation as guaranteed cash pay to their executives. We also report a strong influence of location on compensation structure. Specifically, rural firms pay 13% more incentive based equity pay to their executives compared to their size matched urban counterparts. However, there is no difference between the total compensation for managers of rural and urban firms after controlling for the cost of living index. In cross-sectional tests, we observe that total compensation is positively related to CEO/Chair duality and family ownership but is not related to management quality. In addition, we find that rural firms display a higher pay-performance sensitivity.     

董事激励与公司业绩--实验的证据

我们在实验框架下检验了董事会成员的激励对股东财富和CEO报酬的影响,以及该报酬与公司业绩之间的敏感度.文中提出了两种任命董事的方法,一种由CEO任命,另一种由最大的股东自动担任董事.由董事会决定CEO的报酬,而CEO负责企业的生产、投资和分红决策.投资者根据接收到的每个公司的分红、资本收益这些信息,通过买卖这些企业的股票来调整他们的资产组合. 我们发现,薪酬与业绩之间的敏感度随董事持股比例的增加而上升.此外,当大股东作为董事会成员时,经济体所产生的财富(股东财富是其中的一部分)更大;而当CEO选择董事时,结果是缺乏效率的.本文讨论了关于董事职能和相关代理成本这一研究结果,以及标准会计框架下,限制执行人员报酬和报表标准化要求.     

Narcissistic CEOs and executive compensation

Narcissism is characterized by traits such as dominance, self-confidence, a sense of entitlement, grandiosity, and low empathy. There is growing evidence that individuals with these characteristics often emerge as leaders, and that narcissistic CEOs may make more impulsive and risky decisions. We suggest that these tendencies may also affect how compensation is allocated among top management teams. Using employee ratings of personality for the CEOs of 32 prominent high-technology firms, we investigate whether more narcissistic CEOs have compensation packages that are systematically different from their less narcissistic peers, and specifically whether these differences increase the longer the CEO stays with the firm. As predicted, we find that more narcissistic CEOs who have been with their firm longer receive more total direct compensation (salary, bonus, and stock options), have more money in their total shareholdings, and have larger discrepancies between their own (higher) compensation and the other members of their team.     

Agency conflicts,executive compensation regulations and CEO pay-performance sensitivity: evidence from Sweden

Based on a unique country set up with concentrated ownership of firms, strong representation of major shareholders on boards and one of the highest percentages of firms with dual-class shares worldwide I study CEO pay-performance sensitivity in Swedish listed firms in the years 2001–2013. Focusing on Type II agency conflict, I find that that pay-performance sensitivity in family-controlled firms with family CEOs is significantly lower than in other types of firms, and that dual-class firms have significantly lower sensitivity of pay to accounting performance than non-dual-class firms. The results suggest that in firms with type II agency conflicts compensation practices may be driven either by family ties or by the power preferences of the controlling shareholder that uses compensation to align CEO’s interest with his/her will rather than with financial performance. The study also documents that the link between CEO pay and performance disappears in the 2010–2013 period following the implementation of the European Recommendations regarding executive compensation. This finding is in contrast to the stipulated goal of the European Commission, ‘to ensure pay for performance’ (European Commission 2009).     

Does Board Ethnic Diversity Impact Board Monitoring Outcomes?

This study investigates whether board ethnic diversity is associated with stronger board monitoring outcomes. We explore a range of outcomes – CEO compensation, accounting misstatements, CEO turnover–performance sensitivity and acquisition performance – but find no evidence to support this. We also find no evidence that board ethnic diversity improves overall firm performance, even for those firms with higher agency problems. Our results are robust across different methodologies and have important practical implications, by informing the current public policy debate on board ethnic diversity.     

Human capital and agency effects on CEO compensation of IPO biopharmaceutical firms and the market’s response

This paper examines the determinants of base pay and total incentive compensation packages of CEOs of biopharmaceutical firms that have recently gone public, and whether human capital and agency factors affect the market’s response to the initial public offering. We find that in terms of net proceeds, the IPO market appears to reward the firms that have founder-CEOs and CEOs with higher incentive compensation. CEOs with prior venture capital experience are associated with receiving higher incentive compensation, while CEOs with a greater ownership interest in the firm receive lower incentive compensation but higher salaries. CEOs of firms with a greater percentage of insiders are associated with lower salaries. The results should add to our understanding related to human capital and agency theories, as well as help firms and investors better understand and structure CEO compensation.     

Shifting the Goalposts? Analysing Changes to Performance Peer Groups Used to Determine the Remuneration of FTSE 100 CEOs

This paper examines year‐on‐year changes to the composition of performance peer groups used for relative performance evaluation in setting CEO pay in FTSE 100 companies and finds evidence of peer selection bias. The authors find that firms keep their peer groups weak by excluding relatively stronger performing peers. They also show that peer selection bias is less pronounced in firms with higher institutional investor ownership, which suggests that institutional investors might be aware of the risks of peer selection bias. The results suggest that peer group modifications can be viewed, at least in part, as an expression of managerial rent‐seeking.     

CEO Incentives,Takeover Protection and Corporate Innovation

This study examines the effects of CEO equity‐based compensation and anti‐takeover provisions on corporate innovation. Using a large sample of US firms over the period 1996–2014, we find that long‐term incentives have a stronger influence on innovation when combined with takeover threats. We also show that equity‐based compensation is more likely to spur innovation for small firms and firms in industries with high product market competition and innovation pressure. However, this effect is somewhat weaker in the presence of anti‐takeover provisions, suggesting that takeover protection encourages managerial shirking even when external competition is high. Finally, in addition to the existing evidence on the valuation effect of CEO equity‐based compensation, we identify innovation as an important channel through which managerial incentives can enhance firm value. Our results have potential implications for shareholders, managers and policymakers.     

Executive Discretion and Corporate Performance as Determinants of CEO Compensation,Contingent on External Monitoring Activities

In this paper we discuss the potential impactof managerial discretion and firm performanceon CEO compensation, contingent on the extentof monitoring activities. We argue that CEOcompensation may be positively related toexecutive discretion and corporate performancefor firms that have vigilant external monitors. We alternatively contend that CEO compensationmay neither be associated with discretion norperformance for firms with passive externalmonitors. The empirical results are supportiveof our contentions.     

Idiosyncratic volatility,executive compensation and corporate governance: examination of the direct and moderate effects

Entrenchment of private benefits by the CEO or dominant owners can lead corporations to avoid riskier but more private benefits resulting in greater idiosyncratic volatility and information flow trading. Using a unique database of 806 listed firms, we investigate the impact of CEO compensation and corporate governance on idiosyncratic volatility and information flow trading. We find strong and robust evidence that equity-based (fixed income) CEO compensation is negatively (positively) related to volatility and information trading. Incorporating an agent principal–principal perspective into our models of managerial discretion provides us with an accurate prediction of how the proportion of CEO compensation and the degree of entrenchment will influence risk-taking decisions as well as how equity-based compensation interacts with related-party transaction and ownership dispersion to influence stock volatility. Finally, we find that idiosyncratic volatility and information flow trading are also affected by CEO compensation and corporate governance, which act as instrumental variables, while subject to environmental variants and the jointly determined.     

The Effects of Top Management Team Pay and Firm Internationalization on MNC Performance

We examine relationships among top management team (TMT) compensation, a firm’s degree of internationalization (DOI), and its subsequent levels of market and accounting performance. Consistent with our contingency view of information-processing theory, we find that non-CEO total pay and the use of long-term incentive pay are positively associated with subsequent performance, whereas the CEO-TMT total pay gap has negative effects on firm performance. CEO pay has no relationship with performance and TMT pay effects are much stronger in MNCs with high DOI.     

Executive remuneration standards and the “conformity gap” at controlled corporations

In this paper we analyze the relationship between conformity to executive remuneration standards, corporate ownership, and the level and structure of CEO compensation for large European listed companies in the years 2007 and 2010. We show that controlled corporations conform to executive remuneration standards less than widely held firms. We also show that weaker compliance is associated with lower CEO pay and more cash-based incentive structures. We interpret this “conformity gap” from the perspective of individual firms and from a societal perspective, with the aim to contribute to frame the policy questions concerning executive pay at controlled corporations. Different policy implications depend on whether the conformity gap reflects a lower need for managerial incentives, given the monitoring by controlling shareholders, or the latter’s willingness to extract private benefits of control. We argue in this paper that the former hypothesis prevails, so that regulators should abstain from increasing the level of enforcement of executive remuneration standards.     

CEO Duality,Agency Costs,and Internal Capital Allocation Efficiency

This study examines the impact of CEO duality on firms’ internal capital allocation efficiency. We observe that when the CEO is also chair of the board, diversified firms make inefficient investments, as they allocate more capital to business segments with relatively low growth opportunities over segments with high growth opportunities. The adverse impact of CEO duality on investment efficiency prevails only among firms that face high agency problems, as captured by high free cash flows, staggered board structure and low board independence. Depending on the severity of the agency problem, CEO duality is associated with a decrease in industry‐adjusted investment in high‐growth segments of 1% to 2.1% over the following year, relative to that in low‐growth segments. However, CEOs’ equity‐based compensation curbs the negative effect of CEO duality on internal capital allocation efficiency. Overall, the findings of this study offer strong support for the agency theory and postulate the internal capital allocation policy as an important channel through which CEO duality lowers firm value in diversified firms.