Chief Executive Officer Incentives Research Articles

CEO optimism and incentive compensation

I study the effect of chief executive officer (CEO) optimism on CEO compensation. Using data on compensation in US firms, I provide evidence that CEOs whose option exercise behavior and earnings forecasts are indicative of optimistic beliefs receive smaller stock option grants, fewer bonus payments, and less total compensation than their peers. These findings add to our understanding of the interplay between managerial biases and remuneration and show how sophisticated principals can take advantage of optimistic agents by appropriately adjusting their compensation contracts.

Managerial Incentives, Risk Aversion and Corporate Policy Decisions

We provide new evidence that equity incentives can have perverse effects on firm value. Conditioning the relationship between chief executive officer (CEO) incentives and the risk exposure generated by corporate policy decisions on how risk is expected to affect firm value, we find that delta encourages value-maximising investment and firm focus policy decisions, but may lead to sub-optimal financing decisions. When the goal of value-maximisation conflicts with the CEO’s propensity to avoid risk, the incentive effect of delta partially offsets risk aversion. We show that while CEO incentives affect corporate policy, the firm’s optimal policy also influences the compensation contract.

Monitoring role of institutional and family block-holders in Canadian corporations

This study examines whether the monitoring provided by family block–holders is more or less effective than the monitoring provided by institutional block–holders. The data consist of compensation and performance data of Canadian corporations. We measure the elasticity and the sensitivity of bonus and equity–based compensation to return on assets and market–adjusted return as measures of performance. We interpret high and significant elasticity and sensitivity to be indicators of effective monitoring. We find that Chief Executive Officer (CEO) bonus compensation is elastic and sensitive to performance in family–controlled firms but not in institution–controlled or widely–held corporations. Equity–based compensation is neither elastic nor sensitive to performance. Overall, the study implies that the monitoring provided by institutional block–holders is ineffective in linking CEO incentive compensation to performance. Thus, shareholders should continue their efforts to improve the mechanisms by which they monitor managers.

CEO Option Compensation, Risk-Taking Incentives, and Systemic Risk in the Banking Industry

This study predicts and finds that chief executive officer (CEO) risk-taking incentives induced by stock option compensation increase a bank's contribution to systemic distress risk and systemic crash risk. We also predict and find that this CEO incentive systemic risk relation operates through three channels (i) a bank's engagement in non-interest income-generating activities, (ii) investments in innovative financial products such as collateralized debt obligations and credit default swaps, and (iii) maturity mismatch associated with on short-term debt financing. Finally, the CEO incentive-systemic risk relation is moderated by information transparency, bank size, market liquidity, and financial crisis. We also discuss relevant policy implications.

Information-based stock trading and managerial incentives: evidence from China's stock market

This paper uses stock price informativeness, or information-based stock trading, to help explain the pay–performance sensitivity (PPS) of chief executive officer (CEO) compensation in China's listed firms. We argue that higher stock price informativeness, which we measure by the probability of informed trading, helps and encourages shareholders to incentivize the top management team based on stock market performance. The regression results support our argument and show that a higher level of stock price informativeness is associated with higher CEO PPSs. Moreover, the impact of stock price informativeness on CEO incentives is stronger for privately controlled listed firms than it is for state-controlled listed firms. The results also hold when information asymmetry is approximated by the accuracy and dispersion of the earnings forecasts made by financial analysts.

CEO incentives and earnings prediction

This study investigates whether information about Chief Executive Officer (CEO) incentives is useful for predicting future earnings. We find that in companies with higher CEO equity incentives, current year earnings are more informative of future earnings than in other companies. Additionally, in an earnings prediction setting, CEO incentives are shown to provide information about future earnings that is incremental to current earnings or earnings components. The predictive power of CEO incentives for future earnings is robust to the inclusion of other predictors of future earnings. Furthermore, we find that CEO incentives are predictive of “real” future earnings, as represented by operating cash flow and non-discretionary accruals, but not predictive of future discretionary accruals. Finally, we find that financial analysts do not incorporate information about CEO incentives when they forecast future earnings. This result suggests that incorporating CEO incentives can potentially improve analyst forecasts of future earnings.

Chief Executive Officer Incentives, Monitoring, and Corporate Risk Management: Evidence from Insurance Use

Corporate governance and risk management issues have received prominent publicity in recent years following several major company failures such as Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers. While prior studies have examined this issue within the context of derivatives’ trading, little is known regarding the linkage between corporate governance and alternative corporate risk management activities such as insurance. Using a detailed firm survey conducted by the World Bank (2004), we examine the impacts of various governance monitoring mechanisms and CEO characteristics on the corporate insurance decision. Overall, our results suggest that both monitoring mechanisms and managerial incentives induce the corporate purchase of property insurance. However, the purchase of property insurance for managerial self-interest is only prevalent in firms subject to lax monitoring and the determinants of insurance purchases are more in line with the prediction of the economic theory in firms with strong monitoring. In addition, our study contributes a number of new insights into the determinants of corporate purchase of property insurance.

CEO Optimism and Incentive Compensation

I study the effect of chief executive officer (CEO) optimism on CEO compensation. Using data on compensation in US firms, I provide evidence that CEOs whose option exercise behavior and earnings forecasts are indicative of optimistic beliefs receive smaller stock option grants, fewer bonus payments, and less total compensation than their peers. These findings add to our understanding of the interplay between managerial biases and remuneration and show how sophisticated principals can take advantage of optimistic agents by appropriately adjusting their compensation contracts.

CEO Optimism and Incentive Compensation

I study the effect of chief executive officer (CEO) optimism on CEO compensation. Using data on compensation in US firms, I provide evidence that CEOs whose option exercise behavior and earnings forecasts are indicative of optimistic beliefs receive smaller stock option grants, fewer bonus payments, and less total compensation than their peers. These findings add to our understanding of the interplay between managerial biases and remuneration and show how sophisticated principals can take advantage of optimistic agents by appropriately adjusting their compensation contracts.

Chief Executive Officer Incentives, Monitoring, and Corporate Risk Management: Evidence From Insurance Use

AbstractCorporate governance and risk management issues have received prominent publicity in recent years following several major company failures such as Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers. While prior studies have examined this issue within the context of derivatives’ trading, little is known regarding the linkage between corporate governance and alternative corporate risk management activities such as insurance. Using a detailed firm survey conducted by the World Bank (2004), we examine the impacts of various governance monitoring mechanisms and chief executive officer (CEO) characteristics on the corporate insurance decision. Overall, our results suggest that both monitoring mechanisms and managerial incentives induce the corporate purchase of property insurance. However, the purchase of property insurance for managerial self‐interest is only prevalent in firms subject to lax monitoring, and the determinants of insurance purchases are more in line with the prediction of the economic theory in firms with strong monitoring. In addition, our study contributes a number of new insights into the determinants of corporate purchase of property insurance.

The Missing Link between Corporate Performance Measurement Systems and Chief Executive Officer Incentive Plans

While offering a literature review regarding several aspects and pitfalls of performance measurement and compensation literature and practice, we discuss the separation between corporate performance measurement systems (CPMSs) and incentive plans for chief executive officer (CEOIPs). Through performance measurement and compensation, organizations align competing interests and achieve management control. CPMS orient organizational actions toward organizational goals. CEOIP orient CEOs' actions toward shareholders' value. Despite the common nature (i.e., management control mechanisms) and, thus, purpose (i.e., influence on actions) of CPMS and CEOIP, both literature and practice neglect the link connecting the two mechanisms. In search for an explanation, we develop a framework that examines the link between CPMS and CEOIP under the three forms of governance proposed by transaction cost economics—namely, markets, hierarchies, and hybrids. Whereas in markets and hierarchies the control problem can be solved with a focus on one mechanism (i.e., CEOIP and CPMS, respectively), hybrid governance structures require the integration of CPMS and CEOIP. By exploring areas of integration between CPMS and CEOIP, we generate questions for future research. We expect that the integration between CPMS and CEOIP could benefit the alignment of interests and lead to more effective management control within modern organizations.

Bank CEO incentives and the credit crisis

We investigate whether bank performance during the recent credit crisis is related to chief executive officer (CEO) incentives before the crisis. We find some evidence that banks with CEOs whose incentives were better aligned with the interests of shareholders performed worse and no evidence that they performed better. Banks with higher option compensation and a larger fraction of compensation in cash bonuses for their CEOs did not perform worse during the crisis. Bank CEOs did not reduce their holdings of shares in anticipation of the crisis or during the crisis. Consequently, they suffered extremely large wealth losses in the wake of the crisis.

Bank CEO Incentives and the Credit Crisis

We investigate whether bank performance during the recent credit crisis is related to chief executive officer (CEO) incentives before the crisis. We find some evidence that banks with CEOs whose incentives were better aligned with the interests of shareholders performed worse and no evidence that they performed better. Banks with higher option compensation and a larger fraction of compensation in cash bonuses for their CEOs did not perform worse during the crisis. Bank CEOs did not reduce their holdings of shares in anticipation of the crisis or during the crisis. Consequently, they suffered extremely large wealth losses in the wake of the crisis.

Tenure, firm's performance, and CEO's compensation

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to assess the association between Chief Executive Officer (CEO) tenure, compensation, and firm's performance.Design/methodology/approachThe paper compares the influence firms' performance on CEOs' cash and total compensation based on the length of tenure. It also examines pay–performance relationship for new CEOs vs those serving their last year in such positions.FindingsThe firm size appears to be a significant explanatory variable for CEOs' cash and total compensation regardless of CEOs tenure and measure of performance. Additionally, firms' performance is a significant determinant of cash compensation for CEOs during the first three years of their work as CEOs and not significant for those with 15 years or more as the company's CEO. Both market‐based and accounting‐based performance measures are negatively correlated with CEOs' total compensation regardless of length of experience.Research limitations/implicationsThis study did not differentiate routine CEO changes, i.e. normal retirement, from the non‐routine ones. Additionally, the results may be limited by the temporal nature of the sample. Future studies dealing with CEO turnover should cover a longer period of CEO' tenure and examine the nature of CEO's dismissal. Such a research design may provide additional insight to the CEO compensation and influence of performance measures in executive contracts.Originality/valueThis research offers some evidence in support of CEO incentives relative to the length of service as the firm's CEO. The findings indicate differences in pay–performance sensitivities on the basis of CEO's tenure. Comparing the pay–performance relationship for individuals serving their first year and those serving their last year as the firm's CEOs, the paper detects statistically significant differences in influence of performance on cash compensation.

Executive compensation and internal capital market efficiency

We document that chief executive officer (CEO) incentive compensation plays an important role in determining internal capital market (ICM) allocation efficiency. Our results suggest that CEO equity-based compensation can be effective in ameliorating inefficiencies in internal capital allocation decisions. We find that while stock grants play an important role in motivating CEOs to make more efficient internal capital allocation decisions, there is surprisingly no discernible influence of stock options. Our analysis supports the view that private benefits derived by managers are increasing in internal capital misallocation. We also document a strong positive link between CEO incentive compensation and excess value of diversified firms suggesting that the diversification discount can be ameliorated with CEO incentive compensation. The study contributes to the ICM literature and the literature on conglomerate diversification discount.

Financial Misrepresentation: Antecedents and Performance Effects

This doctoral thesis examines the influence of relative performance and managerial incentives on corporate financial misrepresentation, and then tests the relationship between misrepresentation and subsequent operating performance, including the moderating effects of change in board composition and Chief Executive Officer (CEO) turnover. Using a hand-collected data set from several archival sources of company records, the study includes a combination of estimation techniques, including categorical dependent variable and fixed-effect methods, all conducted using a matched sample of misrepresenting and nonmisrepresenting firms. The author draws several important conclusions from the empirical analyses. First, CEO incentive pay and poor relative performance increase the likelihood of misrepresentation. Second, misrepresentation impairs subsequent operating performance, although this negative effect can be partially offset by CEO replacement and increased board independence. The study advances our academic understanding of corporate misconduct and contributes to academic theory across research literatures, including strategic management, organization theory, and business ethics.

CEO Performance Appraisal: Review and Recommendations

CEO performance appraisal (PA) is very valuable to an organization, but the chances of obtaining a PA of high quality decrease as executive responsibility increases. The realities of CEO PA are that it: (1) is inevitable; (2) is creative and complex; (3) involves politics; and (4) has a significant effect on the organization and the executive. PA is conducted for legal and social requirements, to enhance communication, to provide opportunities for improvement, and to relate performance to compensation. This article discusses several problems with chief executive officer (CEO) PA and the contemporary approaches that seek to improve it. Three fundamental areas for evaluation are identified: (1) organizational success; (2) areawide health status; and (3) professional role fulfillment. These provide an outline for successful healthcare PA. In addition to a discussion of the strategic considerations behind a successful CEO PA system, several recommendations are offered for the implementation of the annual evaluation process. The final goal of CEO PA is to link its results to CEO incentive compensation. It is strongly recommended that some portion of the CEO's salary directly hinge on his performance in two critical areas: organizational effectiveness and community health status.