Compensation Peer Research Articles

Compensation peer effects of corporate social responsibility

This article examines the role of CEOs' personal incentives in steering their firms' CSR initiatives following their compensation peers, subsequently influencing their career trajectories within their current firms. Specifically, we find that firms exhibit better corporate social responsibility (CSR) performance if their compensation peer (CP) firms demonstrated superior CSR performance in the prior year (i.e., the CP effect). To mitigate the endogeneity concern, we conduct analyses based on the termination (initiation) of CPs' peer relation with the focal firm, a benchmark test, and an instrumental variable analysis. To establish the mechanisms of internal monetary rewards from their firms and enhanced external career tournaments in the labor market, we show the CP effect is stronger if the focal company CEOs have compensation contracts specifying CSR performance targets, face a larger compensation shortfall relative to their CP counterparts, operate in closer geographical proximity to those CP CEOs, or hire more compensation consultants. Furthermore, we find that the probability and quantity of CSR contracts received by focal firms' CEOs increase with CPs' lagged CSR. CEOs receive higher compensation than those in CP firms after they deliver better CSR performance than their CPs. Overall, our paper highlights the role of CEOs' personal incentives in steering their firms' CSR initiatives, subsequently influencing their career trajectories within their current organizations.

Director self-dealing: Evidence from compensation peer groups

We find that director pay, especially the equity-based portion, is positively related to peer firms' director pay, suggesting boards benchmark when establishing their own compensation. Such benchmarking is distinct from peer benchmarking in CEO pay. We also find a significant bias in peer selection towards peers with relatively high director pay, which helps increase board pay. Peer benchmarking of director compensation is more (less) pronounced in firms with low (high) involvement by institutional investors and firms with declining (increasing) profitability. Overall, our results are consistent with directors engaging in self-dealing when selecting compensation peers, without clear benefits to the firm.

Compensation Peer Group Effects: Evidence from NFL Professional Football

Compensation Peer Group Effects: Evidence from NFL Professional Football

Compensation peer crash risks and corporate own investments: New evidences from U.S. stock markets

This study, employing US listed firms with compensation peer disclosures, investigates the impact of compensation and industry peer stock price crash risks on firms' own investments. We document three new evidences in the examination. First, we find that firms' own investments are positively affected by compensation peer crash risks but not industry peers. Second, we show that firms' own investments are explained by compensation peer crash risks only. Third, we demonstrate that the compensation peer crash risks and firms' own investments relation is positively moderated by corporate governance. Besides, additional analysis suggests that peers' incentive effect is a possible explanation to the positive compensation peer crash risks and firms' own investments relation.

Unintended consequences of compensation peer groups on corporate innovation

When companies select and use compensation peers to determine chief executive officer (CEO) compensation, they create unintended peer effects on corporate innovation due to the similarities between these companies and their compensation peers in terms of product markets, CEO characteristics, and compensation schemes. After controlling for industry and geography peer groups, the findings confirm that the average innovation activity of compensation peers is a significant and distinct predictor of corporate innovation. Further analysis showed that (1) the peer effect is stronger in firms and compensation peers that pay their CEOs using long-term compensation, in firms with stronger labor market competition and board monitoring, and in peer companies that experience higher innovation competition and are closer to the median peer company in the peer group; (2) the obtained results are likely not attributable to the knowledge spillover mechanism and are more consistent with the peer pressure mechanism; and (3) the Securities and Exchange Commission's 2006 executive compensation disclosure rules may have generated peer effects.

Compensation Benchmarking, Compensation Convergence, and Executive Mobility: An Empirical Analysis

Compensation benchmarking has become a common practice for determining executive compensation in companies. The key motive for compensation benchmarking is to identify an appropriate way of compensating executives, with the primary goal of human capital retention. In this study, we argue that compensation benchmarking leads to convergence in executive compensation by directing attention and informational cues following two mechanisms: a) direct peer influence through the selection of compensation peers, and b) indirect peer influence through exposure to the same compensation peers. Using an extensive panel of executive compensation data of publicly traded U.S. companies we show that compensation benchmarking leads to convergence in executive compensation levels and mix and in turn reduces the likelihood of executive mobility to peer companies. We discuss theoretical and practical implications.

Peer benchmarking and CEO compensation: An examination of the community structure of the compensation peer network

AbstractResearch Question/IssueThe increase in executive pay has been attracting attention to the practice of peer benchmarking, which is commonly used to determine CEO compensation. Using a network approach, we construct and analyze the compensation peer network and examine how the structure of the network influences CEO pay.Research Findings/InsightsUsing data on public firms in the period between 2006 and 2020, we find that the peer network exhibits strong community structure and that bridging across communities influences CEO pay. Specifically, CEO pay increases by approximately $10 million as the number of bridging ties increases from 30 to 100, which indicates that obfuscation can result in inflated CEO pay and supports the managerial power perspective.Theoretical/Academic ImplicationsWe empirically distinguish the predicted effect of peer benchmarking on CEO pay as outlined in the market for executive talent and the managerial power perspectives. We show that firms may avoid scrutiny and offer high CEO compensation when they either have a very small number of targeted bridging ties or a very large number of diffused, nontargeted bridging ties in the peer network.Practitioner/Policy ImplicationsThe intent of peer benchmarking was to make CEO compensation practices more transparent, legitimate, and functional; however, our findings indicate that these intentions have not been fully realized and instead benchmarking can be used to inflate CEO pay while avoiding stakeholder scrutiny through obfuscation. These insights provide an opportunity to policy makers to be more effective in encouraging additional transparency and stronger justification for boards' choice of peers.

CEO Marketability, Employment Opportunities, and Compensation: Evidence from Compensation Peer Citations

AbstractMandatory disclosure of CEO compensation peers signals potential outside opportunities for the cited CEOs by revealing which companies view them as viable executive candidates. CEOs cited often as compensation peers (especially by larger firms, which represent attractive employment opportunities) are more likely to leave for better positions or receive compensation increases. Equity-based awards following cites by larger firms have shorter vesting periods, suggesting these CEOs gain negotiating power relative to their boards. The disclosure requirement enhanced labor market transparency and led to higher compensation for highly cited CEOs without penalizing less cited CEOs, putting upward pressure on CEO compensation.

Is M&A Self-Dealing in the Context of Peer Benchmarking of CEO Pay?

We define two effects: (a) percentage difference between median CEO pay of compensation peers and their counterfactual peers (Peer pay effect, PPE), and (b) percentage difference between focal firm CEO pay and the median CEO pay of their compensation peers (CEO pay effect, CPE). We find a negative relation between M&A announcement period abnormal returns and pre-announcement PPE. The PPE (CPE) is lower (higher) in acquiring years relative to non-acquiring years. We show that the lower PPE is consistent with better governance and higher CPE is due to benchmarking against peers with higher median CEO pay and for completing acquisitions.

Does the executive labor market discipline? Labor market incentives and earnings management

This paper investigates the role of outside options in the executive labor market on earnings management decisions. To proxy for executives’ outside options, we use the number of times other firms cite the executive’s firm as a compensation peer. We find that executives with more citations conduct less earnings management. Exploiting the 2006 SEC requirement for compensation peer disclosure as a quasi-natural shock to executives’ awareness of outside options, we show that the executives who should be more responsive to outside options significantly reduce earnings management. Cross-sectional tests support a labor market discipline channel of outside options. Finally, we exploit state-level recognition of Inevitable Disclosure Doctrine and enforcement of non-compete agreements as cross-sectional restrictions on labor mobility and show that the impact of peer citations on reducing earnings management is stronger when there are fewer restrictions on mobility.

Estimating Peer Effects in Corporate Innovation: Evidence from Compensation Peer Groups

This paper uses compensation peer groups to measure peer effects in corporate innovation. This approach provides a true peer group and better leader-follower link and thus can mitigate the reflection problem suggested by Manski (1993). We find that the average innovation activity of the compensation peers is a significant and first-order predictor for corporate innovation. Further analyses show that (1) the peer effect is stronger when peer companies experience higher innovation competition and are closer to the median peer company in the peer group, (2) the results are not likely to be attributed to the knowledge spillover mechanism but rather are more consistent with the peer pressure mechanism, and (3) the SEC’s 2006 executive compensation disclosure rules can generate the peer effects. Overall, the results suggest that corporate innovation decisions are responses to innovation activities and, to a lesser extent, the characteristics of the compensation peer groups.

Why Have CEO Pay Levels Become Less Diverse?

We document that, over the last decade, the cross-sectional variation in CEO pay levels has declined precipitously, both at the economy level and within industry and industry-size groups. We find evidence consistent with one potential explanation for this pattern; reciprocal benchmarking (i.e., firms are more likely to include each other in the disclosed set of peers used to benchmark pay levels). We also find empirical support for three factors contributing to the increase in reciprocal benchmarking; the mandatory disclosure of compensation peer groups, say on pay, and proxy advisory influence. Finally, we find that reciprocal benchmarking has meaningful consequences on managerial behavior; it reduces risk-taking by weakening external tournament incentives.

CSR Metrics and Compensation Peer Groups: Separating Selection from Influence

This study examines the determinants for the integration of CSR related targets in executive compensation. The integration of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) metrics in incentive-based pay co...

The Impact of the Use of Cross-Border Compensation Peers: The Case of Canadian Companies Using U.S. Peers

CEO compensation in Canada is significantly lower than that in the United States. In this article, we examine the choice of, and impact on Canadian CEO Compensation, using U.S. firms in their compensation peer groups. Using a two-stage model to control for endogeneity, while we find the choice of peers associated with labor market factors, we still find that the use of U.S. peers positively associated with higher Canadian CEO compensation. This finding is after controlling for the traditional determinants of CEO compensation, as well as use of domestic peers. While this result holds for all components of the compensation package, we also find that having U.S. peers is associated with a greater proportion of equity in the compensation package. Our results are robust to various formulations including change models and using an earlier time period when peer disclosure was voluntary.

The Participation Constraint and CEO Equity Grants

ABSTRACT We examine whether firms benchmark annual equity grants to compensation peers and whether meeting the participation constraint is a motive. Studying CEO equity grants over the period of 2006–2016 and compensation peers disclosed by the firm, we find that equity grants by these peers significantly determine a firm's equity grants. We find no evidence that the relation between a firm's and its peers' CEO equity grants is an indirect outcome of meeting peer total compensation levels. In contrast, we show that firms are more likely to meet peer equity grant levels when the labor market is more competitive and when losing key personnel is a risk factor. We also find that CEO turnover is more likely when the CEO receives lower equity grants than peers. Collectively, these findings are consistent with the theoretical prediction that benchmarking equity grants helps firms satisfy the participation constraint, which varies with performance. Data Availability: Data are available from sources cited in the text. JEL Classifications: G34; J33; J40; M12; M52.

Why Do Firms Use Compensation Peer Benchmarking?

We develop a cost-benefit tradeoff model to explain corporate boards’ decision whether to use compensation peer benchmarking. Peer benchmarking helps a board retain a talented but risk-averse CEO, but it weakens CEO incentives to exert effort. Consistent with high retention needs, benchmarking firms have more peer citations, operate in general business domains with more similar firms, and their CEOs are at the most marketable age. Benchmarking firms also tend to be younger and have more volatile stock returns and earnings and higher leverage, where CEO performance is riskier. Consistent with high incentive costs, CEO pay-performance sensitivities are lower and CEO pay growth is higher at benchmarking firms. To mitigate such costs, benchmarking firms award their CEOs more equity annually and are more likely to dismiss them for poor performance. When retention needs are low, peer benchmarking is associated with lower firm value. Retention needs can also explain peer selection decisions.

Shareholder Governance and CEO Compensation: The Peer Effects of Say on Pay

Abstract We document that firms whose compensation peers experience weak say on pay votes reduce CEO compensation following those votes. Reductions reflect proxy adviser concerns about peers’ compensation contracts and are stronger when CEOs receive excess compensation, when they compete more closely with their weak-vote peers in the executive labor market, and when those peers perform well. Reductions occur following peers’ disclosures of revised pay and are proportional to those needed to retain firms’ relative positions in their peer groups. We conclude that the spillover effects of shareholder voting occur through both learning and compensation targeting channels. (JEL G34, G38, J38, M12, M52) Authors have furnished an Internet Appendix, which is available on the Oxford University Press Web site next to the link to the final published paper online.

Phantom Menace: Role of Pseudo Peers in CEO Compensation

We study the compensation influence of highly central firms (“stars”) in CEO compensation peer networks. We find that lower-profile firms covertly tie CEO compensation to these influential “stars.” We propose a “Herding on stars” hypothesis: lower-profile, agency-prone firms herd on the same set of stars and avoid shareholder scrutiny. Better governance and reputable compensation consultants diminish herding. Herding-driven excess pay does not elicit negative ISS recommendations or shareholder opposition. Herding emerges after the 2006 SEC rule inadvertently identified firms with the greatest compensation influence. Evidence suggests that such herding contributes to the rapid increase in CEO pay at smaller, less visible firms.

Compensation Consultants: Whom Do They Serve? Evidence From Consultant Changes

We study compensation consultant dismissals to investigate whether consultants recommend outsized pay to earn repeat business. Our results show consultants’ interests are aligned with shareholders’ to appropriately pay the CEO. Boards are more likely to dismiss their consultant when CEO pay is abnormally large, particularly for firms with strong corporate governance. We suggest a possible mechanism; consultants influence pay by advising on the constituency of the compensation peer group. New consultants are less likely to select highly paid peers if the CEO was previously overpaid. Directors earn higher votes in annual elections when they replace their compensation advisors.

Obscured Transparency? Compensation Benchmarking and the Biasing of Executive Pay

The disclosure of compensation peer groups is argued to provide shareholders with valuable information that can be used to scrutinize chief executive officer (CEO) compensation. However, research suggests that there are substantial incentives for executives and directors to bias the compensation peer group upward such that the CEO can extract additional rent. We leverage the idea that reciprocated peer nominations are unlikely to be biased to construct counterfactual peer groups that allow us to measure the bias of disclosed peer groups. Analyses of 11 years of comprehensive data on compensation peer groups demonstrate that the average firm uses an upwardly biased peer group. The size of the bias increases when incentives and opportunities to do so are more pronounced. Specifically, results show that bias is larger when financial targets are not met and when exercising discretion in the selection of peer firms is justifiable. More importantly, upward bias in compensation peer groups is highly predictive of an increase in CEO compensation, suggesting that there is a strong incentive for CEOs to strategically select peers. Finally, although average peer group bias has gone down in recent years, the predictive effect of bias on pay has gone up. These findings call into question the practical impact of recent efforts to introduce greater transparency into the process for determining executive compensation. This paper was accepted by Olav Sorenson, organizations.