Search results

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the contrasting moderating effect of a firm’s exploration on the relationship between the two types of long-term incentives (stock options/stock ownership) for the chief executive officers and a firm’s long-term performance. Even though the two types of incentives are designed to improve long-term performance, the degrees of impact on long-term performance differ. Based on behavioral agency theory, this study theoretically and empirically examines the role of a firm’s exploration on the above relationship.

This study used three archival sources to obtain data on stock options, stock ownership, patents and exploration, financial measures, and others. Based on a sample of 1,963 firms in various industries from 1995 to 2006, this study tested the moderating effect of a firm’s exploration on the relationship between stock options/ownership and a firm’s performance.

This study reveals the contrasting moderating effect of a firm’s exploration on the relationship between stock options/ownership and a firm’s long-term performance: a positive moderating effect on the relationship between stock options and performance and a negative moderating effect on the relationship between stock ownership and performance. In addition, empirical evidence was added on the inverted U-shaped relationship between stock ownership and a firm’s long-term performance.

There is little research on a firm’s internal characteristics that strengthen or weaken the effects of stock options and stock ownership on firm performance. This study demonstrates the differential moderating effects of exploration on the relationship between stock options/stock ownership and long-term performance. Such effects of exploration come from the different risk features of stock options and stock ownership. The key implication is that stock options could be more effective than stock ownership to enhance a firm’s long-term performance when a firm has a strong exploration orientation.

The change in CEO pay after their firms make large corporate investments is examined. Whether the change in CEO pay is a beneficial practice or harmful practice to firms is investigated.

A sample of firms that make large corporate investments is identified. For this sample, we identify the change in CEO pay before and after the investment, and we also measure the pay-for-size sensitivity of these investing firms.

For firms that make large corporate investments, CEOs get significantly more option grants when their firms’ stock returns are negative after the investments and these investing CEOs get more option grants than noninvesting CEOs.

The present study suggests that firms may have to increase CEO pay after large corporate investments to encourage investment. However, the results may also be consistent with an agency cost explanation. Future research should try to distinguish between the two explanations.

The study reveals a potential way to prevent CEOs from underinvesting.

The study provides important insights to shareholders on how to encourage CEOs to get their firms to invest, and on how to view CEO pay increases after their firms invest.

This chapter examines the determinants of managerial incentives at the time of an Initial Public Offering (IPO) on the Alternative Investment Market (AIM) of the London Stock Exchange. We identify a trade-off relation between board monitoring and incentives that is specific to CEOs. We also investigate the role of stock option grants and share transactions at the IPO. We find that the IPO may be used as a wealth diversification opportunity. We report that undiversified managers with large pre-IPO shareholdings receive smaller stock options grants and sell more shares in the IPO than more diversified managers.

The purpose of this paper is to provide evidence in support of incentive and retention-based explanations for backdating.

The authors use matching-firm techniques and the bivariate logistic model.

Backdating firms tend to be younger and faster growing – the characteristics of firms with growing demand for skilled labor. Further, rather than experiencing poor performance, backdating firms tend to outperform matching firms in both prior- and post-backdating years.

The results suggest that backdating reflects a firm's demand for valuable employees rather than strictly a manifestation of agency problems, as evidenced by previous study.

The purpose of this paper is to draw from regulatory focus theory, to examine the effects of the “gain/no gain” nature of stock options and retirement pay on the decision to engage in cross-border acquisitions. The moderating effects of managerial discretion arising from the external industry context and internal organizational leadership structure are also examined.

The authors employ random effects negative binomial regression analysis with a longitudinal (2006–2016) data set of US public companies operating in four industries with differing levels of industry discretion: the oil and gas, paper and packaging, aerospace and defense, and telecommunications.

The findings indicate that both CEO in-the-money stock options and retirement pay are positively related to cross-border acquisition activity. The results also demonstrate that managerial discretion, arising from the firm’s external industry context, accentuates the positive relationship between both the value of CEO in-the-money stock options and retirement pay with cross-border acquisition activity.

The findings provide implication for practice as understanding how retirement pay and stock options, both of which make up a substantial portion of overall CEO pay in the USA, motivate cross-border acquisition activity, may improve decisions by executives. The evidence also provides guidance to boards of directors who are charged with the responsibility of creating CEO compensation contracts.

The paper fills important gaps in the existing research on the influence of compensation elements on firm outcomes, by offering a novel explanation for how in-the-money stock options and retirement pay affect CEOs’ motivations to engage in cross-border acquisitions.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the effects of chief executive officer (CEO) vega on firm policies in the Australian share market based on a panel data set drawn from the 137 Australian public firms for the period 2003-2012.

To allow mutual causation between our variables, the authors use the two-stage least squares estimation method, controlling for firm fixed effects. The authors use the difference-in-differences model to test whether the 2009 Australian tax reforms may discourage high-vega CEOs to take value-enhancing risks.

The authors find the evidence that vega induces CEOs to adopt the riskier financial policy in the Australian capital market. This evidence is further supported by the negative association between vega and firm conservative activities including cash and hedging policies. Further, the result shows that the 2009 tax reforms reduce the CEOs’ willingness to engage in risky financial policy. This finding implies that regulators may restore the 2009 reforms’ “deferred tax point” back to its pre-2009 form.

Based on the study’s results, firms should grant CEOs more out-of-the money options with a longer time to expiration to offset the 2009 tax reforms’ negative impact on the CEO’s incentive to take value-enhancing risks.

The purpose of this study is to explore post-acquisition compensation management and examine how the two most commonly used theories to explain CEO stock option exercise, agency theory and CEO overconfidence, expect CEOs to manage their stock options following an acquisition.

Using logistic regression analysis, the authors investigate whether CEOs are more or less likely to exercise options following an acquisition, and the effect which CEO tenure and acquisition history may have on option exercise.

The results suggest that CEOs are more likely to exercise options following an acquisition. The authors also find that CEO tenure and acquisition experience are both linked to an increase in option exercise.

The findings suggest that future research should expect agency effects to outweigh overconfidence effects when considering CEO stock option exercise behavior within the post-acquisition firm context.

This paper advises directors and shareholders about whether agency concerns or overconfidence are of greater concern and how CEO tenure and past acquisition history may influence post-acquisition CEO stock option exercise behavior, offering information valuable in designing effective corporate governance.

This paper is among the first to explore how CEOs manage their options following an acquisition and finds that CEOs are more likely to exercise stock options following an acquisition. Post-acquisition compensation management is an important, though overlooked, consideration in improving acquisition performance.

The purpose of this paper is to provide an extension of the behavioral agency model (BAM) by focusing on the moderating role of CEO gender on the relationship between CEO stock options and risk “systematic vs idiosyncratic” and the performance consequences “positive vs negative” of these option incentives.

Data on CEO’s stock option portfolios are collected from the Standard & Poor’s (S&P’s) ExecuComp. This paper uses a panel data analysis for matched samples of CEOs in S&P’s 1,500 listed firms over the period 2006-2013.

The results indicate a more conservative, risk-averse posture in the case of female CEOs than for male CEOs when they are compensated with stock options for idiosyncratic (firm-specific) risk. The results also confirm that female CEOs in low systematic risk contexts, although more conservative, take more prudent risks that produce better long-term outcomes as compared to their male counterparts.

Important implications for the design of optimal CEO’s compensation packages emanate from this study. Findings provide useful tools for board of directors to design CEO’s pay packages that take into account the different risk behavior of male and female CEOs with the aim of enhancing firm performance.

This paper provides new evidence within the area of stock option-based compensation by focusing on the distinction between systematic and idiosyncratic risk when the effect of CEO stock option is analyzed and performance implications of awarding options to male and female CEOs.

El objetivo de este trabajo es proporcionar una extensión del modelo comportamental de agencia o Behavioral Agency Model (BAM) centrada en el papel moderador del género del CEO en la relación entre la retribución basada en opciones o stock options y los niveles de riesgo –sistemático e idiosincrático– y en las consecuencias –positivas o negativas– sobre el resultado de la empresa.

Los datos sobre stock options de CEOs se recopilan de la base de datos Standard and Poor’s ExecuComp. Este estudio utiliza un análisis de datos de panel para muestras emparejadas de empresas incluidas en S&P 1500 durante el período 2006-2013.

Los resultados indican una postura más conservadora de las mujeres CEO en términos de niveles de riesgo idiosincrático en comparación con la llevada a cabo por los CEOs hombres cuando se les retribuye con stock options. Los resultados también confirman que las mujeres CEO en contextos de riesgo sistemático bajo, aunque más conservadoras, asumen riesgos “de mayor calidad” que producen mejores resultados a largo plazo en comparación con sus homólogos masculinos.

Importantes implicaciones para el diseño de paquetes de retribución óptimos para el CEO emanan de este estudio. Los resultados mostrados proporcionan herramientas útiles para el Consejo de Administración a la hora de diseñar paquetes de retribución para CEOs. Se deben tener en cuenta los diferentes comportamientos relacionados con la asunción de riesgos de CEOs hombres y mujeres con el objetivo de mejorar el resultado de la empresa.

Esta investigación proporciona nueva evidencia dentro del área de la retribución basada en stock options al centrarse tanto en la distinción de riesgos (sistemático e idiosincrático) como en las implicaciones sobre el resultado de la empresa de las stock options dadas como parte de su retribución a hombres y mujeres que ocupan la posición de CEO.

Palabras clave Modelo comportamental de agencia, Opciones sobre acciones, Género, Riesgo sistemático, Riesgo idiosincrático, Resultado

Artículo de investigación

O objetivo deste artigo é fornecer uma extensão da perspectiva do Modelo de Agência Comportamental (BAM) focada nas opções de ações examinando as influências e consequências do desempenho do CEO, considerando a distinção entre risco sistemático e idiossincrático sobre o efeito das opções de ações. em comportamento de risco.

Os dados sobre portfólios de opções de ações do CEO são coletados do Standard and Poor’s ExecuComp. Este documento utiliza uma análise de dados em painel para amostras correspondentes de empresas listadas no S&P 1500 no período 2006-2013.

Os resultados indicam uma postura mais conservadora, avessa ao risco, no caso de CEOs do sexo feminino do que para CEOs do sexo masculino, quando eles são compensados com opções de ações para o risco idiossincrático (específico da empresa). Os resultados também confirmam que as CEOs do sexo feminino em contextos de baixo risco sistemático, embora mais conservadoras, assumem riscos mais prudentes que produzem melhores resultados a longo prazo, em comparação com os seus homólogos masculinos.

Implicações importantes para o projeto de pacotes de remuneração de CEOs ideais emanam deste estudo. Os resultados fornecem ferramentas úteis para o conselho de diretores, a fim de projetar pacotes de remuneração do CEO que levem em conta o comportamento de risco diferente dos CEOs do sexo feminino e masculino, com o objetivo de melhorar o desempenho da empresa.

Este documento fornece novas evidências dentro da área de remuneração baseada em opções de ações, concentrando-se tanto no tipo de risco como determinante do seu efeito de risco quanto nas implicações de desempenho da concessão de opções a CEOs do sexo feminino e masculino.

Palavras-chave Modelo de agência comportamental, Opções de ações, Gênero, risco sistemático, Risco idiossincrático, Atuação

Artigo de pesquisa

The purpose of this paper is to identify means of better associating executive remuneration with managerial decision making and firm performance.

The authors evaluate the influence of conditional accounting conservatism on CEO compensation. The authors focus particularly on the ex ante pay-for-performance sensitivity (PPS) of CEO stock option grants. The empirical method used is panel data regression.

The authors find that accounting conservatism is positively related to the PPS of CEO option-based compensation. The effects of accounting conservatism on the PPS of options are more significant for firms with relatively weaker corporate governance and for the period before the introduction of FAS 123R. The findings suggest that directors reward CEOs for adopting accounting conservatism, both in general terms and incrementally, and that rewards are channelled through incentive-linked compensation. The results are also consistent with the view that accounting conservatism compliments other mechanisms, such as corporate governance, in reducing information asymmetry and agency problems between managers and shareholders and other stakeholders.

This paper provides a number of important contributions to the literature. It is the first to identify a relationship between accounting conservatism and option-based CEO compensation, which has important potential contracting and enforcement implications due to the incomplete nature of option contracts and the reward and risk attributes of CEOs. This paper is also the first to analyse the association between conditional accounting conservatism and CEO compensation at the firm–year level, by employing the firm–year conservatism score approach proposed by Khan and Watts (2009). This provides for greater insight regarding the interaction between accounting conservatism and other firm-specific elements than is otherwise obtainable from an overall firm or year interpretations derived from the traditional Basu (1997) asymmetric timeliness model approach. Furthermore, this paper also provides a comparison of the relative association of accounting conservatism on both explicit and implicit forms of CEO compensation for the same firm sample. This allows for the assessment of whether accounting conservatism relates differently to incentive-based CEO remuneration relative to ex post CEO compensation outcomes.

The authors study stock and option grants around abrupt performance declines for continuing CEOs and find that firms facing abrupt financial declines grant more options than stock, while firms facing operational decline grant more stock than options. Firms making these adjustments just prior to performance declines outperform those that do not for three years following the decline and are less likely to engage in asset restructuring. To establish causality, the authors exploit compensation changes instigated by FAS 123R accounting regulation in 2005 that mandated stock option expensing. The result is robust to numerous tests, including rebalancing of incentives and CEO turnover. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

To establish causality, the authors exploit compensation changes instigated by FAS 123R accounting regulation in 2005 that mandated stock option expensing.

Firms making these adjustments just prior to performance declines outperform those that do not for three years following the decline and are less likely to engage in asset restructuring. The result is robust to numerous tests, including rebalancing of incentives and CEO turnover.

Several studies examine the relationship between poor performance and compensation of newly appointed CEOs. But firms regularly employ retention or incentive plans when experiencing distress to prevent critical employees from leaving when they are most needed (Goyal and Wang, 2017). Employee turnover results in a loss of continuity coupled with high search and training costs for replacement personnel. Beneish et al. (2017) find that 57 percent of CEOs associated with intentional misreporting retain their jobs, implying the costs of removing CEOs is high, especially if the incumbent CEO has a strong track record relative to industry peers prior to the period before the misreporting begins. The board fires the CEO if future firm value under the CEO is expected to be lower than under the best alternative CEO less adjustment costs (e.g. search costs, severance pay).