Notice of Retraction: A research framework on effect of executive compensation on firm performance: Managerial discretion and monitoring intensity as the antecedents

2010 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zhang Changzheng ◽  
Gan Kai
Keyword(s):  
Firm Performance ◽  
Executive Compensation ◽  
Managerial Discretion ◽  
Research Framework

CEO Compensation and Acquired and Acquiring Companies in Large Corporate Acquisitions

GIS Business ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 11 (5) ◽  
pp. 01-13
Author(s):  
Simon Yang
Keyword(s):  
Firm Performance ◽  
Executive Compensation ◽  
Ceo Compensation ◽  
Relative Sensitivity ◽  
Matched Sample ◽  
Executive Pay ◽  
Corporate Acquisitions ◽  
Acquiring Firms ◽  
Managerial Power ◽  
To Receive

This paper examines the relative sensitivity of CEO compensation of both acquiring and acquired firms in the top 30 U.S. largest corporate acquisitions in each year for the period of 2003 to 2012. We find that total compensation and bonus granted to executive compensation for acquired companies, not acquiring companies, are significantly related to the amount of acquisition deal even after the size and firm performance are controlled for. Both acquiring and acquired CEOs are found to make the significantly higher compensation than the matched sample firms in the same industry and calendar year. We also find that executives with higher managerial power, as measured by a lower salary-based compensation mix, prior to a corporate acquisition are more likely to receive a higher executive pay in the year of acquisition. The association between executive compensation and managerial power seems to be stronger for acquired firms than for acquiring firms in corporate acquisition. Overall, our findings suggest that corporate acquisition has higher impacts on executive compensation for acquired firm CEOs than for acquiring firm CEOs.

Executive Compensation-Firm Performance Relationship: A Perspective From India

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dr. Arti Chandani ◽  
Mita Mehta ◽  
Dr.Vishal Baulkaran ◽  
Dr. Harsha Sarvaiya
Keyword(s):  
Firm Performance ◽  
Executive Compensation

CEO outsiderness and firm performance in an emerging economy: The moderating role of managerial discretion

2018 ◽  
Vol 26 (5) ◽  
pp. 798-814
Author(s):  
Aylin Ataay
Keyword(s):  
Firm Performance ◽  
Chief Executive ◽  
Emerging Economy ◽  
Managerial Discretion ◽  
Ceo Succession ◽  
Direct Impact ◽  
And Performance ◽  
Succession Events ◽  
Moderating Role

AbstractInconsistent findings from prior research on the performance consequences of new Chief Executive Officer (CEO) origin led us to study the moderating effect of managerial discretion on the link between CEO outsiderness and firms’ post-succession performance. Data from 75 CEO succession events from an emerging economy show that new CEO outsiderness, without managerial discretion context influences, has no direct impact on post-succession performance. Further, our findings emphasise the moderating impacts of managerial discretion, stemming from factors in a company’s external and internal contingencies, which either strengthen or weaken the association between new CEO outsiderness and post-succession firm performance. It is found that market complexity, but not munificence, provides CEOs with more discretion in the Turkish context, thus strengthening the positive associations between CEO origin and firm performance. Firms inertia weakens both managerial discretion level and the association between CEO outsiderness and firm performance. The results show that internal corporate governance also matters. Finally, when a CEO assumes the dual role of both the chairman and the CEO, the link between CEO outsiderness and performance of the firm becomes stronger.

Troubled Asset Relief Program and earnings informativeness

2019 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 48-68
Author(s):  
Jose G. Vega ◽  
Jan Smolarski ◽  
Jennifer Yin
Keyword(s):  
Firm Performance ◽  
Executive Compensation ◽  
Financial Institutions ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Total Compensation ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Troubled Asset Relief Program ◽  
Earnings Informativeness ◽  
Window Approach ◽  
Relief Program

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine restrictions placed by the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) on executive compensation during the financial crisis. Since it remains unclear if TARP restored public confidence in financial institutions, the authors also analyze what effect such regulations had on investors’ confidence in the information provided by earning with respect to executive compensation during this critical period. Design/methodology/approach To test the assertions, the authors employ an Earnings Response Coefficient model, which captures the association between firms’ earnings surprise (ES) and perceived earnings informativeness. The authors implement both a long- and short-window test to obtain a better understanding of the effects of TARP on financial institutions’ earnings informativeness. The authors use the long-window approach to gather evidence about whether and how financial institutions’ ES are absorbed into security prices conditional on both their participation in TARP and their compliance with TARP’s compensation restrictions. The authors attempt to establish a stronger causal link by also using a short-window approach. Findings The authors find that firms paying their CEOs above the TARP threshold show higher earnings informativeness. Financial institutions that paid their CEOs above the TARP threshold achieved better performance during their participation in TARP. The authors also find that a decrease in total compensation while participating in TARP is associated with improved earnings informativeness. Lastly, separating total compensation into its cash and stock-based components, the authors find that firms improve earnings informativeness when they increase (decrease) cash (performance) compensation during TARP. However, overall earnings informativeness decreases during and after TARP relative to the pre-TARP period. Practical implications The research suggests that executive compensation incentives affect earnings informativeness and that tradeoffs are made between direct and indirect costs in retaining executives. The results have implications for policy makers, investors and researchers because the results allow policy makers and regulators to improve on how they design and implement accounting, market and finance regulations and reforms. Investors may potentially use the results when evaluating firm experiencing financial and, in some case, political distress. It also helps firms and offering optimal compensation contracts to create proper incentives for executives and ensure that managerial actions result in successful firm performance. Social implications The study shows how firms react to changing regulations that affect executive compensation and earning informativeness. The results of the study allow regulators to potentially design more effective regulations by targeting certain aspects of firms’ operation such excessive risk-taking behavior and rent extraction opportunities. Originality/value There are very few studies that deal with how firms react to regulation that affect executive compensation. The authors provide evidence regarding what effect TARP and its compensation restrictions had on financial institutions’ earnings informativeness. The evidence in the study will further regulators’ understanding of whether TARP improved investors’ confidence in financial institutions. The paper also contributes to the understanding in how changes in executive compensation in times of high political scrutiny affect investors’ perceptions of firm performance.

Limiting Executive Compensation: The Case of CEOs Hired after the Imposition of 162(m)

2007 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 599-621 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven Balsam ◽  
David H. Ryan
Keyword(s):  
Firm Performance ◽  
Executive Compensation ◽  
Chief Executive Officers ◽  
Ceo Compensation ◽  
Chief Executive ◽  
Executive Pay ◽  
Internal Revenue ◽  
Compensation Package ◽  
Bonus Pay ◽  
Executive Officers

This study analyzes the effect of Internal Revenue Code section 162(m) on the compensation package of those chief executive officers (CEOs) hired after the imposition of this code section. Research documents that CEO compensation has increased dramatically since the imposition of section 162(m); yet, this research has not distinguished between the effects on the compensation of CEOs already in place when section 162(m) was imposed from those CEOs hired post-162(m) imposition. We focus our analysis on the compensation of CEOs hired after the imposition of section 162(m), because when firms hire a new CEO, they have a better opportunity to redesign the executive pay package. Consequently, we posit that section 162(m) will have its greatest effect when the affected companies change CEOs. Our analysis provides evidence that the increase in salary normally associated with the hiring of a new CEO has been mitigated and there has been an increase in the sensitivity of firm performance to bonus pay for CEOs appointed after 1994 in affected firms.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document