The Relationship between Shareholder Return and CEO Pay over a CEO's Full Period of Service

2021 ◽  
Vol 33 (1) ◽  
pp. 68-84
Author(s):  
Ron Schmidt
Keyword(s):  
Ceo Pay ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 17 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mariette Coetzee ◽  
Magda L. Bezuidenhout

Orientation: Concerns about exorbitant executive compensation are making headlines, because executives receive lucrative packages despite state-owned enterprises (SOEs) performing poorly. It appears as if chief executive officers (CEOs) are not being held accountable for the performance of the SOEs.Research purpose: The purpose of the study was to determine whether the size and the industry of an SOE had an impact on CEO compensation packages.Motivation for the study: A greater understanding of the relationship between CEO remuneration and the size and type of industry of SOEs would assist with the standardisation of CEO remuneration and linking CEO pay to SOE performance.Research approach/design and method: A multiple regression analysis on a pooled dataset of 162 panel observations was conducted over a 9-year period. Financial data of 18 SOEs were extracted from the McGregor BFA database and the annual reports of SOEs.Main findings: The findings show that the size of an SOE does not influence the total compensation of CEOs. However, larger SOEs pay larger bonuses due to these SOEs being in a stronger financial position to offer lucrative bonuses. CEO’s remuneration was aligned within certain industries.Practical/managerial implications: The findings emphasise the need to link CEO compensation with SOE performance. Standardisation in setting CEO compensation and implementing performance contracts should be considered.Contribution/value-add: The study confirms that CEO pay is not linked to performance and not justified when considering SOE size or industry.


Author(s):  
Mark Bussin ◽  
Minute F. Modau

Orientation: The relationship between Chief Executive Officer (CEO) remuneration and organisation performance has been a topic of close scrutiny, especially since the global financial crisis. Optimal contracting relies on the premise that effective incentives will link organisation financial performance and CEO remuneration in ways that will be in the best interests of both shareholders and CEOs.Research purpose: The purpose of this research study was to investigate the relationship between CEO remuneration and organisation performance in South Africa between 2006 and 2012 and to determine whether the two constructs were positively correlated.Motivation for the study: The study provides an evidenced-based understanding of the nature of the CEO pay-performance relationship in South Africa. Understanding this relationship is critical to finding a suitable model to structure executive remuneration that will protect shareholders from over-remunerating executives in times of economic appreciation, whilst protecting executives from being underpaid in times of economic depreciation.Method: The financial results and CEO remuneration of 21 of the top 40 listed companies on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange were analysed for the period 2006–2012. The research was a quantitative, archival study. The primary statistical techniques used in the study were correlation analysis and multiple regression analysis.Main findings: The primary finding of the current research indicates that between 2006 and 2012 organisation executives have noticeably been moving away from focusing on short-termincentives, which are categorised as performance-related elements of remuneration packages.Based on these findings, it is evident that the relationship between executive remuneration and organisational financial performance has been experiencing a decline, especially since the 2008 global financial crisis. The decline has predominantly been due to a move away from performance-related elements of remuneration contracts by CEOs, creating a disconnect between CEO remuneration and organisational performance. The findings suggest that, to a large extent, remuneration contracts for CEOs are no longer optimal for the organisation and its shareholders, but are influenced by the propensity of executives to enhance their own remuneration. There exists a link between short-term incentives received by CEOs and accounting-based organisational performance measures; on the other hand, fixed pay linked with organisational performance measures continue to be eroded as organisations’ executives become more innovative as they are noticeably moving away from focusing on short-term incentives.Practical/managerial implications: A stronger test of the pay-performance link and the power of incentive design are required in order to ensure that executives are rewarded or penalised for poor performance. The question of how executives are paid also needs to be considered.Contribution: This research contributes to the literature on CEO remuneration by providing an evidenced-based understanding of the nature of the CEO pay-performance relationship in South Africa. Understanding this relationship is critical to finding a suitable model to structure executive remuneration that will protect shareholders from over-remunerating executives in times of economic appreciation, whilst protecting executives from being underpaid in times of economic depreciation.


2017 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 17-29 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stefano Bozzi ◽  
Roberto Barontini ◽  
Ivan Miroshnychenko

This paper investigates the relationship between investor protection and CEO pay in family-controlled corporations. Using a panel of 986 firm-year observations from 11 EU countries, we show that the lower the investor protection, the higher the compensation of the CEO. The sensitivity of pay to the institutional context is higher for a family CEO than a professional CEO, a result that corroborates the hypothesis that CEO compensation contracts in family firms are influenced by familiar connections. Overall, these results are more consistent with the hypothesis of rent extraction than with the perspective of optimal remuneration contracts.


Author(s):  
Stephen Conway

This chapter ranges over the full period considered in the book to exemplify a number of central themes in the relationship between economic activity and naval warfare. It looks particularly at the British experience, as Britain was the major naval power for much of these three centuries. The chapter examines matters such as the role of the Navigation Acts, naval blockades, convoy systems, and the stimulation to industry and agriculture provided by shipbuilding, naval armaments, and the supply of foodstuffs to ships’ crews.


2021 ◽  
pp. 105960112198957
Author(s):  
Xian Cao ◽  
Junyon Im ◽  
Imran Syed

Prior empirical research investigating the relationship between chief executive officer (CEO) tenure and firms’ financial performance has shown inconclusive results. Based on arguments of agency and behavioral agency theories, we suggest that this relationship is nuanced and may vary depending on CEO pay and board monitoring. In response to these arguments, we meta-analytically test 385 studies ( n = 1,029,602). We find that CEO tenure is positively related to firms’ financial performance. This positive relationship is enhanced when CEOs receive higher cash compensation or hold more stock ownership. On the other hand, the above positive relationship becomes weaker when CEOs receive higher long-term incentives or when the firm has more independent board directors. These findings suggest that CEO pay and board monitoring, or agency mechanisms in general, can offer new research avenues to help explore boundary conditions of the CEO tenure and firms’ financial performance relationship.


2016 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 182-187
Author(s):  
Nicola Cucari ◽  
Mazza Giuseppe ◽  
Martina Costantini ◽  
Giuseppe Sancetta

This study examines the relationship between CEO Pay and total shareholder return, using data between 2008-2014 from Italian listed firms (FTSE MIB). We perform panel data regression analysis of CEO compensation on financial performance, and in this way we refer to research made by Gigliotti (2013), but we extend it considering the Total Shareholder Return instead of accounting based performance. TSR has become a crucial measure in a pay-for-performance approach for different reasons. Our results indicate that there is not a significant relationship between CEO compensation and corporate performance during 2008-2014. These results contribute to our understanding of the pay for performance mechanism in times of financial disturbance, highly relevant to the existing debate considering CEO compensation


2016 ◽  
Vol 62 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-30 ◽  
Author(s):  
Abhinav Gupta ◽  
Adam J. Wowak

We examine how directors’ political ideologies, specifically the board-level average of how conservative or liberal directors are, influence boards’ decisions about CEO compensation. Integrating research on corporate governance and political psychology, we theorize that conservative and liberal boards will differ in their prevailing beliefs about the appropriate amounts CEOs should be paid and, relatedly, the extent to which CEOs should be rewarded or penalized for recent firm performance. Using a donation-based index to measure the political ideologies of directors serving on S&P 1500 company boards, we test our ideas on a sample of over 4,000 CEOs from 1998 to 2013. Consistent with our predictions, we show that conservative boards pay CEOs more than liberal boards and that the relationship between recent firm performance and CEO pay is stronger for conservative boards than for liberal boards. We further demonstrate that these relationships are more pronounced when focusing specifically on the directors most heavily involved in designing CEO pay plans—members of compensation committees. By showing that board ideology manifests in CEO pay, we offer an initial demonstration of the potentially wide-ranging implications of political ideology for how corporations are governed.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Damon Morris ◽  
Ian Gregory-Smith ◽  
Brian G M Main ◽  
Alberto Montagnoli ◽  
Peter W Wright

Abstract This article evaluates the role of executive pensions in the relationship between executive compensation and corporate performance. As a natural experiment, we exploit a major change to the tax-free allowances governing executive pensions. This reform affected the cost of pensions for firms whose executives had accumulated pension benefits in excess of the prescribed limit. We find a strong reaction to the reform. After 6 April 2006, many executives saw their defined benefit pension schemes replaced with risk-free cash payments. This imposition of an exogenous constraint on the contracting over CEO pay significantly decreased the relationship between executive pay and firm performance.


2016 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 145-160
Author(s):  
Pavel Srbek ◽  
Ludwig O. Dittrich

Abstract This paper provides a brief review of the state of knowledge in the field of agency theory. The managerial power approach assumes that a chief executive officer is able to affect the scale of his or her pay. However, Kaplan (2012) and others see a different picture of the corporate-governance landscape, hence they provide certain market-based explanations for high compensation. Our paper examines the relationship between a firm’s performance and the amount of managerial compensation, and the ability of a CEO to affect a board’s decision regarding his or her total compensation. The dataset consists of 75 companies traded in the capital market in the US. Our panel dataset covers a 10-year period from 2004 to 2013. We developed a single equation panel data model. The resulting parameter values provide a different picture of CEO power and the interconnection between a firm’s performance and CEO pay in both sectors.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document