CEO Compensation and Acquired and Acquiring Companies in Large Corporate Acquisitions

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.

Download Full-text

CEO Compensation and Acquired and Acquiring Companies in Large Corporate Acquisitions

GIS Business ◽

10.26643/gis.v12i2.3359 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 12 (2) ◽

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.

Download Full-text

CEO Compensation and Acquired and Acquiring Companies in Large Corporate Acquisitions

GIS Business ◽

10.26643/gis.v12i1.3371 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 12 (1) ◽

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.

Download Full-text

CEO Compensation and Acquired and Acquiring Companies in Large Corporate Acquisitions

International Journal of Financial Management ◽

10.21863/ijfm/2016.6.3.034 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 6 (3) ◽

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.

Download Full-text

CEO Compensation and Acquired and Acquiring Companies in Large Corporate Acquisitions

GIS Business ◽

10.26643/gis.v11i3.3433 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 11 (3) ◽

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.

Download Full-text

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

Journal of Accounting Auditing & Finance ◽

10.1177/0148558x0702200406 ◽

2007 ◽

Vol 22 (4) ◽

pp. 599-621 ◽

Cited By ~ 10

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.

Download Full-text

The determinants of CEO compensation: new insights from United States

Journal of Applied Accounting Research ◽

10.1108/jaar-08-2020-0176 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽

Author(s):

Ahmed Bouteska ◽

Salma Mefteh-Wali

Keyword(s):

Firm Performance ◽

Executive Compensation ◽

Ceo Compensation ◽

Future Research ◽

Ceo Power ◽

Content Type ◽

Managerial Power ◽

The Us ◽

Ceo Pay ◽

The Impact

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to examine the determinants of CEO compensation for sample of the US firms. It emphasizes the presence of executive compensation persistence and the importance of CEO power besides performance while setting CEO pay.Design/methodology/approachThe empirical analysis is conducted on a large sample of US firms during the period 2006–2016. It is based on the generalized method of moments (GMM) models to assess the impact of numerous factors on CEO compensation.FindingsThe main findings reveal that firm performance proxied by accounting-based proxies, as well as market-based proxies, plays a significant role in explaining variations in levels of executive compensation. Moreover, there is a significant persistence in executive compensation among the US sample firms. The authors also document that poor governance conditions (managerial power hypothesis) lead to high compensation levels offered to CEO.Research limitations/implicationsAt the end, without a doubt, the analysis has some limitations that prompt the authors to consider future research directions. One future research avenue that can help better explain the effect of firm performance on the CEO compensation is to study this issue using an international sample to determine whether country-level characteristics (e.g. creditor rights, shareholder rights and the enforcement climate) can influence this relationship. Furthermore, it can be worthwhile to deepen the analysis of CEO power and its impact on CEO compensation. It will be interesting to emphasize how the CEO power interacts with the other governance characteristics and some CEO attributes as CEO gender.Practical implicationsThe paper's findings have implications for practitioners, policymakers and regulatory authorities. First, the findings inform regulators that performance is not the only determinant of CEO pay level. This may warrant increased firm disclosure of the details of the pay structure. Second, the study offers insights to policymakers and members of boards of directors interested in enhancing the design of executive compensation and internal corporate governance, to better align managerial incentives to shareholder interests. Firms should strengthen the board independence and properly constitute the board committees (compensation, risk, nomination…).Originality/valueThis paper presents a comprehensive overview of the CEO compensation determinants. It supplements the classic pay-for-performance sensitivity predictions with insights gained from the dynamics of wage setting theory and managerial power theory. The authors develop a composite index to measure the CEO power in order to test the impact of CEO attributes on CEO pay. Additionally, it verifies whether the determinants of CEO pay depend on firm age and size.

Download Full-text

A Literature Review of the Perspectives of CEO Pay: An Analysis of Issues and Controversies

Journal of Public Administration and Governance ◽

10.5296/jpag.v8i4.13817 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 8 (4) ◽

pp. 44

Author(s):

Faitira Manuere ◽

Precious Hove

Keyword(s):

Corporate Governance ◽

Literature Review ◽

Executive Compensation ◽

Ceo Compensation ◽

Executive Pay ◽

The Core ◽

Good Corporate Governance ◽

Ceo Pay ◽

Conceptual Background

The purpose of this paper is to review the literature on various theories that are used in organisations today to determine executive compensation. This paper analyses the relevance of the theories that are used to determine CEO compensation in modern corporations. The paper makes an attempt to review extensively the literature on CEO compensation. This paper looks at the concerns of sixteen theories of executive compensation. This paper further analyses the special features that are associated with CEO pay. These features help us to understand the problems that experts on executive pay experience when they try to define the exact CEO pay when compared to other rewards that are non financial. The drivers of executive pay are quantified and qualified in order to provide the conceptual background needed to understand the core factors that determine executive pay. Therefore the role of institutional investors in driving managerial salary is explored in detail. Finally, the effects of firm size and good corporate governance on executive pay are carefully analysed.

Download Full-text

Hiding high pay

10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190641184.003.0006 ◽

2017 ◽

Author(s):

Graeme Guthrie

Keyword(s):

Executive Compensation ◽

Construction Industry ◽

Executive Pay ◽

Managerial Power ◽

Housing Boom ◽

Boom And Bust ◽

Home Construction ◽

Bargaining Positions

This chapter uses pay in the home construction industry during the recent housing boom and bust to illustrate the second of the two competing theories that economists use to understand executive compensation: the managerial power hypothesis. According to this theory, boards at some firms have such weak bargaining positions that the only constraint on executive pay is the prospect of shareholder outrage. The theory’s central prediction is that weak boards and strong CEOs combine to find ways to pay executives that reduce the threat of shareholder outrage. This chapter develops this prediction and demonstrates its ability to explain observed pay practices that have the effect of camouflaging high pay levels.

Download Full-text

CEO pay sensitivities in innovative firms

Benchmarking An International Journal ◽

10.1108/bij-09-2020-0491 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽

Author(s):

Raghavan J. Iyengar ◽

Malavika Sundararajan

Keyword(s):

Firm Performance ◽

Performance Measures ◽

Ceo Compensation ◽

Critical Role ◽

Positive Association ◽

Executive Pay ◽

Content Type ◽

Accounting Performance ◽

Innovative Firms ◽

Compensation Committees

PurposeThis study aims to investigate whether compensation committees provide the chief executive officers (CEOs) with incentives to undertake “income-decreasing” but potentially “value-enhancing” innovation expenditures. The authors specifically analyze pay–performance relationships for innovative firms relative to all other firms. This study is critical because innovation is expensive and has uncertain outcomes.Design/methodology/approachUsing alternative accounting performance measures and market performance measures, the authors estimate an econometric model of CEO compensation in innovative firms that incorporates the interaction of endogenous innovation and firm performance.FindingsThe authors document an incremental positive association between changes in accounting performance measures and CEO compensation changes in innovative firms relative to other firms. This sensitivity of executive pay to firm performance is higher for firms that innovate. These results support the hypothesis that compensation committees provide incentives to carry out risky innovation by tying executive compensation more closely to firm performance. This finding survives a battery of sensitivity tests.Practical implicationsThe implications of this study are significant. Capital needs to support risky research and development investments (Tidd and Besant, 2018; Baldwin and Johnson, 1995) form the basis of innovative firms' operations. Considering these expenses, if CEOs, who play a critical role in the scanning, adapting and implementing innovative needs in a firm, are not protected and compensated for making risky choices, the entire investment itself will be threatened. Hence, the findings reiterate and support earlier findings that speak to the importance of compensating CEOs to make high-risk investments that will lead to long-term economic and financial gains for the firm when the innovative behaviors result in competitive market shares and profits.Originality/valueThe original work is related to the investigation of pay–performance sensitivity in the presence of innovation, which has not been fully investigated in prior literature.

Download Full-text