CEO Compensation in Korea: Is It Different Than in the US? A Comparison between Korean Non-Life Insurance Firms and US Property-Liability Insurance Firms

This study investigates the level, structure, and pay-for-performance relationship of CEO compensation in Korean non-life insurance companies. We find that seniority plays an important role in setting CEO compensation practices and that performance-based pay, such as bonus, is more effective than base salary in enhancing shareholder value for Korean non-life insurers. Unlike previous studies that show that international differences in executive pay have been diminished considerably since the 2000s, our evidence shows that there is a remarkable difference in CEO compensation between Korean non-life insurers and U.S. property-liability insurers. Furthermore, we provide evidence that the pay-performance relationship is weaker in Korean non-life insurance companies relative to US counterparts, suggesting that it is necessary for Korean non-life insurers to tie performance-based compensation more closely to shareholder value in the design of CEO compensation.

Causes and Consequences of Income Inequality – An Overview

Rising income inequality is one of the greatest challenges facing advanced economies today. Income inequality is multifaceted and is not the inevitable outcome of irresistible structural forces such as globalisation or technological development. Instead, this review shows that inequality has largely been driven by a multitude of political choices. The embrace of neoliberalism since the 1980s has provided the key catalyst for political and policy changes in the realms of union regulation, executive pay, the welfare state and tax progressivity, which have been the key drivers of inequality. These preventable causes have led to demonstrable harmful outcomes that are not explicable solely by material deprivation. This review also shows that inequality has been linked on the economic front with reduced growth, investment and innovation, and on the social front with reduced health and social mobility, and greater violent crime.

Whose pay should be cut in economic crises? Consumers prefer firms that prioritize paying employees over CEOs

Four experiments examine the impact of a firm deciding to no longer pay salaries for executives versus employees on consumer behavior, particularly in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Study 1 explores the effect of announcing either pay cessations or continued pay for either CEO or employees, and shows that firms’ commitment to maintaining employee pay leads to the most positive consumer reactions. Study 2 examines the effects of simultaneously announcing employee and CEO pay cessations: consumers respond most positively to firms prioritizing employee pay, regardless of their strategy for CEO pay. Moreover, these positive perceptions are mediated by perceptions of financial pain to employees, more than perceptions of CEO-to-worker pay ratio fairness. Study 3, using an incentive-compatible design, shows that firms’ commitment to paying employees their full wages matters more to consumers than cuts to executive pay, even when those executive pay cuts lead to a lower CEO-to-worker pay ratio. Study 4 tests our account in a non-COVID-19 context, and shows that consumers continue to react favorably to firms that maintain employee pay, but when loss is less salient, consumers prioritize cutting CEO pay and lowering the CEO-to-worker pay ratio. We discuss the implications of our results for firms and policymakers during economic crises.

Executive pay bandwagon and stock price crash risk

Purpose This paper aims to investigate the impact of executives’ self-interested behaviors induced by the pay bandwagon on stock price crash risk in Chinese listed firms and attempt to shed light on the influencing channels of this effect. Design/methodology/approach The empirical analysis is based on the panel data set which contains information on the executives and stock price of 11,710 firm-year observations over the period 2007–2015. The multiple linear regression models are implemented to examine whether the executive pay bandwagon affects corporate future stock price crash risk. Then, earnings management, tax avoidance and overinvestment are applied as the behavior choice of executive pay bandwagon to analyze the potential influencing channels. Findings Results indicate that the lower the executives’ pay is than the median pay level of executives in firms of similar size and industry, incentives of pay bandwagon are stronger, leading to a higher future stock price crash risk. Moreover, evidence shows that the positive relationship between executive pay bandwagon and crash risk is attenuated when firms have strong external monitoring mechanisms such as Big Four auditors, cross-listing in the Hong Kong stock exchange, high marketization process and high institutional ownership. Then, some weak evidence supports that internal governance such as internal control plays the same moderating role. In addition, based on the path test, the stock price crash effect of the executive pay bandwagon has a complete tax avoidance intermediary effect and a partial earnings management intermediary effect. Originality/value This study contributes to the executive compensation literature from a psychological perspective on the economic consequences research brought about by the pay bandwagon for China’s listed firms. Moreover, this paper provides a supplement to the literature on factors which is completely different from previous studies that affect the future stock price crash risk.