1 / 15

Steven Young Lancaster University Management School Idlan Zakaria Essex Business School

Performance Conditions in Executive Compensation Contracts: Powerful Incentives or Symbolic Decoupling?. Steven Young Lancaster University Management School Idlan Zakaria Essex Business School. Research Objective and Motivation.

lolita
Download Presentation

Steven Young Lancaster University Management School Idlan Zakaria Essex Business School

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Performance Conditions in Executive Compensation Contracts:Powerful Incentives or Symbolic Decoupling? Steven Young Lancaster University Management School Idlan Zakaria Essex Business School

  2. Research Objective and Motivation • Paper aims to examine issues related to target setting at the executive level of companies • Existing work have examined operational aspects • Availability of new data allows this gap to be filled • Study explores whether: • Targets are set at an appropriate level • Managers misuse their position to reward themselves at the expense of shareholders

  3. Literature Review / Theory • 1970’s budgeting literature • Papers by Hofstede (1968), Stedry (1960), Stedry & Kay (1966) etc focused on target acceptance and finding an appropriate level of ‘difficulty’ • Dunbar’s 40% benchmark • Merchant and Manzoni (1989) • Executive compensation literature • Indjejikian and Nanda (2002) • Choudhary and Orszag (2005)

  4. Literature Review / Theory Agency Theory Jensen and Meckling (1976) “targets in performance contracts are predicted to align owners and managers: therefore when the agency gap is greater, targets are more challenging” • Decoupling Theory • Westphal and Zajac (1994, 1998) • “managers satisfy external demands for accountability but avoid additional compensation risk or loss of autonomy by adopting but not implementing provisions that suggest good governance: therefore targets are more likely to be symbolic when there is more demand to demonstrate effective control

  5. Hypotheses • H1a: All else equal, firms are more likely to adopt challenging performance conditions when executives control the board. • H2a: All else equal, firms are more likely to adopt challenging performance conditions when other governance arrangements (e.g., external ownership power) are weak. • H3a: All else equal, firms are more likely to adopt challenging performance conditions when past realised performance has been poor.

  6. Hypotheses • H4a: All else equal, firms are more likely to adopt challenging performance conditions when competitive rivalry is high. • H5: All else equal, agency-based (symbolic decoupling) associations are more likely to characterise early (late) adopters.

  7. Probability of Target Attainment • Measured using probability of target attainment • Model from Choudhary and Orszag (2005) Measuring Target Difficulty where: z = standard normal variable y*= accumulated nominal growth in eps over 3-year period = expected eps growth over 3-year period = standard deviation in expected eps growth Also used the raw target and the presence of an upper bound as proxies for difficulty

  8. Sample and Data • 500 largest UK firms as at 31 January 2003, from which we obtained 1857 plans • Chose plans that used eps as targets, benchmarked against growth in RPI • Often expressed as: EPS growth of RPI + x% • Final sample has 290 firms, 540 plans • Plan traced back to inception date • All variables collected as of inception date • Manual collection of governance data • EPS data obtained from IBES

  9. Model Tgtdiffit= probability of target attainment CEOpowerit = measured using either CEO duality, board members appointed by the CEO, CEO tenure or CEO ownership, Ownershipit =Herfindahl index to measure concentration of ownership pastaccit+n =Return On Assets (ROA), eps growth pastmktit= stock returns (measured over plan performance period) Herfit = Herfindahl index to measure for competitive intensity Instit = early adoption (years) realit+n = actual eps performance for firm i at time t+n, where n is the

  10. Descriptive Evidence • Median lower threshold targets are 16.73% where as median past performance is 23.30%, realised performance is 29.97% and forecasted performance is 27.1% • 55% of targets are set lower than past and realised performance. • Are targets set too easy? Or is there real underlying performance?

  11. Key Results • Targets are less challenging when there is less executive control of the board • When there is better monitoring, targets are set at a less challenging level • H1a and H2: Accepted • No significant relationships observed for H3-5

  12. Other Observations • Firms set upper bounds in plans when CEOs have been in office longer, have poorer past performance and there is more competitive rivalry in the industry • While early adopters set targets to incentivise, there is no evidence that late adopters are merely being symbolic

  13. Implications • Performance targets are set with incentives in mind, but there is some limited evidence of attempts to decouple • Targets are more likely to be achieved when CEOs have had longer tenureships • Given that lower threshold targets are achieved 55% of the time, does this suggests that targets are set at an appropriate level of difficulty?

  14. Conclusions • Known Issues and Limitations • Results are sensitive to how ‘target difficulty’ is measured • Data from plans that were incepted prior to 1995 is limited • Evidence on the underlying motives of target setting at the executive level of the firm • A mix of both incentivisation and decoupling?

More Related