Private Information in Executive Compensation: The Information Role vs. The Monitoring Role of the Board

被引:10
作者
Lo, Kin [1 ]
Wu, Serena Shuo [2 ]
机构
[1] Univ British Columbia, Accounting, Vancouver, BC V5Z 1M9, Canada
[2] Queens Univ, Kingston, ON K7L 3N6, Canada
关键词
Corporate Governance; Executive Compensation; Private Performance Measures; Board of Directors; CORPORATE GOVERNANCE; DIRECTORS; DETERMINANTS; INCENTIVES; POWER;
D O I
10.1111/corg.12122
中图分类号
F [经济];
学科分类号
02 ;
摘要
Manuscript Type: Empirical Research Question/Issue: This paper examines the effect of boards of directors' characteristics on the use of private information in executive compensation. Research Findings/Insights: We predict and find that boards' competence both in information acquisition and in monitoring influences the extent to which boards use private performance measures in CEO compensation. Specifically, smaller and more independent boards with their CEOs as the board chair are found to rely more heavily on private performance measures. The documented effects of board characteristics disappear after the passage of SOX, likely due to the homogenized composition of boards and compensation committees brought by the legislated changes. Theoretical/Academic Implications: The paper extends the literature on the board's role in executive compensation. Although prior evidence is abundant on how boards affect the alignment of CEO compensation with public performance measures, little is known about boards' use of private information to compensate CEOs. It also extends the literature on the role of corporate boards by examining both their monitoring and information roles. Practitioner/Policy Implications: This study offers insights to regulators regarding the role of boards of directors in monitoring and their role in private information acquisition. It highlights the importance of considering the tradeoff between these two roles when regulating corporate governance rules.
引用
收藏
页码:5 / 23
页数:19
相关论文
共 33 条
[1]   A theory of friendly boards [J].
Adams, Renee B. ;
Ferreira, Daniel .
JOURNAL OF FINANCE, 2007, 62 (01) :217-250
[2]  
[Anonymous], 2012, WORKING PAPER
[3]  
BAIMAN S, 1995, ACCOUNT REV, V70, P557
[4]  
Beasley MS, 1996, ACCOUNT REV, V71, P443
[5]  
Brickley J.A., 1997, Journal of Corporate Finance, V3, P189, DOI [10.1016/S0929-1199(96)00013-2, DOI 10.1016/S0929-1199(96)00013-2, 10.1016/s0929-1199(96)00013-2]
[6]   OUTSIDE DIRECTORS AND THE ADOPTION OF POISON PILLS [J].
BRICKLEY, JA ;
COLES, JL ;
TERRY, RL .
JOURNAL OF FINANCIAL ECONOMICS, 1994, 35 (03) :371-390
[7]   DO OUTSIDE DIRECTORS MONITOR MANAGERS - EVIDENCE FROM TENDER OFFER BIDS [J].
BYRD, JW ;
HICKMAN, KA .
JOURNAL OF FINANCIAL ECONOMICS, 1992, 32 (02) :195-221
[8]   Equity incentives and earnings management [J].
Cheng, Q ;
Warfield, TA .
ACCOUNTING REVIEW, 2005, 80 (02) :441-476
[9]   The use of equity grants to manage optimal equity incentive levels [J].
Core, J ;
Guay, W .
JOURNAL OF ACCOUNTING & ECONOMICS, 1999, 28 (02) :151-184
[10]   Corporate governance, chief executive officer compensation, and firm performance [J].
Core, JE ;
Holthausen, RW ;
Larcker, DF .
JOURNAL OF FINANCIAL ECONOMICS, 1999, 51 (03) :371-406