Michael C. Nwogugu
Abstract:EBIs/ESOs substantially change the traditional production/service function because ESOs/EBIs can have different psychological effects(motivation or de-motivation), and can create intangible capital and different economic payoffs. Although Game Theory is flawed, it can be helpful in describing interactions in ESO/EBIs transactions. ESOs/EBIs involve two-stage games and there are no perfect Nash Equilibria for the two sub-games. The large number of actual and potential participants in these games significantly complicates resolution of equilibria and increases the dynamism of the games given that players are more sensitive to other peoples moves in such games. This article: a) analyzes how ESOs/EBIs affect traditional assumptions of production functions (in both the manufacturing and service sectors), b) analyzes ESOs/EBIs transactions using game theory concepts, c) illustrates some of the limitations of game theory.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?
The main issue this paper attempts to address is how equity incentives (ESOs/EBIs) affect traditional production and service functions and explore their complexities in corporate governance. Specifically, the paper focuses on the following aspects:
1. **The impact of equity incentives on traditional production and service functions**:
- Equity incentives (ESOs/EBIs) alter traditional production and service functions because they have different psychological impacts (such as motivation or demotivation), can create intangible capital (such as social capital, reputational capital, and human capital), and generate different economic returns.
2. **Game theory analysis in equity incentive transactions**:
- The paper uses game theory concepts to analyze equity incentive transactions. Equity incentives involve a two-stage game, with each sub-game lacking a perfect Nash equilibrium. The large number of participants increases the complexity of balancing solutions and makes the game more dynamic.
3. **Limitations of game theory**:
- Although game theory is a flawed concept, it helps describe interactions in equity incentive transactions. The paper points out some limitations of game theory in analyzing equity incentives, including unrealistic assumptions, ignoring transaction costs, and compliance costs.
4. **Incentive issues and principal-agent theory in equity incentives**:
- Equity incentives may lead to moral hazard and incentive issues, such as earnings manipulation, inefficiency in capital budgeting decisions, and excessive risk-taking. The standard principal-agent theory does not always apply in the context of equity incentives because the optimal incentive contract needs to minimize compliance costs, reduce fraud tendencies, and maximize after-tax cash returns.
5. **The impact of psychological and non-monetary motivations**:
- Psychological and non-monetary motivations (such as gaining professional experience, avoiding social exclusion, reciprocity, public service commitment, etc.) can affect the incentive compensation structure and employee responses, making the principal-agent theory completely inapplicable.
Through these analyses, the paper aims to reveal the complexities and potential issues of equity incentives in practical applications and propose improved suggestions.