Paying Managers of Complex Portfolios: Evidence on Compensation and Performance from Endowments

Matteo Binfarè,Robert S. Harris

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022109024000188

IF: 4.337

2024-03-03

Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis

Abstract://static.cambridge.org/content/id/urn%3Acambridge.org%3Aid%3Aarticle%3AS0022109024000188/resource/name/firstPage-pdf-S0022109024000188a.jpg

economics,business, finance

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Capital Budgeting and Compensation with Asymmetric Information and Moral Hazard

AE Bernardo,HB Cai,J Luo

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0304-405x(01)00065-4

IF: 8.9

2001-01-01

Journal of Financial Economics

Abstract:We consider optimal capital allocation and managerial compensation mechanisms for decentralized firms when division managers have an incentive to misrepresent project quality and to minimize privately costly but value-enhancing effort. We show that in the optimal mechanism firms always underinvest in capital relative to a naive application of the net present value (NPV) rule. We make a number of novel cross-sectional predictions about the severity of the underinvestment problem and the composition of managerial compensation contracts. We also find that firms will optimally give greater performance-based pay (at the expense of fixed wages) to managers of higher quality projects to mitigate the incentive for managers to overstate project quality. Managers may thus receive greater performance-based pay because they manage higher quality projects, not that greater performance-based pay causes firm value to increase.
Investigating the associations between executive compensation and firm performance: Agency theory or tournament theory

Hany Elbardan,Nader Elsayed

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/JAAR-03-2015-0027

2018-05-14

Abstract:While there have been extensive empirical investigations of pay-performance sensitivity, the perspective of performance-pay has received less attention to date. While executive compensation is sensitive to firm performance, firm performance is also likely to be affected by executive compensation. Adopting multiple theoretical perspectives, the purpose of this paper is to examine whether executive compensation has a greater influence on firm performance or whether the latter has a greater influence on compensation.,Using data from a five-year period (2010-2014) for Financial Times and Stock Exchange 350 companies, the authors employ a set of simultaneous equation modelling to jointly investigate, after accounting for endogeneity problem, the mutual association of executive compensation and firm performance by employing four control variables (board size, non-executive directors, leverage and boardroom ownership).,The authors find strong evidence for the greater influence of executive compensation on firm performance than the pay-performance framework. This finding supports the tournament theory compared with the agency perspective.,Inevitably, there are limitations in a wide-ranging study of this nature that could be addressed in future research. As any empirical study utilising company data, there may be concerns to the effect of survivorship bias and the manner in which companies have reorganised, if there is any, themselves during the period under examination. There are also issues as to missing data, some measures relating to both executive compensation and corporate governance are not provided by the BoardEx database.,The study results provide evidence that using the tournament perspective by remuneration committees as a guide for determining executive compensation helps in achieving better performance. This helps in developing appropriate mechanisms for setting executive remuneration.,This paper combines an empirical investigation of the frameworks of pay-performance and performance-pay and develops a system of six simultaneous equations to examine the associations between executive compensation and firm performance.

Economics,Business
Relative Wealth Concerns, Executive Compensation, and Systemic Risk-Taking

Qi Liu,Bo Sun

DOI: https://doi.org/10.17016/ifdp.2016.1164

2016-01-01

International Finance Discussion Paper

Abstract:Given the recent empirical evidence on peer effects in CEO compensation, this paper theoretically examines how relative wealth concerns, in which a manager’s satisfaction with his own compensation depends on the compensation of other managers, affect the equilibrium contracting strategy and managerial risk-taking. We find that such externalities can generate pay-for-luck as an efficient compensation vehicle in equilibrium. In expectation of pay-for-luck in other firms, tying managerial pay to luck provides insurance to managers against a compensation shortfall relative to executive peers during market fluctuations. When all firms pay for luck, we show that an effort-inducing mechanism exists: managers have additional incentives to exert effort in utilizing investment opportunities, which helps them keep up with their peers during industry movements. In addition, we show that compensation arrangements involving pay-for-luck that are efficient from the shareholders’ perspective can nonetheless exacerbate aggregate fluctuations in the real economy by incentivizing excessive systemic risk-taking, especially in periods of heightened risk.
Gambling or De-Risking: Hedge Fund Risk Taking Vs. Managers' Compensation

Chengdong Yin,Xiaoyan Zhang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2899834

2017-01-01

Abstract:Hedge fund managers’ risk-taking choices are influenced by their compensation structure. Wediffer from most studies that focus on incentive fees and the high-water mark by examining howmanagement fees affect managers’ risk-taking. Our simple model shows that managers’ risktaking is negatively related to their future management fees. Using fund-level data, we find thatfuture management fees are the dominant component of managers’ total compensation. When thecontribution of future management fees increases, managers reduce risk-taking to increase survivalprobabilities. Moreover, funds with higher decreasing returns to scale are more sensitive to futuremanagement fees and reduce risk-taking even more.
Top Management Incentives and Corporate Performance

Stephen O'Byrne,David Young

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6622.2005.00064.x

2005-09-01

Journal of Applied Corporate Finance

Abstract:There is little agreement about either the effect of executive compensation on corporate performance or the best way to measure the strength of executive incentives. With little guidance from academic research, managers and directors continue to rely heavily on the percentage of pay “at risk” as a proxy for incentive strength. Starting with the premise that managers, like investors, are motivated by prospective changes in their wealth, this article presents a measure of incentive strength called “wealth leverage” that reflects the sensitivity of an executive's company‐related wealth—total stock and option holdings plus the present value of expected future compensation, including future salary, bonus and stock compensation—to changes in shareholder wealth. After estimating top management's wealth leverage at 702 companies, the authors conclude that: 1) the median company has significant wealth leverage; 2) almost all corporate wealth leverage comes from their accumulated stock and option holdings, not from current compensation; and 3) companies with higher wealth leverage significantly outperform their industry competitors.
An Analysis of Compensation in the Hedge Fund Industry

Jun Qian,George O. Aragon

2006-01-01

Abstract:We examine the cross-sectional and time series variations in the form of hedge fund manager compensation. An analysis of a sample of 5,699 funds over the 1994-2005 period reveals the following systematic patterns: (i) high-powered contracts [low fixed fees, high performance fees, and use of high-water mark provisions] are more common among newer and smaller management firms, (ii) high-powered contracts are more common among funds that impose restrictions on fund investor redemptions, (iii) a secular trend in the use of high-water marks by new funds, and (iv) similar average returns for funds with and without high-water marks, but higher average returns for funds with higher performance fees. Our findings suggest that the form of compensation provides a signal of manager ability.
Optimal Compensation Contracts when Managers Can Hedge

Huasheng Gao

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2010.03.015

2009-01-01

Abstract:This paper examines optimal compensation contracts when executives can hedge their personal portfolios. In a simple principal-agent framework, I predict that the Chief Executive Officer's (CEO's) pay-performance sensitivity decreases with the executive-hedging cost. Empirically, I find evidence supporting the model's prediction. Providing further support for the theory, I show that shareholders also impose a high sensitivity of CEO wealth to stock volatility and increase financial leverage to resolve the executive-hedging problem. Moreover, executives with lower hedging costs hold more exercisable in-the-money options, have weaker incentives to cut dividends, and pursue fewer corporate diversification initiatives. Overall, the manager's ability to hedge the firm's risk affects governance mechanisms and managerial actions.
Implicit Incentives for Fund Managers with Partial Information

Flavio Angelini,Katia Colaneri,Stefano Herzel,Marco Nicolosi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2011.07871

2020-11-16

Abstract:We study the optimal asset allocation problem for a fund manager whose compensation depends on the performance of her portfolio with respect to a benchmark. The objective of the manager is to maximise the expected utility of her final wealth. The manager observes the prices but not the values of the market price of risk that drives the expected returns. The estimates of the market price of risk get more precise as more observations are available. We formulate the problem as an optimization under partial information. The particular structure of the incentives makes the objective function not concave. We solve the problem via the martingale method and, with a concavification procedure, we obtain the optimal wealth and the investment strategy. A numerical example shows the effect of learning on the optimal strategy.

Portfolio Management
Managerial Compensation under Privately-Observed Hedging and Earnings Management

Qi Liu,Bo Sun

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2015.10.004

IF: 1.469

2015-01-01

Economics Letters

Abstract:This paper studies how private information in hedging outcomes affects the design of managerial compensation when hedging instruments serve as a double-edged sword in that they may be used for both corporate hedging and earnings management. On the one hand, financial vehicles can offer customized contracts that are closely tailored to manage specific risk and improve hedging efficiency. On the other hand, involvement in hedging may give rise to manipulation through misstatement of the value estimates. We show that the use of privately-observed hedging may actually require greater pay-for-performance in managerial compensation. The cross-sectional variations in managerial compensation lend support to our model.
Risking or De-Risking: How Management Fees Affect Hedge Fund Risk-Taking Choices

Chengdong Yin,Xiaoyan Zhang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/rfs/hhac046

IF: 8.4137

2022-01-01

Review of Financial Studies

Abstract:Hedge fund managers’ risk-taking choices are influenced by their compensation structure. We differ from most studies that focus on incentive fees and the high-water mark by examining how management fees affect managers’ risk-taking. Our simple model shows that managers’ risk-taking is negatively related to their future management fees. Using fund-level data, we find that future management fees are the dominant component of managers’ total compensation. When the contribution of future management fees increases, managers reduce risk-taking to increase survival probabilities. Moreover, funds with higher decreasing returns to scale are more sensitive to future management fees and reduce risk-taking even more.
Managerial Private Benefits and Overinvestment

zhan lei,cai mingchao,yaoyao wang,jing yu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2753/REE1540-496X500308

2014-01-01

Emerging Markets Finance and Trade

Abstract:According to agency theory, we hypothesize that underpayment of top management motivates management to overinvest. Using a sample of Chinese-listed companies for the period 2005-10, we assess the effect of managerial compensation on overinvestment and the effect of overinvestment on managerial private benefits, including future compensation and perquisites, as well as on firm performance. We find that underpayment does motivate overinvestment, which increases managerial private benefits but not firm value.
Institutional Investors, Managerial Ownership, and Executive Compensation

Surya Janakiraman,Suresh Radhakrishnan,Albert Tsang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0148558x1002500409

2010-10-01

Journal of Accounting, Auditing and Finance

Abstract:We examine the association between executive compensation and the interaction between the top-five institutional investor ownership and managerial ownership. We find that top-five institutional investors' ownership is more positively associated with pay-for-performance for small managerial ownership group than large managerial ownership group. We find that top-five institutional investors' ownership is more negatively associated with level of executive compensation for small managerial ownership group than large managerial ownership group. Neither dedicated nor active institutional investors are associated with an additional decrease in the level of executive compensation for large managerial ownership firms. We find that the level of pay is negatively associated with a high level of managerial ownership for the period after 2002. Collectively, the evidence is consistent with the managerial power theory.
Career-Risk Concerns, Information Effort, and Optimal Pay-For-Performance Sensitivity

Qi Chen,Shane S. Dikolli,Wei Jiang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2308/jmar-51165

2015-01-01

Journal of Management Accounting Research

Abstract:ABSTRACTPrior work has established that managers' concerns about the level of their future compensation (i.e., implicit incentives from career concerns) may substitute for explicit incentives in compensation contracts offered to the managers in a single-task setting (Gibbons and Murphy 1992). We show that the substitution effect can be weakened, and even reversed, when managers (1) exert effort, in addition to production effort, to influence information about their ability, and (2) are concerned about both the level and variability of their reputation. We also find that managerial concern about the variability of reputation can lead to the optimal pay-for-performance sensitivity increasing in the underlying risk measure, rather than decreasing in risk, as in standard incentive-risk trade-offs. We test these predictions using a large sample of CEO compensation outcomes. Results are consistent with our model predictions.
Influence of Monetary Compensation Structure on Managerial Entrenchment Behavior: An Experimental Study

BAI Jian-jun,LI Bing-xiang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1002-9753.2012.10.009

2012-01-01

Abstract:The theory of managerial entrenchment suggests that managers have motivations to meet utility maximization via going after a stable job and higher salary.In this paper,the influence mechanism of the monetary compensation structure on managerial entrenchment is explored through the experimental study.The necessary theoretical support is provided in order to show that how the agency cost arisen by managerial entrenchment behavior is reduced through designing a more effective monetary compensation contract.The research results show that there exists the strong relevance between the monetary compensation structure and managerial entrenchment.The fixed compensation given in advance is positively related to the degree of managerial entrenchment,and performance-related variable compensation is negatively related to the degree of manager's management.The higher fixed compensation proportion is,the higher degree of managerial entrenchment is.However,the higher proportion of variable compensation is,the lower degree of managerial entrenchment is in a certain range;but the higher degree of managerial entrenchment is over a certain range.That is to say,there is a U shape relationship between the variable compensation proportion and managerial entrenchment.
Do Managers Perform for Perks?

Donghua Chen,Oliver Zhen Li,Shangkun Liang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1562003

2010-01-01

SSRN Electronic Journal

Abstract:We examine how the managerial consumption of perquisites is determined and whether and how it impacts firm value. On the one hand, if the consumption of perks is a result of agency conflict, then it represents managerial excesses and is value-destroying. On the other hand, when the transaction cost of monetary compensation is high due to information asymmetry, government regulations and media scrutiny, perks can provide incentives for managers to work hard to create shareholder wealth. Using manually-collected data on direct monetary compensation and perks for firms in China, we find that perks are provided when the relative pay between top managers and average employees is low, in firms with high free cash flows, high economic rent and growth. Further, perks are positively associated with firm value, but to a much lesser extent than monetary compensation. Therefore, while perks appear to motivate managers to work hard to create shareholder wealth, they are not as effective as monetary compensation. In addition, the predicted or the “optimal” portion of perks motivates managers better than the unpredicted portion of perks. Finally, the effect of perks in enhancing firm value is more pronounced in firms with high economic rent, high growth and low relative pay between top managers and average employees.
Compensation Gap, Managers’ Relative Psychological Perception and Firm Performance

Ding CHEN,Yutong LI,Shun ZHANG

DOI: https://doi.org/10.12085/j.issn.1009-6116.2019.04.008

2019-01-01

Abstract:Compensation gap not only affects the expected benefit of managers, but also enable managers to generate relative psychological perceptions and adjust their work behaviors in the comparison of differences, thereby changing corporate perform-ance. To explore the internal link among compensation gap, managers’ psychological perception and firm performance, the in-dexed relative psychological perception model is constructed, which could reflect the relative deprivation and the relative satisfac-tion simultaneously. Theoretical analysis shows that managers’relative deprivation and relative satisfaction sensitivity have a regu-latory effect on the relationship between managers’psychological perception and compensation gap. That is, the same compensa-tion gap has different incentive effects for different relative psychological perception types of managers, and then leading to the non-linear effect on firm performance. On this basis, based on the data from 1906 China listed firms in Year 2016, the results from the quantile regression model show that the non-linear relationship between compensation gap and firm performance is signifi-cant. It is more significant in the firms with better performances. These findings imply that the managers’type of relative psycho-logical perception should be considered when deciding the optimal compensation gap. That is, flat compensation structure should be utilized for the firms whose managers are "relative-deprivation-sensitive type" and steep compensation structure should be uti-lized for the firms whose managers are "relative-satisfaction-sensitive type".
Incentives and Matching of Heterogeneous Principals and Agents: Field Evidence from a Mutual Fund Scandal

Henrich R. Greve,Hong Zhang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2289793

2013-01-01

Abstract:The mutual fund industry consists of heterogeneous managers and investors. Hence, traditional models of delegated portfolio management need to be extended to allow heterogeneity. We propose that this extension can be modeled as a dual matching-contracting problem of endogenously repeated trust games, and demonstrate that dual matching and contracting efficiency can be achieved in an equilibrium in which more risk tolerant funds are matched with investors more inert to negative information and in which all managers exert effort. Empirical tests based on the investigation of mutual fund scandal in 2003 are largely consistent with the dual efficiency equilibrium.
Stock and Option Proportions in Executive Compensation

Phelim P. Boyle,Ranjini Jha,Shannon Kennedy,Weidong Tian

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1142/s2010139211000055

2011-03-01

Quarterly Journal of Finance

Abstract:There is controversy about the relative merits of stock and options in executive compensation. Some observers contend that stock is a more efficient mechanism, while others reach the opposite conclusion. We focus on the manager's risk-taking incentives and derive an optimal compensation contract by using the concept of a comparable benchmark and imposing a volatility constraint in a principal-agent framework. We demonstrate a joint role for both stock and options in the optimal contract. We show that firms with higher volatility should use more options in compensating their executives and provide empirical evidence supporting this testable implication.
Relative Wealth Concerns, Executive Compensation, and Managerial Risk-Taking

Qi Liu,Bo Sun

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1257/mic.20200325

2023-05-01

Abstract:This paper theoretically examines how relative wealth concerns affect equilibrium contracting and systemic risk-taking. We find that such externalities can generate pay for luck as an equilibrium strategy. In expectation of pay for luck in other firms, tying managerial pay to luck provides insurance to managers against a compensation shortfall relative to executive peers. We also show that an effort-inducing mechanism exists: managers have additional incentives to exert effort in utilizing investment opportunities, which helps them keep up with their peers during industry movements; however, pay for luck that is efficient within firms can nonetheless exacerbate aggregate fluctuations, especially during periods of heightened market risk. (JEL D81, D82, D86, G51, M12, M52)

economics

Paying Managers of Complex Portfolios: Evidence on Compensation and Performance from Endowments

Capital Budgeting and Compensation with Asymmetric Information and Moral Hazard

Investigating the associations between executive compensation and firm performance: Agency theory or tournament theory

Relative Wealth Concerns, Executive Compensation, and Systemic Risk-Taking

Gambling or De-Risking: Hedge Fund Risk Taking Vs. Managers' Compensation

Top Management Incentives and Corporate Performance

An Analysis of Compensation in the Hedge Fund Industry

Optimal Compensation Contracts when Managers Can Hedge

Implicit Incentives for Fund Managers with Partial Information

Managerial Compensation under Privately-Observed Hedging and Earnings Management

Risking or De-Risking: How Management Fees Affect Hedge Fund Risk-Taking Choices

Managerial Private Benefits and Overinvestment

Institutional Investors, Managerial Ownership, and Executive Compensation

Career-Risk Concerns, Information Effort, and Optimal Pay-For-Performance Sensitivity

Influence of Monetary Compensation Structure on Managerial Entrenchment Behavior: An Experimental Study

Do Managers Perform for Perks?

Compensation Gap, Managers’ Relative Psychological Perception and Firm Performance

Incentives and Matching of Heterogeneous Principals and Agents: Field Evidence from a Mutual Fund Scandal

Stock and Option Proportions in Executive Compensation

Relative Wealth Concerns, Executive Compensation, and Managerial Risk-Taking