scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Journal ArticleDOI

Managerial Expertise, Private Information, and Pay-Performance Sensitivity

01 Mar 2008-Management Science (INFORMS)-Vol. 54, Iss: 3, pp 429-442
TL;DR: This paper characterizes optimal pay-performance sensitivities of compensation contracts for managers who have private information about their skills, and those skills affect their outside employment opportunities, and identifies plausible circumstances under which risk and incentives are positively associated.
Abstract: This paper characterizes optimal pay-performance sensitivities of compensation contracts for managers who have private information about their skills, and those skills affect their outside employment opportunities. The model presumes that the rate at which a manager's opportunity wage increases in his expertise depends on the nature of that expertise, i.e., whether it is general or firm specific. The analysis demonstrates that when managerial expertise is largely firm specific (general), the optimal pay-performance sensitivity is lower (higher) than its optimal value in a benchmark setting of symmetric information. Furthermore, when managerial skills are largely firm specific (general), the optimal pay-performance sensitivity decreases (increases) as managerial skills become a more important determinant of firm performance. Unlike the standard agency-theoretic prediction of a negative trade-off between risk and pay-performance sensitivity, this paper identifies plausible circumstances under which risk and incentives are positively associated. In addition to providing an explanation for why empirical tests of risk-incentive relationships have produced mixed results, the analysis generates insights that can be useful in guiding future empirical research.

Content maybe subject to copyright    Report

Citations
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, a principal-agent model of moral hazard and adverse selection is proposed, which is distinct from sorting and distinguishes between ability that is privately known by the agent versus general ability observable by the principal and market.
Abstract: This paper proposes a principal-agent model of moral hazard and adverse selection that introduces the notion of screening, which is distinct from sorting; and distinguishes between ability that is privately known by the agent versus general ability that is observable by the principal and market. Sorting is the traditional process by which the adverse selection problem is resolved. Screening is the process we propose by which agents that are deemed to be unsuitable are rejected. Used in conjunction with sorting, we consider ex-ante screening on the basis of the (observable) measure of general ability; and ex-post screening on the basis of the private measure of ability. We identify the benefits and costs incurred by the principal associated with hiring an agent with superior ability, and derive the manner in which the compensation mechanism should be adjusted to take into account the roles of screening. The principal may prefer agents with inferior qualifications, rejecting those who are “overqualified”; conversely, she may select an agent with a distinguished pedigree, rejecting agents who are “underqualified”. Screening alters the relationship between the compensation mechanism and the characteristics of the agency relationship, causing established results to change, such as the negative link between risk and incentives. The empirical ramifications of screening are important: not controlling for screening introduces bias and inconsistency in estimation.

1 citations


Cites background or methods or result from "Managerial Expertise, Private Infor..."

  • ...We infer that the compensation mechanism belongs to a direct truthful mechanism if the payperformance sensitivity (; ) is increasing in private ability, in agreement with Salanie (2005, p. 31) and Dutta (2008)....

    [...]

  • ...First, there is the standard agency effect : 4 the parameters of the agency relationship affect the optimal contract in the ways that have been established in the agency literature (Dutta, 2008; Holmstrom, 1979; Banker and Datar, 1989)....

    [...]

  • ...In traditional agency models of adverse selection, mechanism design is utilized to sort agents according to their private ability; however, at the optimum, no agent is rejected (Dutta, 2008; Sung, 2005; Banker and Datar, 1989; Holmstrom, 1979)....

    [...]

  • ...As in a standard agency model with adverse selection (e.g., Dutta, 2008), the PPS of the agent is increasing in his private ability under Assumption 1....

    [...]

  • ...Perhaps the closest model to ours is Dutta (2008), in which a principal facing moral hazard 7 and adverse selection problems contracts on the outcome....

    [...]

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, the role of peer groups in determining the structure and the total amount of executive compensation is analyzed based on a standard agency model in which the reservation utility is related to the peer group used for performance evaluation.
Abstract: We study the role of peer groups in determining the structure and the total amount of executive compensation. Our analysis is based on a standard agency model in which the agent's reservation utility is related to the peer group used for performance evaluation. Our main result is that the informativeness criterion proposed by Holmstrom (1979) is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for the optimality of a relative performance evaluation. Whenever the relative performance evaluation is positively related to the agent's reservation utility, the principal faces a trade-off between the benefits from improved risk sharing and the total cost of compensation. If the peer group effect is strong, it can be optimal to evaluate the agent on her own firm performance only. If the relative performance evaluation is negatively related to the agent's reservation utility, it can also prove useful to reward the agent on the basis of uninformative signals. We also study the optimal weighting and composition of the performance index and find that the principal puts lower (higher) weight on an index and on peer firms that are positively (negatively) related with agent's reservation utility. In case of a negative relation it can even be optimal to include firms with uncorrelated cash flows into the index in order to reduce the total compensation.

1 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper , the authors propose a separation between ownership and management, with hired managers compensated by accounting-based performance pay, to solve the resulting incentive horizon problem, but the separation of management from ownership must, however, coincide with the sale of the business to a new owner under an accounting based earn-out agreement.
Abstract: Investment decisions tend to affect outcomes beyond the decision-maker’s tenure at the enterprise, and these outcomes, moreover, depend in part on the actions of the decision-maker’s successors. Separation between ownership and management, with hired managers compensated by accounting-based performance pay, solves the resulting incentive horizon problem. By contrast, the standard solution to “sell the firm to the agent” or the use of stock-based compensation creates incentives to invest inefficiently. Optimal managerial incentive pay may in fact show weak or even inverse correlation with stock price and cash flow. Even in enterprises managed by their owners, the prospect of implementing accounting-based incentive compensation and separating ownership from management in the future can induce efficient decision incentives at present. The separation of management from ownership must, however, coincide with the sale of the business to a new owner under an accounting-based earn-out agreement.
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Wang et al. as discussed by the authors investigated the effect of minority shareholders' participation in AGM on executives' pay-performance sensitivity (PPS) in Chinese stock market and found that the positive effect of shareholders' attendance on PPS was mainly driven by the compensation contracting channel, that is, by incorporating more voices from retail investors and independent directors into the compensation contract design.
Abstract: This study investigates the effects of minority shareholders' participation in annual general meetings (AGMs) on executives' pay–performance sensitivity (PPS) in a Chinese stock market. Using a novel dataset of minority shareholders' attendance of AGMs, we find that the number of attendees is significantly and positively associated with PPS. The results are robust to the instrumental variable approach, placebo tests, excluding the effect of shareholdings, and using alternative measures of attendance and PPS. We also examine two possible channels and find that the positive effect of minority shareholders' attendance on PPS is mainly driven by the compensation contracting channel, that is, by incorporating more voices from retail investors and independent directors into the compensation contract design, than by the compensation justification channel. Extended analyses show that the impact of minority shareholders' attendance is more pronounced in state-owned enterprises (SOEs) and in regions with good investor protection than in non-SOEs and regions with poor investor protection. Additional analyses also find higher minority shareholders' attendance leads to lower executive perk consumption. Overall, our findings highlight the importance of minority shareholders' participation in AGMs and their governance role in the design of executive compensation contracts.
References
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, a principal-agent model that can explain why employment is sometimes superior to independent contracting even when there are no productive advantages to specific physical or human capital and no financial market imperfections to limit the agent's borrowings is presented.
Abstract: Introduction In the standard economic treatment of the principal–agent problem, compensation systems serve the dual function of allocating risks and rewarding productive work. A tension between these two functions arises when the agent is risk averse, for providing the agent with effective work incentives often forces him to bear unwanted risk. Existing formal models that have analyzed this tension, however, have produced only limited results. It remains a puzzle for this theory that employment contracts so often specify fixed wages and more generally that incentives within firms appear to be so muted, especially compared to those of the market. Also, the models have remained too intractable to effectively address broader organizational issues such as asset ownership, job design, and allocation of authority. In this article, we will analyze a principal–agent model that (i) can account for paying fixed wages even when good, objective output measures are available and agents are highly responsive to incentive pay; (ii) can make recommendations and predictions about ownership patterns even when contracts can take full account of all observable variables and court enforcement is perfect; (iii) can explain why employment is sometimes superior to independent contracting even when there are no productive advantages to specific physical or human capital and no financial market imperfections to limit the agent's borrowings; (iv) can explain bureaucratic constraints; and (v) can shed light on how tasks get allocated to different jobs.

5,678 citations


"Managerial Expertise, Private Infor..." refers background in this paper

  • ...As shown in the appendix, the incentive compatibility condition in combination with the participation constraints implies that the manager’s certainty equivalent must take the form: CE(θ) = ∫ θ θ γ · β(u) du (11) 13See Holmstrom and Milgrom (1991)....

    [...]

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: For example, the authors estimates of the pay-performance relation (including pay, options, stockholdings, and dismissal) for chief executive officers indicate that CEO wealth changes $3.25 for every $1,000 change in shareholder wealth.
Abstract: Our estimates of the pay-performance relation (including pay, options, stockholdings, and dismissal) for chief executive officers indicate that CEO wealth changes $3.25 for every $1,000 change in shareholder wealth. Although the incentives generated by stock ownership are large relative to pay and dismissal incentives, most CEOs hold trivial fractions of their firms' stock, and ownership levels have declined over the past 50 years. We hypothesize that public and private political forces impose constraints that reduce the pay-performance sensitivity. Declines in both the pay-performance relation and the level of CEO pay since the 1930s are consistent with this hypothesis.

4,859 citations


"Managerial Expertise, Private Infor..." refers background in this paper

  • ...Hall and Liebman (1998) examine more recent data on executive compensation, and find that the average pay-performance sensitivity is somewhat higher than that documented in Jensen and Murphy (1990)....

    [...]

  • ...In a seminal paper, Jensen and Murphy (1990) empirically investigates the extent to which ceo compensation is tied to firm performance. They find a statistically significant, but economically small, relationship between ceo pay and firm performance. This evidence has raised concerns about whether the relation between pay and performance is strong enough.(6) Another well-documented empirical regularity in the executive compensation literature is that pay-performance sensitivities tend to vary quite widely across firms and industries.(7) My paper generates some potential explanations for these empirical findings. First, it shows that when managers have asymmetric information about their skills and those skills are largely firm-specific, managers will optimally receive weaker incentives than those predicted by standard moral hazard agency models. Second, my paper shows that optimal pay-performance sensitivities will vary systematically with managerial expertise. In addition, my analysis generates predictions about how pay-performance sensitivities relate to firm and industry characteristics, the extent of private information, and the nature of managers’ outside opportunities. These results can help explain some of the cross-sectional heterogeneity observed in executive compensation contracts. My model presumes that the manager’s opportunity wage is increasing in his type. This is one of the key distinctions between my model and the earlier work in the asymmetric information agency literature. Dutta (2003), Lewis and Sappington (1989a), and Maggi and Rodriguez-Clare (1995) also consider settings in which the agent’s reservation utility depends on his type. The last two papers consider regulation settings in which a regulated firm’s reservation price is negatively related to its marginal cost of production. As a consequence, the firm faces countervailing reporting incentives, i.e., it would like to overstate its marginal cost to receive a bigger cost reimbursement, but would prefer to understate its marginal cost in order to convince the regulator that its reservation price is high. While my paper (6)Jensen and Murphy (1990) find that the average ceo receives only $3....

    [...]

  • ...In a seminal paper, Jensen and Murphy (1990) empirically investigates the extent to which ceo compensation is tied to firm performance....

    [...]

  • ...In a seminal paper, Jensen and Murphy (1990) empirically investigates the extent to which ceo compensation is tied to firm performance. They find a statistically significant, but economically small, relationship between ceo pay and firm performance. This evidence has raised concerns about whether the relation between pay and performance is strong enough.(6) Another well-documented empirical regularity in the executive compensation literature is that pay-performance sensitivities tend to vary quite widely across firms and industries.(7) My paper generates some potential explanations for these empirical findings. First, it shows that when managers have asymmetric information about their skills and those skills are largely firm-specific, managers will optimally receive weaker incentives than those predicted by standard moral hazard agency models. Second, my paper shows that optimal pay-performance sensitivities will vary systematically with managerial expertise. In addition, my analysis generates predictions about how pay-performance sensitivities relate to firm and industry characteristics, the extent of private information, and the nature of managers’ outside opportunities. These results can help explain some of the cross-sectional heterogeneity observed in executive compensation contracts. My model presumes that the manager’s opportunity wage is increasing in his type. This is one of the key distinctions between my model and the earlier work in the asymmetric information agency literature. Dutta (2003), Lewis and Sappington (1989a), and Maggi and Rodriguez-Clare (1995) also consider settings in which the agent’s reservation utility depends on his type. The last two papers consider regulation settings in which a regulated firm’s reservation price is negatively related to its marginal cost of production. As a consequence, the firm faces countervailing reporting incentives, i.e., it would like to overstate its marginal cost to receive a bigger cost reimbursement, but would prefer to understate its marginal cost in order to convince the regulator that its reservation price is high. While my paper (6)Jensen and Murphy (1990) find that the average ceo receives only $3.25 for every $1000 increase in firm value. Hall and Liebman (1998) examine more recent data on executive compensation, and find that the average pay-performance sensitivity is somewhat higher than that documented in Jensen and Murphy (1990)....

    [...]

  • ...In a seminal paper, Jensen and Murphy (1990) empirically investigates the extent to which ceo compensation is tied to firm performance. They find a statistically significant, but economically small, relationship between ceo pay and firm performance. This evidence has raised concerns about whether the relation between pay and performance is strong enough.(6) Another well-documented empirical regularity in the executive compensation literature is that pay-performance sensitivities tend to vary quite widely across firms and industries.(7) My paper generates some potential explanations for these empirical findings. First, it shows that when managers have asymmetric information about their skills and those skills are largely firm-specific, managers will optimally receive weaker incentives than those predicted by standard moral hazard agency models. Second, my paper shows that optimal pay-performance sensitivities will vary systematically with managerial expertise. In addition, my analysis generates predictions about how pay-performance sensitivities relate to firm and industry characteristics, the extent of private information, and the nature of managers’ outside opportunities. These results can help explain some of the cross-sectional heterogeneity observed in executive compensation contracts. My model presumes that the manager’s opportunity wage is increasing in his type. This is one of the key distinctions between my model and the earlier work in the asymmetric information agency literature. Dutta (2003), Lewis and Sappington (1989a), and Maggi and Rodriguez-Clare (1995) also consider settings in which the agent’s reservation utility depends on his type....

    [...]

Book
01 Jan 1990
TL;DR: For example, the authors estimates of the pay-performance relation (including pay, options, stockholdings, and dismissal) for chief executive officers indicate that CEO wealth changes $3.25 for every $1,000 change in shareholder wealth.
Abstract: Our estimates of the pay-performance relation (including pay, options, stockholdings, and dismissal) for chief executive officers indicate that CEO wealth changes $3.25 for every $1,000 change in shareholder wealth. Although the incentives generated by stock ownership are large relative to pay and dismissal incentives, most CEOs hold trivial fractions of their firms' stock, and ownership levels have declined over the past 50 years. We hypothesize that public and private political forces impose constraints that reduce the payperformance sensitivity. Declines in both the pay-performance relation and the level of CEO pay since the 1930s are consistent with this hypothesis.

4,650 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: A Theory of Incentives in Procurement and Regulation (TIIN) as mentioned in this paper is a popular textbook for regulatory economics, with a particular focus on the regulation of natural monopolies such as military contractors, utility companies and transportation authorities.
Abstract: More then just a textbook, A Theory of Incentives in Procurement and Regulation will guide economists' research on regulation for years to come. It makes a difficult and large literature of the new regulatory economics accessible to the average graduate student, while offering insights into the theoretical ideas and stratagems not available elsewhere. Based on their pathbreaking work in the application of principal-agent theory to questions of regulation, Laffont and Tirole develop a synthetic approach, with a particular, though not exclusive, focus on the regulation of natural monopolies such as military contractors, utility companies, and transportation authorities. The book's clear and logical organization begins with an introduction that summarizes regulatory practices, recounts the history of thought that led to the emergence of the new regulatory economics, sets up the basic structure of the model, and previews the economic questions tackled in the next seventeen chapters. The structure of the model developed in the introductory chapter remains the same throughout subsequent chapters, ensuring both stability and consistency. The concluding chapter discusses important areas for future work in regulatory economics. Each chapter opens with a discussion of the economic issues, an informal description of the applicable model, and an overview of the results and intuition. It then develops the formal analysis, including sufficient explanations for those with little training in information economics or game theory. Bibliographic notes provide a historical perspective of developments in the area and a description of complementary research. Detailed proofs are given of all major conclusions, making the book valuable as a source of modern research techniques. There is a large set of review problems at the end of the book.

3,619 citations

Book
01 Jan 1993
TL;DR: A Theory of Incentives in Procurement and Regulation (TIIN) as mentioned in this paper is a popular textbook for regulatory economics, with a particular focus on the regulation of natural monopolies such as military contractors, utility companies and transportation authorities.
Abstract: More then just a textbook, A Theory of Incentives in Procurement and Regulation will guide economists' research on regulation for years to come. It makes a difficult and large literature of the new regulatory economics accessible to the average graduate student, while offering insights into the theoretical ideas and stratagems not available elsewhere. Based on their pathbreaking work in the application of principal-agent theory to questions of regulation, Laffont and Tirole develop a synthetic approach, with a particular, though not exclusive, focus on the regulation of natural monopolies such as military contractors, utility companies, and transportation authorities. The book's clear and logical organization begins with an introduction that summarizes regulatory practices, recounts the history of thought that led to the emergence of the new regulatory economics, sets up the basic structure of the model, and previews the economic questions tackled in the next seventeen chapters. The structure of the model developed in the introductory chapter remains the same throughout subsequent chapters, ensuring both stability and consistency. The concluding chapter discusses important areas for future work in regulatory economics. Each chapter opens with a discussion of the economic issues, an informal description of the applicable model, and an overview of the results and intuition. It then develops the formal analysis, including sufficient explanations for those with little training in information economics or game theory. Bibliographic notes provide a historical perspective of developments in the area and a description of complementary research. Detailed proofs are given of all major conclusions, making the book valuable as a source of modern research techniques. There is a large set of review problems at the end of the book.

3,602 citations


"Managerial Expertise, Private Infor..." refers background in this paper

  • ...10For asymmetric information models of procurement and regulation, see Baron and Myerson (1982), Laffont and Tirole (1984), and Laffont and Tirole (1993)....

    [...]

Trending Questions (1)
What are the specific information of does are pay?

The specific information about pay in the paper is related to the optimal pay-performance sensitivity of compensation contracts for managers with private information about their skills.