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
Xiaoli Liu1, Yanli Xu1
TL;DR: The analysis mainly demonstrates that the optimal pay-performance sensitivity is positively related with the graduate’s professional skills and the degree to which professional skills are general in the setting of asymmetric information.
Abstract: This paper considers an optimization problem for an enterprise (she) who employs a graduate (he) getting qualification from vocational schools by designing a compensation contract. The vocational school graduate’s reservation wage depends on his professional skills and the degree to which the skills are general. Moreover, the vocational graduate has asymmetric information about the professional skills which are unknown to the enterprise. In order to maximize the enterprise’s expected profit and elicit the vocational graduate’s true skills, a compensation contract optimization model is established based on principal-agent theory. The analysis mainly demonstrates that the optimal pay-performance sensitivity is positively related with the graduate’s professional skills and the degree to which professional skills are general in the setting of asymmetric information. Furthermore, when general skills are relatively large, the optimal pay-performance sensitivity plays a more important role than the fixed wage in the total compensation structure. In contrast, the enterprise only pays a fixed wage to the vocational graduate and the pay-performance sensitivity is zero in a benchmark setting of symmetric information. Finally, the sensitive analysis shows the effects of the related parameters on the optimal pay-performance sensitivity, respectively.

Cites background from "Managerial Expertise, Private Infor..."

  • ...The detailed proof of Proposition 2 can refer to the appendix of Dutta [20]....

    [...]

  • ...We assume that FðhÞ=f ðhÞ is increasing and the inverse hazard rate ð1 FðhÞÞ=f ðhÞ is decreasing, which are common monotonicity conditions in private information agency literature [20]....

    [...]

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, the authors propose a model consisting of an insurance distribution channel compensation scheme, paying special attention to the insurer's choice of distribution system in both single-period and multi-period settings.
Abstract: In this article, we propose a model consisting of an insurance distribution channel compensation scheme, paying special attention to the insurer’s choice of distribution system in both single-period and multi-period settings. We find that the risk factor is the key element in both the insurer’s choice of distribution channel and the distribution channel compensation scheme. The advantage of having an independent underwriter is mainly manifested in lines of business that are more risky. Our analysis suggests that a profit-sharing contingent-commission scheme serves as a risk-sharing mechanism and is especially effective with risky business lines.

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

  • ...This observation is consistent with Cheng and Powers (2008), and Dutta (2008) finding that performance and pay-performance sensitivity are positively correlated....

    [...]

  • ...This finding is different from previous accounting literature stating compensation is negatively related with cost when agent is risk averse (Dutta 2008; Holmstrom 1979; Holmstrom and Milgrom 1991)....

    [...]

  • ...This finding complies with Dutta (2008) that risk and incentives are positively associated with general managerial expertise and Bernardo et al. (2001) that “… optimal sharing-rule increases in importance of managerial effort…” In addition, the larger is the underwriting risk factor, the higher…...

    [...]

  • ...This finding is different from previous accounting literature stating compensation is negatively related with cost when agent is risk averse (Dutta 2008; Holmstrom 1979; Holmstrom and Milgrom 1991). In Holmstrom & Milgrom (1991) framework, the agent is risk averse so shifting the risk to the agent entails an efficiency cost....

    [...]

  • ...242 S. Gao and J. M. Plehn-Dujowich This finding is different from previous accounting literature stating compensation is negatively related with cost when agent is risk averse (Dutta 2008; Holmstrom 1979; Holmstrom and Milgrom 1991)....

    [...]

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper , the authors examined the relationship between senior management turnover, wage structures, and organizational efficiency in the banking industry in Pakistan and found that pay-performance sensitivity, R&D investment, and firm age positively impact organizational efficiency.
Abstract: This study examines the relationship between senior management turnover, wage structures, and organizational efficiency in the banking industry in Pakistan. Using secondary panel data from annual reports of commercial banks and multiple regression techniques, the study finds that pay-performance sensitivity, R&D investment, and firm age positively impact organizational efficiency. At the same time, higher expense ratios are negatively associated with efficiency. CEO turnover, duality, and board size have a relatively low impact on efficiency. This study provides valuable insights for managers and policymakers in the banking sector, highlighting key areas that should be prioritized to improve efficiency, reduce costs, and increase financial performance. By offering a roadmap for decision-makers to focus their efforts, this study provides a valuable framework for achieving tremendous success in the banking industry.
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors study how a profit-maximizing platform implements a new policy from which a representative retailer also experiences a private externality, and show that when the policy is highly valuable for the platform's own interest, the platform may charge a fee from the retailer and then promise a less aggressive policy coverage.
Abstract: In this paper, we study how a profit-maximizing platform implements a new policy, from which a representative retailer also experiences a private externality. Our analysis suggests that: (1) when the policy is highly valuable for the platform’s own interest, the platform may charge a fee from the retailer and then promise a less aggressive policy coverage; (2) when the policy is considerably expensive, in order to implement it, the platform may compensate the retailer and then share the full pie of the latter’s revenue; (3) when the policy is mediocre to the platform, a hybrid occurs, where the platform may either charge a fee from the retailer or compensate to capture a portion of the retailer’s realized revenue. Lastly, we carry out a series of comparative statics to show the impact on policy implementation when the externality distribution and the platform’s self-interest change.
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, the authors argue that the optimal materiality thresholds are asymmetrical and contingent on firms' reports and identify the conditions under which the investor may benefit from auditors' attestation services.
Abstract: Regulators have proposed materiality standards in order to mitigate audit costs resulted from the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. We argue that materiality thresholds are a two-edged sword. Restrictive materiality thresholds increase the cost of misstatements, thereby reducing the cost of information asymmetry and increasing investment efficiency. However, investors may be negatively affected by litigation friction resulted from noisy audit evidence and inefficient legal systems. This economic trade-off creates the demand for materiality thresholds. We find that the optimal materiality thresholds are asymmetrical and contingent on firms’ reports. Investors impose restrictive materiality if firms’ reports are optimistic; otherwise, the discrepancy between audit evidence and firms’ reports may be ignored. We further identify the conditions under which the investor may benefit from auditors’ attestation services. Our analysis implies that a mandatory materiality threshold imposed by the Act may lead to investment inefficiency.
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.