<p>Chief executive officer’s (CEO) compensation and its optimal level is an interesting and important topic. How successful and skilled are shareholders monitoring and making changes in its level and its mix? Ownership dispersion is an important determinant of it. In this study we try to answer this question from the perspective of institutional shareholders as they hold a substantial part of equity in firms. The paper sheds light on institutional ownership dispersion effect on CEO total and cash compensation in Sweden.</p><p>Analysing data from the 26 largest companies listed on Stockholm Stock Exchange over the time period 2004 - 2008 we find that institutional ownership concentration decreases top executive officer’s total and cash compensation. We also find that small institutional shareholdings are positively associated with chief executive officer’s total and cash compensation. Overall this relationship suggests that institutions are powerful monitors of corporate governance.</p>

The purpose of this paper is to determine the extent to which culture, in six European and two North-American countries, affects CEO compensation. If differences in culture between countries can provide an explanation for cross-national differences in CEO compensation, it may increase multinational corporations understanding of how to design CEO compensations in the countries where they operate. Acquiring such knowledge would maximize the effect of their compensation plans. The study relates cultural dimensions to total CEO compensation and the ratio between variable compensation and total CEO compensation. Cultural data, which comprises the study’s theoretical foundation, is based on the GLOBE study (House et al., 2004). Of the GLOBE study’s nine cultural dimensions, the study examines the five dimensions found most relevant to CEO compensation practices; performance orientation, uncertainty avoidance, institutional collectivism, future orientation and power distance. The research has been conducted through a regression analysis of 240, both private and publically listed companies. Companies with a turnover above €49 million or at least 250 employees were randomly chosen in Sweden, Germany, Netherlands, United States, Canada, France, Ireland and United Kingdom. The study’s results shows that the cultural dimensions examined, to different extent do affect CEO compensation. The results show total CEO compensation to be negatively related to institutional collectivism, power distance and performance orientation. Further, total CEO compensation is positively related to future orientation. The proportion of variable compensation to total CEO compensation is negatively related to institutional collectivism and uncertainty avoidance. The proportion of variable compensation to total CEO compensation is positively related with future orientation. Thus we conclude that culture can contribute to understand cross-national differences in CEO compensation.

Nowadays financial fraud scheme become more and more prevalent in public-traded companies in western and oriental countries. Many finance-related literatures realize and put stress on the importance of corporate governance. In this study, we would like to explore the relationship between audit committee and CEO compensation and equity incentives. We use multiple regression as methodology, take the public companies in technological field in Taiwan as sample from 2005 to 2010. We discover that, there is a positive relationship between the ratio of the number of independent directors divided by the audit committee members and the CEO compensation; there is no significant relationship between the ratio of the number of independent directors also serve as CEO directors in other firms divided by the audit committee members and the CEO compensation; there is a negative relationship between the ratio of the number of financial-accounting expertise divided by the audit committee members and the CEO compensation. And with regard to the equity incentives, there is no significant relationship between the ratio of the number of independent directors divided by the audit committee members, the ratio of the number of independent directors also serve as CEO directors in other firms divided by the audit committee members, the ratio of the number of financial-accounting expertise divided by the audit committee members and equity incentives.

This paper investigates the impact of accounting earnings on Chief Executive Officer (CEO) compensation by examining how the valuation role and the contracting role of accounting earnings jointly determine the value of CEO total compensation. Current earnings are informative about the firms future cash flows and hence affect stock price, and the resulting price movement affects the value of CEO equity-based compensation. Thus, accounting earnings not only have a direct impact on CEO cash compensation, but also an indirect impact on CEO equity-based compensation due to earnings valuation role. To my knowledge, this paper is the first to provide empirical evidence that because of earnings valuation role, accounting earnings are an economically significant determinant of CEO total compensation. Prior accounting research testing predictions of agent theory has focused on CEO cash compensation even though total compensation is a more relevant measure. Thus, the significant result of earnings in CEO total compensation enables re-examination of agency predictions. I provide evidence that earnings (but not stock returns) are used in CEO total compensation consistent with the sensitivity vs. precision hypothesis. That is, accounting earnings receive less weight when earnings are relatively more volatile and when firms have significant growth opportunities.

Abstract Chief executive officer (CEO) compensation is a potent instrument through which people and investors can improve their understanding of organization substance and symbol. Good compensation package can not only improve the performance of worker but also lift employees¡¦ commitment to work. However, we are not so sure about the positive association between CEO compensation and firm performance because of the existing of ¡§agency theory¡¨. The degrees of alignment of interests with those of the agents in the firm who control the major decisions in the firm are also different. This gives rise to potential conflicts among the stakeholders, and these incentive conflicts have now come to know as ¡§agency (principal-agent) problem¡¨. Being desirous of the problem, this thesis reviews and integrates the literature on CEO compensation, focusing on both determinants and consequences of this complex, often controversial phenomenon. Thus, a model of the determinants of CEO compensation is presented and investigated. Based on a sample of 422 from Taiwan listed companies, I investigated the data both from Taiwan Economic Journal (TEJ) and the annual report of each listed company to combine in order to examine the compensation model. The definition of CEO in this thesis is one of the following three identities: chairmen of the board, general managers, and people who serve as both positions, that is, CEO duality. Hypotheses are tested and the study finds that CEO compensation has complex links to several factors: firm sizes, performance, stock return, and board stock ownership. The main factors for deciding CEO compensation are economic determinants and the only significant board control variable is board stock ownership. Contrary to some foreign literature, the index of duality is not significant at all since that people who serve as both chairmen and general manager obtain below average compensation level than others. In summary, the thesis provides the different results of a matrix of different identities and industries, and hopes to have some contribution to following research.

This study examines the existence of pay-performance sensitivity in total compensation and bonus during the financial crisis, using data between 2007-2010 from Swedish 196 listed firms. We perform panel data regression analysis of CEO compensation on financial performance measured as stock returns. Our results indicate that there is, although not significant, a weak positive relationship between CEO compensation and firm performance during 2007-2010. However during 2009-2010 in a market state defined as post-crisis we find weak negative pay-performance sensitivity at a significance level of 10 %. Nevertheless, as regards to the bonus paid to executives there was a significantly positive relationship relative bonus % and firm performance. These results contribute to our understanding of the pay-performance sensitivity in times of financial disturbance, highly relevant to the existing debate considering CEO compensation.

Chief executive officer’s (CEO) compensation and its optimal level is an interesting and important topic. How successful and skilled are shareholders monitoring and making changes in its level and its mix? Ownership dispersion is an important determinant of it. In this study we try to answer this question from the perspective of institutional shareholders as they hold a substantial part of equity in firms. The paper sheds light on institutional ownership dispersion effect on CEO total and cash compensation in Sweden. Analysing data from the 26 largest companies listed on Stockholm Stock Exchange over the time period 2004 - 2008 we find that institutional ownership concentration decreases top executive officer’s total and cash compensation. We also find that small institutional shareholdings are positively associated with chief executive officer’s total and cash compensation. Overall this relationship suggests that institutions are powerful monitors of corporate governance.

I investigate the relation between CEO equity compensation and employee layoffs. In particular, this study seeks to examine CEO stock-based incentives and managerial opportunism behavior for the sample of CEOs of firms announcing layoffs during 1997-2006. I investigate two issues. First, I measure the extent of CEO stock selling in the year of the announcement of employee layoffs. CEOs may want to avoid negative press coverage regarding their compensation because it may send a negative signal to the market if they reduce the companies' work force and may choose to not sell equity, which is consistent with efficient contracting theory. I find different responses by layoff CEOs toward stock option awards and toward option exercise. Layoff CEOs sell substantial shares after receiving stock options to diversify their portfolio risk, especially during a boom economy and with layoffs constituting a greater percentage of a firm's workforce. They, however, retain substantial amount of shares acquired on the exercise of options to avoid intensive negative press coverage on both layoff and option exercises. Second, I examine CEOs' opportunistic behavior to maximize their stock-based compensation value by controlling the timing of stock option awards surrounding layoff announcements, or by controlling the timing of layoff news announcements. My finding provides evidence that CEOs of firms announcing employee layoffs are more likely to receive stock options in advance of value-enhancing layoff announcements but subsequent to value-destroying layoff announcements. However, my results show that these stock prices start declining after news of CEO stock option awards are disclosed in proxy statements (which are published approximately three months after the end of company fiscal years). This may indicate that the stock market responds negatively to this "your pain, my gain" leadership style, as that corporate executives of firms announcing layoffs may have no ethic of shared sacrifice. Overall, I find that negative press coverage may motivate CEOs of firms announcing layoffs to substantially change their portfolio or ownership. Public scrutiny also limits CEOs' ability of conducting opportunistic behavior regarding manipulation of the timing of option awards and layoff announcements.

This dissertation consists of three essays on director compensation, CEO compensation, executive dismissal, and Delaware incorporation. Delaware incorporation is popular among publicly traded firms. However, the question of whether Delaware incorporation favors shareholders is an on-going debate. In the first essay, if Delaware incorporation indeed favors shareholders, it is expected that directors in Delaware firms are more likely to be encouraged to perform monitoring roles than those in non-Delaware firms. By using a sample of 620 Delaware firms and 437 non-Delaware firms from 2002 to 2005 in ExecuComp, we first find that Delaware firms pay their directors more compensation than non-Delaware firms. Second, Delaware firms tend to hold more meetings per year than non-Delaware firms. Finally, pay-performance sensitivities of cash compensation, equity compensation, and total compensation to shareholder wealth in Delaware firms are greater than those in non-Delaware firm. Therefore, Delaware incorporation appears to encourage effective board monitoring. This essay is the first attempt to examine director compensation by considering the role of state of incorporation. The findings support the view of "race to the top" (Winter, 1977) on Delaware incorporation. The second essay examines the impact of Delaware incorporation on how effectively directors monitor CEOs and protect the interests of shareholders. If directors do effectively monitor CEOs, the excess CEO compensation is expected to be positively related to firm performance. Following the method described in Brick et al. (2006), we find evidence that director excess compensation is significantly and positively related to CEO compensation in both Delaware and non-Delaware firms. However, unlike excess CEO compensation in Delaware firms, excess CEO compensation in non-Delaware firms is negatively associated with firm performance. Therefore, director compensation in non-Delaware firms may not be a more effective incentive for these directors to monitor CEOs than that in Delaware firms. The dismissal decision that a firm makes may be affected by state corporate law. The third essay examines the impact of Delaware incorporation on a firm's choice of top management dismissal decisions. If Delaware incorporation indeed favors shareholders, we expect Delaware firms are more likely to dismiss their management members than non-Delaware firms when firms experience poor performance. We use the classification of top management dismissals defined in Boeker (1992). Our sample includes 388 firms that dismiss neither CEOs nor any lower-level executives (Type 1), 55 firms that dismiss CEOs but let lower-level executives stay (Type 2), 134 firms that dismiss lower-level executives but let CEOs stay (Type 3), and 59 firms that dismiss both CEOs and lower-level executives (Type 4) from 1993 to 2005. First, we find that a Delaware firm is more likely to dismiss at least one executive, either its CEO or a lower-level executive, than to dismiss neither the CEO nor any lower-level executive in a poorly performing year. However, this result only holds if we compare Type 1 firms with Type 3 firms. Second, Delaware firms are not more likely to dismiss their CEOs than non-Delaware firms. The results suggest that Delaware firms do not act significantly differently from non-Delaware firms on the choice of top management dismissal decisions when the firms experience poor performance. Therefore, Delaware incorporation alone may not be an effective external corporate governance mechanism to discipline poorly performing executives.

The objective of this research is to test the expensing of stock options as part of CEO compensation to earnings quality. Agency theory posits a conflict between the CEO's own self-interest and that of the owners who seek to maximize the long term value of their investment. To avoid this conflict compensation should align and bond these parties. Data was retrieved from Compustat, ExecuComp and Corporate Governance databases spanning the years of 2000 through 2009. The Dechow and Dichev (2002) earnings quality model using the change in working capital and error terms taken as the residuals was utilized. All hypotheses used earnings quality as a proxy for management choices and as the predictive power of accruals. The first hypothesis indicated granting of CEO stock options has a positive association to earnings quality. The second hypothesis tests the implementation of SFAS 123 (R) by expensing stock options and the association to earnings quality. The third and final hypothesis utilized the number of BOD members as to compare the association between expensing stock options as part of CEO compensation and earnings quality. Empirical support for all three hypotheses was found and consistent with expectations established by other research using earnings quality methodologies. Both the granting and expensing of stock options as part of CEO compensation has an association to earnings quality. There exists a stronger association between expensing stock options and earnings quality when firms have a larger number of BOD members. Support for agency theory was discovered because all three hypotheses were supported. This study was limited to U.S. firms that were publicly traded on major U.S. exchanges and only CEO compensation. Other executive compensation was not included. These limitations provide opportunities for future research. Knowledge was gained by exploring the earnings quality measures for evidence of bonding and alignment theory. This study extends the research in earnings quality by examining the relationship of granting and expensing of stock options as per SFAS 123 (R). It also contributes to the work in SFAS 123 (R) by testing four years before and after 2005, when implementation occurred.