本研究從家族治理、機構投資人持股、董事會組成、董事會效能之角度探討公司治理機制對企業績效與董監薪酬之影響。家族治理方面，家族持股愈多，企業績效愈好，但家族參與經營程度愈高，企業績效卻愈差；而家族治理下，董監薪酬水準、薪酬績效連結性均較低。機構投資者方面，本國金融機構持股愈高，企業績效愈高。董事會組成方面，董事長兼總經理下，企業績效較差、董監薪酬績效連結性較低，而執行董事、獨立董監席次比例愈高，企業績效、董監薪酬績效連結性均愈高；董事長兼總經理下及執行董事席次比例愈高時，董監薪酬水準愈低，而獨立董監席次比例愈高，董監薪酬水準愈高。董事會效能方面，正常營運下之企業，董事會開會次數愈多、出席率愈高，企業績效均提升；董事會出席率愈高，董監薪酬水準、薪酬績效連結性均愈高。 / The study uses family governance, institutional ownership, board structure, and board activities to empirically investigate the influence of corporate governance on firm performance and board compensation. Empirical result shows that the firm performance is higher when family ownership, institutional ownership, executive directors, independent board members, and board activities increase, and that the firm performance is lower when family involvement increase and when chairman and CEO is the same person. In addition, the board compensation is higher when independent board members and board activities increase, and the board compensation are lower when family governance, institutional ownership, executive directors increase and when chairman and CEO is the same person. Moreover, the pay-performance sensitivity is higher when institutional ownership, executive directors, independent board members, and board activities increase, and the pay-performance sensitivity is lower when family governance increase and when chairman and CEO is the same person.

本研究旨在探討公司規模及產業競爭對CEO現金薪酬與股票報酬敏感性之影響。根據Leone et al. (2006)之研究，認為依未實現利得而給付之現金薪酬將產生事後交割成本，未實現損失可能遞延CEO之決策責任。由於未實現損益可反映至股票報酬上，因此有效率的現金薪酬契約對含有未實現利得之正股票報酬的敏感性低於含有未實現損失之負股票報酬，顯示現金薪酬與正、負股票報酬之敏感性呈現不對稱關係。本研究以此文獻作延伸，探究CEO現金薪酬與股票報酬之敏感關聯性及其不對稱性關係是否受公司規模與產業競爭之影響。 以ExecuComp資料庫2000年至2009年的CEO現金薪酬樣本進行迴歸分析，結果發現公司規模愈大，現金薪酬對市場績效之敏感性愈大，顯示為避免CEO從事會計盈餘管理，公司現金薪酬之給付更著重於市場績效之衡量；產業競爭方面，產業競爭愈激烈，現金薪酬與市場績效之敏感性愈小，符合風險差異化假說。關於CEO現金薪酬與正、負股票報酬敏感性之不對稱關係，實證結果顯示大規模公司及產業競爭程度較高者對CEO決策之審慎性更加要求，因此CEO現金薪酬與正、負股票報酬敏感性之不對稱的差距愈大。 / This study investigates the effect of firm size and industry competition on the asymmetric sensitivity of CEO cash compensation to the stock returns. Leone et al. (2006) shows that since stock returns include both unrealized gains and losses, cash compensation would be less sensitive to stock returns when returns contains unrealized gains (positive returns) than when returns contain unrealized losses (negative returns). As an extension, this study examines whether firm size and industry competition affect the sensitivity of cash compensation to market performance and the asymmetry of sensitivity of cash compensation to stock returns. Based on the CEO cash compensation during 2000 and 2009 from ExecuComp database, the empirical results show that the firm size has positive effect on sensitivity of cash compensation to market performance while the industry competition has negative effect. Moreover, the asymmetry of sensitivity of CEO cash compensation to stock returns increases as firm size and industry competition increase.

Il presente contributo esamina il consiglio d’amministrazione delle società aventi azioni quotate in Borsa Italiana, e le retribuzioni destinate ai suoi membri, alla luce delle numerose innovazioni dell’ordinamento giuridico italiano e seguendo quella linea di analisi recentemente proposta dalla letteratura avente alla propria base l’idea che gli amministratori possono influenzare a proprio vantaggio i termini del pay-package loro corrisposto. A tal fine l’elaborato presenta una struttura articolata in due parti, nella prima delle quali viene fornita una visione organica dell’assetto istituzionale in cui l’analisi empirica, prodotta nella seconda, trova il proprio presupposto. Più specificatamente, la prima parte della tesi fornisce un’analisi giuridico-finanziaria della figura dell’amministratore (Capitolo 1) e del consiglio d’amministrazione (Capitolo 2), che risulta, oltre che assente in letteratura, quantomai attuale alla luce delle numerose e recenti riforme normative introdotte in materia. La normativa primaria, costituita dagli articoli del codice civile riguardanti gli amministratori ed i sistemi d’amministrazione e controllo (libro V, sezione VI bis, del Codice Civile) e dalle disposizioni contenute nel T.U.F., va oggi infatti completata con le nuove disposizioni contabili derivanti dall’applicazione degli IAS, ed in particolare dell’IFRS2, con le novità introdotte dalla cosiddetta Nuova Legge sul Risparmio (D. L. n. 262/2006), con le linee di comportamento descritte nella terza versione del Codice di Autodisciplina (Best Practice Code, 2006), con le prescrizioni di tipo previdenziale e fiscale contenute nelle Leggi "Finanziaria" del 2006 e del 2007, nonché con le novità in materia di governance bancaria volute da Mario Draghi (emanate a Marzo di quest’anno ma da recepire entro il 30 Giugno 2009). La seconda parte dell’elaborato, prendendo spunto dai diversi approcci utilizzati in letteratura (Capitolo 3), e con riferimento al contesto italiano, fornisce invece un’analisi empirica del sistema di compenso applicato agli amministratori. Dapprima è tracciata, relativamente al periodo indagato (1999-2006), la dinamica temporale della ricchezza distribuita ai propri amministratori dalle società italiane. Successivamente viene fornita una stima dell’intensità degli incentivi impliciti nei directors’ pay-packages (i.e. pay-performance sensitivity), unitamente ad una analisi delle determinanti che ne sono alla base. L’ipotesi che guida tale parte del lavoro è che in un contesto caratterizzato da proprietà concentrata, a causa della capacità dell’azionista di maggioranza di estrarre risorse dalla società, è ragionevole presumere che gli amministratori risultino destinatari di una remunerazione meno sensibile alle performances dell’impresa e tendenzialmente più elevata. Più semplicemente la questione che viene posta è se gli amministratori scontano la possibilità d’espropriazione, componendo convenientemente il proprio pacchetto di compenso. I risultati ottenuti confermano la validità dell’impianto d’ipotesi proposto ed evidenziano che la qualità della corporate governance è la variabile chiave. Le imprese dotate di un efficace ed efficiente governo societario riescono a controllare il processo di formazione delle remuneration policies impedendone manipolazioni opportunistiche. Le imprese caratterizzate da weak corporate governance risultano invece non solo incapaci di attuare politiche retributive volte alla massimizzazione del valore d’impresa, ma anche esposte all’estrazione di risorse da parte dei propri amministratori. / What the largest corporation pay their top managers is one of the most analyzed topics in corporate finance since Jensen and Murphy, 1990. As they noted (Jensen and Murphy 2004), a well-designed remuneration package for executives attracts the right executives at the lowest cost; retains them at the lowest cost (i.e. encourage the right executives to leave the firm at the appropriate time); and motivates executives to take actions that create long-run shareholder value and avoid actions that destroy value. However, several recent studies have shown that the characteristics of real world compensation contracts rarely meet their counterparts in compensation contracting theory because of the executives’ capability to influence the terms of their compensation package to their personal advantage. For example, Yermack (1997) provides evidence that executives influence timing of their stock option awards, receiving at-the money options just prior to releasing news that increases company stock prices. Bebchuk, Fried, and Walker (2002) and Bebchuk and Fried (2003, 2004) argue that the practice of granting options at-the-money (rather than out-of-the-money or with exercise prices indexed to market movements) reflects the influence of rent-seeking managers trying to maximize their compensation in ways that are largely camouflaged to investors and the public. Going ahead, others empirical research give proofs that the executives’ power to influence their pay package is stronger when shareholders are diffuse and more passive (Bertrand and Mullainathan, 2001), and when the corporate governance is weaker (Garvey and Milbourn, 2006; Harford and Li, 2007). At the same time, the expropriation literature shown that dominant shareholders, especially in firms with poor corporate governance (Klapper and Love, 2004; Durnev and Kim, 2005; Dahya, Dimitrov and McConnell, 2008) and in countries with weak legal protection (La Porta, Lopez-de-Silanes, Shleifer and Vishny, 2002; Claessens, Djankov, Fan and Lang, 2002; Durnev and Kim, 2005), are able to divert resources from others shareholders to himself for personal consumption. Since expropriation implies fewer resources assignable to marginal shareholder, the firms which are ex ante more likely to be expropriated, trade at discounted valuations. Despite the considerable empirical evidence on the costs bore both by the dominant shareholder and by the minorities in case of expropriation, the literature doesn’t provide evidence of the cost supported by directors. Expropriation, in fact, represents, ex ante, a cost also for directors. First, it’s a direct cost which negatively affects the expected overall compensation rewarded, when directors have part of their remuneration which is tied to company’s performances. Since expropriation is a net loss for the company, which leads to a correspondent fall in the company market valuation, the closer is the alignment of directors’ interests with those of shareholders, the bigger is this cost. Second, since directors have to perceive the maximization of shareholders’ wealth (i.e. avoid loss of it), expropriation should affect negatively the director’s reputation capital. This work examines the director’s compensation in firms which are more likely to be expropriated by their dominant shareholders. In essence, the question I address is whether directors discount the expropriation’s possibility, setting up conveniently their compensation’s contract. I explore this issue using a sample of directors’ compensation data of Italian Listed firms made up over the period 1999-2006. The case of Italian Listed companies is of particular interest for several concomitant reasons. First, Italian firms have been historically more prone to choosing a closely-held ownership structure characterized by a wide separation between ownership and control (Johnson, La Porta, Lopez de Silanes and Shleifer, 2000; Faccio and Lang, 2002; Volpin, 2002; and Barontini and Caprio, 2006; Mengoli, Pazzaglia, and Sapienza, 2006). Second, Italy is a country where the low protection of minority shareholders allows controlling shareholder to extract a considerable amount of private benefits (Bigelli and Mengoli, 2004; McCahery and Vermeulen, 2004; and Bigelli, Merhotra and Rau, 2006). Finally, Italy is a country where the high dominant shareholder’s capability to replace directors and where the low efficiency of the job-market of directors, provide narrowed incentives to directors in order to effective monitoring dominant shareholder’s actions (Barontini and Caprio, 2002; Volpin, 2002). Overall, results confirm the testable hypotheses, and provide evidence of the key-role exerted by corporate governance. Firms with strong corporate governance are able to monitor the compensation policies creation process avoiding opportunistic manipulation. On the opposite, firms with weak system of corporate governance seem unable to implement compensation policies directed at the firm value maximization, and, going ahead, seem to be expropriated also by theirs directors.