CEO pay-performance relationship is a topic that has been largely discussed and researched. Questions still remain on precisely how CEO remuneration is related to company performance. Recently, attention has shifted from how much executives are paid to how they are paid. The purpose of this paper is to find how CEO compensation structure relates to company performance in the auto industry. In order to achieve this aim, the CEO compensation is broken down into four components, namely: base salary, bonus, stocks and stock options, and pension. The company performance is measured by change in market value, since market information is forward looking, meaning future performance might be anticipated in advance by the markets. As such, decisions made whose positive or negative effects may occur later in the future are, if known by investors, priced into the market value. Each compensation component relative the total was tested for correlation with respective market capitalization change. However, the insignificant statistical results conclude that the compensation structure follows a relatively random pattern. Hence, no statistically significant relationship between CEO compensation structure and firm performance in the auto industry was found. The findings that there are no significant performance improvements for firms having a relatively bigger proportion of performance-based pay means that underlying theories, such as agency theory, may not be applicable in the industry.

I analyze the effect of various risks faced by commercial banks on the executive compensation in banking industry. Commercial bank executives are risk averse due to the regulatory pressure in addition to board governance mechanism. Commercial banks face various risks because of the regulatory mechanism and unique asset structure of the firm. So, it is expected that they should associate their own pay and pay-performance sensitivities (PPS) with the risks their banks face. I find that bank executives associate their performance based pay with both idiosyncratic risk and systematic risk. But they associate their fixed pay only with systematic risk. The risk based PPS is also affected by the idiosyncratic risk but not by the systematic risk. Both asset return risk and insolvency risk have significant positive effect on PPS. Bank executives put significantly higher emphasis on the fixed compensation in terms of salary and bonus, and significantly lower emphasis on the performance based compensation. They also put minimum emphasis on the risk based PPS although they put significant emphasis on return based PPS. These indicate the risk-averse nature of the bank executives due to the regulatory pressure in addition to board governance mechanism.

This study considers the determination of the ex ante pay-performance relationship. A single-period partial equilibrium model is used to show that the executive income can be expressed as a function of the firm's return expressed in dollar terms. The executive income is jointly determined by the opening firm size and current return, which function as a managerial talent proxy and self-selection mechanism respectively. Comparing to Jensen and Murphy (1990) wealth-based Pay-Performance Sensitivity (PPS), this research presents an income-based PPS. The alternative PPS not only overcomes a misleading misspecification in Jensen and Murphy (1990), but also corrects Rosen's (1992) argument for only including return in the pay performance relationship. This research finds empirically that both the opening firm size and stock return play a significant role in determining executive income. This study provides supplementary evidence to Murphy's (1986) Learning Model. However, shareholder income may not be an ideal performance measure in capturing the multi-period pay-performance relationship.

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.

Magister Commercii - MCom / As a result of high economic inequality, widespread discontent with excessive chief executive officer (CEO) compensation levels is acute in South Africa (SA). Some commentators argue that instead of high levels of CEO pay causing inequality, it may be part of the solution if higher levels of CEO compensation translate into better company performance, so reducing unemployment. International studies investigating the relationship between CEO short-term cash compensation and current company performance generally report a weak or no relationship where accounting based measures of performance are used. Developments in the international literature reflect a stronger relationship when long-term incentive compensation (LIC) is included and total shareholder return (TSR) used to measure company performance. However, a concerning negative association between the highest paid CEOs in terms of excess LIC and future abnormal TSR is reported. In contrast, SA pay-performance research is largely not reflective of the developments in the international literature, with local studies mostly finding no pay-performance relationship, except where size-related accounting measures are used. As a result of the strong correlation between CEO pay and company size reported in the international literature, and local studies not adequately controlling for company size, the accuracy of the conclusions drawn in prior studies on the pay-performance sensitivity relationship in SA are brought into question. This study addresses the gaps in the SA literature by investigating the relationship between the size-adjusted excess CEO compensation and future abnormal TSR for the top 100 SA companies listed on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange for the period 2011 to 2013. A positive relationship is found between future abnormal TSR and short-term cash compensation, but not LIC. The levels and structure of CEO compensation in SA is also described.

Executive remuneration has been discussed extensively in both academia and industry, causing much disagreement. This dilemma is not exclusive to South Africa as executive remuneration has been central in a number of company scandals globally and considered a critical contributor to the global financial crisis. The purpose of this research was to identify and compare the significant CEO pay-performance relationships between the developed and developing economies of Australian and South African publicly listed companies respectively. International comparisons of CEO pay-performance relationships are scarce, with the majority of studies comprising of only single-country analyses. Historical inconsistent remuneration practices of publicly listed companies have resulted in varied effects on company performance and shareholder value creation. CEOs are witnessed receiving large remuneration packages while delivering little shareholder value. Increased public attention has called for stringent corporate governance measures for CEO remunerations schemes. The research study was conducted as an empirical explanatory quantitative study to further understand the relationship between CEO remuneration practices and the financial performance of Australian and South African publicly listed companies. The overarching principal finding of the study was the confirmation of the difference in the significant pay-performance relationships between Australian and South African publicly listed companies, with results indicating that only a negligible portion of the variance in CEO remuneration can be attributed to financial performance measures. The increase in the globally mobility of CEOs has added an additional level of complexity to the pay-performance relationship. Contributing to the field of human resource management and remuneration this study builds on the understanding of CEO pay-performance relationship to maximise shareholder value creation and retain talented CEOs. / Mini Dissertation (MBA)--University of Pretoria, 2018. / Gordon Institute of Business Science (GIBS) / MBA / Unrestricted

<p>This dissertation explores the role of executive compensation in determining the capital structure decisions of a firm. CEOs experience a large personal cost of default that interacts through the risk adjusted probability of default with their compensation contract. Since default happens in a particularly costly state of the world for a CEO whose compensation contract consists primarily of pay for performance elements, i.e. a CEO who has a large personal equity stake in the firm, a large pay performance sensitivity is negatively and significantly associated with firm leverage choice. I document this effect in detail for the first time, and I show that it is both statistically robust and significant in magnitude, approximately 1\% of firm value. I show that this effect is driven by the stock holdings of the CEO, not the option holdings. I provide a simple principal agent model that explains the observed negative relationship and makes additional predictions on the relationship of other firm characteristics to pay performance sensitivity and leverage. I then test and confirm these predictions empirically using a standard OLS framework and an instrumental variable approach to control for endogeneity in the compensation contract. I also look at leverage adjustment speeds and show that CEOs with higher pay performance sensitivity adjust leverage upwards towards target values more slowly and downwards more quickly than their peers, and I interpret this as direct evidence that CEOs are actively managing personal risk through firm leverage choice.</p> / Dissertation

This paper analyses the pay-performance relationship in the English Premier League in order to isolate the determinants of success by regressing individual player salaries, and salaries relative to team-mates on the individual performance measures of goals and assists. A weighted OLS and fixed effects model is utilized alongside various control variables to conclude that the positive pay-performance relationship found at the team-level is not reflected at the individual level. The paper also determines that relative income position and various team-effects do not significantly impact individual performance.

The size of the remuneration paid to CEOs is a continuously debated area in society. In times of inflation, where the real wages are decreasing at the same time as the remuneration to CEOs are increasing, the phenomenon becomes more relevant. Is the remuneration paid to CEOs at a reasonable level? Are they getting paid in accordance with the performance of the company they manage? The purpose of this study is to see if there is a pay-performance relation in the most traded companies in Scandinavia. To fulfill the purpose, analyses were performed to test the relationship between CEOs remuneration and the financial performance of the firm they manage for the years 2018 to 2021. The sample consists of 71 companies that are listed on one of the indexes OMXS30, OMXC25 and OBX in Scandinavia. 28 out of the companies are Swedish, 23 Danish and 20 are Norwegian. Both the total and variable CEO remuneration in the companies were manually gathered from remuneration and annual reports and then tested against the financial performance measures Return on Assets and Total Investment Return. As the CEO is in an agency position where the shareholders work as the principals, an agency problem is present. To reduce the agency problem, incentives for the CEO to work in the shareholders’ best interest are important. One way of doing that is to design the CEOs remuneration package so it has a relation to the performance of the company. Originating from the Agency Theory, the Managerial Power and the Optimal Contracting theories try to explain the way these packages are designed. The Optimal Contracting theory explain that the design is to align the participants interest in order to maximize both parties’ outcomes, while the Managerial Power theory is explained as top executives possesses substantial power in the company, it enables them to extract higher remuneration than what is optimal for the shareholders. The empirical result showed a significant positive relationship between variable remuneration and both performance measures along with total remuneration and Total Invest Return. A positive relationship was found between total remuneration and Return on Assets, but not statistically significant. Based on the results a conclusion can be drawn that there is a pay-performance relation in companies listed on the main indexes in Scandinavia, and that the Optimal Contracting theory better explain the way remuneration packages are designed.

Major League Baseball (MLB) organizations spend millions of dollars each year on athletes with the end goal of winning a World Series title. However when an organization signs a player to a long term contract are they actually receiving the production that they paid for? Under the MLB's current form of player compensation players may not be properly motivated or at least not motivated to perform at their highest level. The intent of this thesis was to apply expectancy theory in assessing Major League Baseball's current form of player compensation. It evaluates how well players are currently motivated to perform on the field, and if any improvements can be made. This is done through the statistical analysis of MLB organizations yearly salary data, yearly win-loss record, and the performance of 65 players two years prior to, one year prior to, and during their first contract term directly following or extending past arbitration eligibility. Evidence shows that player motivation, especially for position players, can be increased and several suggestions are made as to how this can be improved and how MLB organizations can increase the odds of player production matching compensation.