The specific purpose of this study will be: (1) to find what factors determine the amount of pay that executives in twenty-five Texas companies receive, and how personal factors are ranked in setting their salaries; (2) to determine present and proposed utilization of formal job evaluation methods among the twenty-five Texas companies in setting executive salaries; (3) to find which methods of remuneration are used for executives of different levels in the twenty-five Texas companies; (4) to determine who has the final responsibility for the administration of executive salaries in the twenty-five Texas companies; and (5) to determine the means used in appraising executive merit or worth in determining salary adjustments while an individual remains in the same position.

No description available.

Executive pay research has traditionally focused on salary, severance payments and longterm incentives. A systematic rigorous empirical examination of short-term annual bonuses is lacking. To address this omission, this research empirically examines the relationship between short-term bonuses and firm performance (TSR and EPS), in the UK. It also considers the association between form of bonus payment (i.e. cash/shares), and type of performance target (i.e. hard/soft and simple/complex) with bonus and performance. Furthermore, firm size and particular corporate governance factors are included (i.e. NED ratio on remuneration committee, CEO presence on nominations committee, CEO/Chair duality, tenure, and power) to examine their relationship with bonus value. From a sample of 299 firms listed in the FTSE-350 (1,542 executives including 300 CEOs), this study uses two competing theories (i.e. agency and power theory) to provide a fuller explanation of the subtleties of the pay-performance relation. The main findings support the agency view, since bonus is positively and significantly associated with financial performance. As with previous studies on executive bonus pay this association remains weak. By implication, power theory is not supported. However, other findings indicate: (1) although firm size may change, the proportion of bonus pay relative to salary does not vary. This suggests that large and small firms pay out proportionally similar bonuses; (2) cash bonuses are not positively related with the total value of bonus pay, suggesting that they are not any more open to abuse than other methods of compensation, as agency theory would predict; (3) cash bonuses encourage short-term achievement, as predicted by power theory; (4) consistent with agency theory, share-based bonuses are positively related to bonus pay and performance (weak association), suggesting that share-based bonuses (rather than cash bonuses) may be more effective at aligning pay with performance; (5) in line with agency theory, transparency (i.e. hard (external/published) and simple bonus conditions) is positively associated with performance, providing support for the alignment between principals' and agents' interests; (6) detailed bonus scheme characteristics are generally insensitive to performance and are becoming increasingly softer (i.e. more internal/unspecified targets) and complex (i.e. multiple targets). On the power view, these may create opportunities for executives to mask weak performance and extract greater rents; (7) governance factors are insignificant, suggesting that efforts to improve this area may be wasted, since they mainly leave pay-performance sensitivities unaffected. However, based on power theory, weak governance may foster the rise of powerful executives and widen the pay-performance gap. Therefore, it is suggested that close monitoring of executive pay must continue and shareholders should remain vigilant.

Submitted by Pedro Hofmeister (pedromh@gmail.com) on 2018-03-23T13:18:34Z No. of bitstreams: 1 Dissertação-MPA-Hofmeister-vf3.pdf: 832446 bytes, checksum: dc761531a703961644cef75bc4af9897 (MD5) / Approved for entry into archive by Mayara Costa de Sousa (mayara.sousa@fgv.br) on 2018-03-26T18:58:10Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 Dissertação-MPA-Hofmeister-vf3.pdf: 832446 bytes, checksum: dc761531a703961644cef75bc4af9897 (MD5) / Approved for entry into archive by Suzane Guimarães (suzane.guimaraes@fgv.br) on 2018-03-27T12:54:10Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 Dissertação-MPA-Hofmeister-vf3.pdf: 832446 bytes, checksum: dc761531a703961644cef75bc4af9897 (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2018-03-27T12:54:10Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Dissertação-MPA-Hofmeister-vf3.pdf: 832446 bytes, checksum: dc761531a703961644cef75bc4af9897 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2018-03-02 / This study focuses on the relation between the pay and performance of executives of Brazilian publicly listed firms. We used a series of multiple linear regressions with OLS estimation to investigate whether compensation is positively associated with shareholder return. Our sample includes 525 observations and comprises a three-year period (2014, 2015 and 2016). We find that, in general, pay is positively associated with performance but that this sensitivity is not sufficiently large. We also confirm that stock-based compensation and a higher governance level are important for aligning pay and performance. Firms with concentrated ownership tend to pay less, which suggests that monitoring decreases the need of pay to align incentives or reduces the power of executives to set their own compensation. Finally, our model suggests that fixed compensation is adjusted to meet the reservation utility and information rent whereas variable compensation serves to address moral hazard. / Este estudo enfoca a relação entre remuneração dos executivos, desempenho da empresa e retorno para o acionista de executivos de empresas brasileiras de capital aberto. Utilizamos uma série de regressões lineares múltiplas com estimativa de mínimos quadrados comuns (OLS) para investigar se a remuneração dos executivos está positivamente associada ao retorno do acionista. Nossos dados foram coletados do Formulário Referência da BM&FBOVESPA (equivalente ao SEC 20-F), Economatica e Bloomberg, e nossa amostra incluiu 525 observações e compreende um período de três anos (2014, 2015 e 2016) com dados de 175 empresas. Concluímos que, em geral, o pagamento está positivamente associado ao desempenho, mas que essa sensibilidade não é suficiente. Também confirmamos que a remuneração que inclui opções, bem como empresas com um nível de governança superior são fatores importantes para alinhar o salário e o desempenho. As empresas com controle concentrado tendem a pagar menos, o que sugere que o monitoramento diminui a necessidade de incentivos financeiros para alinhar interesses ou diminui o poder dos executivos para estabelecer sua própria remuneração.