[We assemble a sample of 983 equity-based awards that include either an accelerated-or a contingent-vesting provision tied to firm performance and explore the frequency, contractual nature, usage, and implications of such awards. We find that performance-vesting (p-v) provisions specify meaningful performance hurdles and provide significant incentives for executives. The propensity to use p-v provisions is positively related to the arrival of a new CEO and the proportion of outsiders on the board of directors and negatively related to prior stock performance. Performance-vesting firms have significantly better subsequent operating performance than control firms. Abnormal accounting performance does not arise from earnings management or discernible differences in financial or investment policy.]

J. Carr Bettis, John M. Bizjak, Michael L. Lemmon, Managerial Ownership, Incentive Contracting, and the Use of Zero-Cost Collars and Equity Swaps by Corporate Insiders, The Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Vol. 36, No. 3 (Sep., 2001), pp. 345-370

Using a large data set of performance goals employed in executive incentive contracts, we find that a disproportionately large number of firms exceed their goals by a small margin as compared to the number that fall short of the goal by a similar margin. This asymmetry is particularly acute for earnings goals, when compensation is contingent on a single goal, when the pay-performance relationship around the goal is concave-shaped, and for grants with non-equity-based payouts. Firms that exceed their compensation target by a small margin are more likely to beat the target the next period and CEOs of firms that miss their targets are more likely to experience a forced turnover. Firms that just exceed their Earnings Per Share (EPS) goals have higher abnormal accruals and lower Research and Development (R&D) expenditures, and firms that just exceed their profit goals have lower Selling, General and Administrative (SG&A) expenditures. Overall, our results highlight some of the costs of linking managerial compensation to specific compensation targets.

We use a large database on ESO exercises to document characteristics of exercise behavior and calibrate a utility-based model for measuring how differences in exercise behavior are manifested in option values and incentives. Option values and incentives computed from the model calibrations are compared to those computed from models used to value tradable options. Our analysis provides guidance to both academics and practitioners about how differences in exercise behavior and model choice affect measures of ESO values and incentives, and underscores the importance of gaining a thorough understanding of the underlying economic forces that affect the behavior of ESO holders.

The usage of performance-vesting (p-v) equity awards to top executives in large U.S. companies has grown from 20 to 70 percent from 1998 to 2012. We measure the effects of p-v provisions on value, delta, and vega of equity-based compensation. We find large differences in the value of p-v awards reported in company disclosures versus economic value. We also find that equity-based grants continue to convey significant compensation convexity (vega) after ASC 718 (2005) and that, counter to recent claims in the literature, our analysis empirically reaffirms the presence of a causal relation between compensation convexity (vega) and firm risk.

We assemble a sample of 983 equity-based awards that include either an accelerated- or a contingent-vesting provision tied to firm performance and explore the frequency, contractual nature, usage, and implications of such awards. We find that performance-vesting (p-v) provisions specify meaningful performance hurdles and provide significant incentives for executives. The propensity to use p-v provisions is positively related to the arrival of a new CEO and the proportion of outsiders on the board of directors and negatively related to prior stock performance. Performance-vesting firms have significantly better subsequent operating performance than control firms. Abnormal accounting performance does not arise from earnings management or discernible differences in financial or investment policy.