We analyze a setting in which a board must hire a chief executive officer (CEO) after exerting effort to learn about the quality of each candidate. Optimal effort is asymmetric, implying asymmetric likelihoods of each candidate being chosen. If the board has an infinitesimal bias in favor of one candidate, it allocates effort to maximize the likelihood of that candidate being chosen. Even when the board's prior is that its preferred candidate is inferior, she may still be chosen most often. A glass ceiling can also arise whereby the tendency to hire favored candidates increases as the importance of the position increases.

This study focuses on the relation between current compensation and past performance measures as signals of a chief executive officer's (CEO's) ability. We develop a simple two-period principal-agent model with moral hazard and adverse selection and test theoretical predictions using CEO compensation data from 1993–2006. Consistent with the predictions, we find that salary (bonus) is positively (negatively) associated with past performance for both continuing and newly hired CEOs. We also find that while current salary is positively associated with future performance, current bonus is not. As the model suggests, salary is adjusted to meet the reservation utility and information rent, and is positively correlated over time to reflect ability. Bonus serves to address moral hazard and adverse selection by separating high-ability agents into riskier contracts. Our results indicate that it is important to disaggregate cash compensation into salary and bonus components to understand the dynamic interaction between incentives and performance. Data Availability: Data are available from public sources indicated in the text.

This study investigates how relative performance information (RPI) affects employee performance and allocation of effort across tasks in a multi-task environment. Based on behavioral theories, we predict that the social comparison process inherent in RPI induces both a motivation effect that results in increased effort as well as an effort distortion effect that results in the distortion of effort allocations across tasks away from the firm-preferred allocations. We also predict that both effects are magnified when the RPI is public compared to private. We argue that although the motivation effect will generally benefit performance, the effort distortion effect may be detrimental to performance. We design an experiment that isolates these two effects. Consistent with our predictions, we find that RPI induces both motivation and effort distortion effects and that both effects are magnified when the RPI is public rather than private. Although the motivation effect increases performance, we demonstrate that the effort distortion effect can decrease performance. By isolating the motivation and effort distortion effects, our study provides insights into the costs and benefits of RPI in a multi-task environment. As such, it informs accountants regarding the design of information systems and when tasks should be aggregated or disaggregated across employees. Data Availability: Data are available from the authors upon request.

Consumers rely on the price changes of goods in their grocery bundles when forming expectations about aggregate inflation. We use micro data that uniquely match individual expectations, detailed information about consumption bundles, and item-level prices. The weights consumers assign to price changes depend on the frequency of purchase, rather than expenditure share, and positive price changes loom larger than negative price changes. Prices of goods offered in the same store but not purchased do not affect inflation expectations, nor do other dimensions. Our results provide empirical guidance for models of expectations formation with heterogeneous consumers.

Journal Article The Literature of Guild Socialism Get access Niles H. Carpenter Niles H. Carpenter Harvard University Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Volume 34, Issue 4, August 1920, Pages 763–776, https://doi.org/10.2307/1885166 Published: 01 August 1920

Binscatter is a popular method for visualizing bivariate relationships and conducting informal specification testing. We study the properties of this method formally and develop enhanced visualization and econometric binscatter tools. These include estimating conditional means with optimal binning and quantifying uncertainty. We also highlight a methodological problem related to covariate adjustment that can yield incorrect conclusions. We revisit two applications using our methodology and find substantially different results relative to those obtained using prior informal binscatter methods. General purpose software in Python, R, and Stata is provided. Our technical work is of independent interest for the nonparametric partition-based estimation literature.

This paper provides a comprehensive survey of existing measures of uncertainty, risk, and volatility, noting their conceptual distinctions. It summarizes how they are constructed, their relative advantages in usage, and their effects on financial market and economic outcomes. The measures are divided into four categories based on the construction methodology: news-based, survey-based, econometric-based, and market-based measures. While heightened uncertainty is typically associated with negative real and financial outcomes, the magnitude of these effects and the interpretation of transmission channels crucially depend on identification considerations.

In this paper we show that fixed‐term contracts, which are commonly used to franchise highways, do not allocate demand risk optimally. We characterize the optimal risk‐sharing contract and show that it can be implemented with a fairly straightforward mechanism—a least‐present‐value‐of‐revenue auction. Instead of bidding on tolls (or franchise lengths), as in the case of fixed‐term franchises, in an LPVR auction the bidding variable is the present value of toll revenues. The lowest bid wins and the franchise ends when that amount has been collected. We also show that the welfare gains that can be attained by replacing fixed‐term auctions with LPVR auctions are substantial.

Without strong assumptions about how noise manifests in choices, we can infer little from existing empirical observations of the common ratio effect (CRE) about whether there exists an underlying common ratio preference (CRP). We propose to solve this inferential challenge using paired valuations, which yield valid inference under common assumptions. Using this approach in an online experiment with 900 participants, we find no evidence of a systematic CRP. To reconcile our findings with existing evidence, we present the same participants with paired choice tasks and demonstrate how noise can generate a CRE even for individuals without an associated CRP.

We describe variation in the reporting quality (i.e., accuracy and bias of reported net asset values (NAVs)) of private equity (PE) funds across types of external monitors (investors and auditors) and third-party service providers (valuation specialists, marketers, and administrators). In contrast to public markets, we find only limited evidence that reporting quality varies with the composition and types of investors in PE funds. We observe, however, that reporting quality varies with auditor involvement and the use of third-party service providers; these associations often differ across buyout (BO) and venture capital (VC) funds and from those observed in public markets. Our evidence is important to investors and regulators, especially now that PE supersedes public markets as the main vehicle to raise capital and as regulators increase their focus on private markets. Data Availability: Data used in this study are available from public sources listed in the paper.