Ittner, Lambert, and Larcker (J. Accounting Economics (2003) this issue) present compelling evidence that new economy firms rely more on stock-based compensation than do old economy firms, based on 1998 and 1999 data from a proprietary sample of companies. I complement the ILL results by analyzing data over a longer time period (1992–2001) and, more importantly, document the effect of the 2000 market crash on stock-based pay in new economy firms. Finally, I offer evidence supporting the conjecture that differences in pay practices between new and old economy firms reflect accounting considerations, perceived costs, and competitive inertia.

Research in incentives has focused on performance measures and pay-performance sensitivities but has largely ignored the “performance standard”, which generates important incentives whenever plan participants can influence the standard-setting process. “Internally determined” standards are directly affected by management actions in the current or prior year, while “externally determined” standards are less easily affected. I show that companies choose external standards when prior performance is a noisy estimate of contemporaneous performance. In addition, companies using budget based and other internally determined performance standards have less-variable bonus payouts, and are more likely to smooth earnings, than companies using externally determined standards.

Economic theories of efficient compensation predict a positive relationship between executive pay and corporate performance, and yet efforts to document this relationship have been largely unsuccessful. In this paper, we argue that previous cross-sectional studies have omitted important variables which seriously bias their results. Using data that focus on individual executives over time, we find that executive compensation is strongly positively related to corporate performance as measured by shareholder return and growth in firm sales. The results are robust to the stock market performance measure utilized.

Using a procedure that allows selective pooling of certain subsamples of the data, this study examines the determinants of state unemployment rates in the United States. By selectively pooling the data, more reliable parameter estimates result than could otherwise be obtained were the data disaggregated to the state level, and the specification error inherent in a complete pooling of the data is avoided. The models are estimated using two stage least squares, and the empirical results indicate considerable heterogeneity across areas in the ways in which unemployment rates are determined.

Very few business topics attract as much public attention as the paychecks of top executive officers in the largest U.S. companies. Undoubtedly, part of this interest has been fueled by the large and continuous increases in chief executive officers ’ (CEOs) compensation over the past three decades. Even ignoring the more recent escalation in the use of executive stock options (Brian Hall and Kevin J. Murphy, 2000, 2003), the base salaries and bonuses of Forbes 800 CEOs increased from an average of $700,000 in 1970 (in 2002-constant dollars) to over $2.2 million in 2000. 1 During the same period, the ratio of CEO cash compensation to average pay for production workers increased from about 25 in 1970 to nearly 90 in 2000. 2 The most prevalent explanation in popular press for this trend is the “fat cat ” theory, a variant of which has been espoused among academics by Lucian Bebchuk, Jesse Fried, and

We employ a certainty-equivalence framework to analyze the cost, value and pay/performance sensitivity of non-tradable options held by undiversified, risk-averse executives. We derive “executive value” lines, the risk-adjusted analogues to Black–Scholes lines. We show that distinguishing between “executive value” and “company cost” provides insight into many issues regarding stock option practice including: executive views about Black–Scholes values; tradeoffs between options, restricted stock and cash; exercise price policies; option repricings; early exercise policies and decisions; and the length of vesting periods. It also leads to reinterpretations of both cross-sectional facts and longitudinal trends in the level of executive compensation.

In about one-third of US IPOs between 1996 and 2000, executives received stock options with an exercise price equal to the IPO offer price rather than a market-determined price. Among firms with such “IPO options”, 58% of top executives realize a net benefit from underpricing: the gain from the options exceeds the loss from the dilution of their pre-IPO shareholdings. If executives can influence either the IPO offer price or the timing and terms of their stock option grants, there should be a positive relation between IPO option grants and underpricing. We find no evidence of such a relation. Our results contrast sharply with the emerging literature on managerial self-dealing at shareholder expense.

We provide fresh evidence regarding the relation between compensation consultants and CEO pay. First, firms that employ consultants have higher-paid CEOs—this result is robust to firm fixed effects and matching on economic and governance variables. Second, while this relation is partly due to consultant conflicts of interest, it is largely explained by the impact consultants have on the composition and complexity of CEO pay plans; notably, this impact fully mediates the consultant-CEO pay relation. Third, firms with higher-paid CEOs and more complex pay plans are more likely to hire a consultant. Last, Say-on-Pay voting patterns suggest shareholders view positively the advice consultants provide, but only when consultants provide no other services. We also find suggestive evidence of boards “layering” new equity incentive plans over existing ones, thereby increasing the impact of composition and complexity on CEO pay beyond the premium the CEO would demand for bearing additional compensation risk. JEL Classifications: J33; M12; M52; M48. Data Availability: Data are available from the public sources cited in the text.

Although exercise prices for executive stock options can be set either below or above the grant-date market price, in practice virtually all options are granted at the money. We offer an economic rationale for this apparent puzzle, by showing that pay-to-performance incentives for risk-averse undiversified executives are typically maximized by setting exercise prices at (or near) the grant-date market price. We provide an operationally useful alternative to Black-Scholes (1973) for the purpose of both valuing executive stock options and measuring the incentives created by options. Our framework has implications not only for exercise-price policies, but also for indexed options, option repricings, exchanges of cash for stock-based compensation, and the design of bonus plans.