Most extant studies consider golden parachutes as the totality of change-in-control payments. However, for the median CEO of firms listed in the S&P SmallCap 600 index in 2009, golden parachute payments are only 46% of total change-in-control compensation. We measure total change-in-control payments using newly available data for this sample. Our results show that the total payments to the departing CEO are estimated at 1.1% of market value (on average). We also show that newly earned compensation (as opposed to accelerated vesting of lagged incentive pay) makes up approximately half of total change-in-control payments for the median CEO, and these two components of severance pay are positively correlated (contrary to existing theory). Furthermore, change-in-control payments do not appear to impede takeover offers or affect takeover premiums. Total change-in-control payments are small on average, and boards seem to take care in negotiating these terms with incumbent CEOs so that change-in-control payments do not adversely affect the firm's prospects in the takeover market.

This paper examines the impact of a defined benefit (DB) pension plan freeze on the sponsoring firm's risk and risk-taking activities. Using a sample of firms declaring a hard freeze on their DB plans between 2002 and 2007, we observe an increase in total risk (proxied by the standard deviation of EBITDA and asset beta), equity risk (standard deviation of returns), and credit risk following a DB-plan freeze. The increase in credit risk is reflected in a decline in credit ratings and an increase in bond yields for freezing firms. When we examine investment strategies, we observe a shift in investment from capital expenditures before the freeze to more-risky R&D projects after the freeze, and an increase in leverage. These strategies (increased focus on R&D and higher leverage) increase the operating and financial risk the firm faces. Overall, we observe an increase in risk-taking following DB plan freezes, consistent with theories that DB plans act as “inside debt” that aligns managers’ interests with bondholders’.