To make high-quality research more accessible and easier to explore.

Fields:
3 results

The influence of firm- and manager-specific characteristics on the structure of executive compensation

Journal of Corporate Finance 2001 7(2), 101-123
We analyze the influence of firm and managerial characteristics on executive compensation. Consistent with theory, we find monitoring difficulties result in greater use of options while CEO and blockholder ownership result in less. Risky investment is positively related to options and negatively related to cash bonus and restricted stock, suggesting that firms use options to encourage managers to take risks. We find a negative (positive) relation between options and leverage (convertible debt) consistent with minimizing the agency costs of debt. Finally, we provide new evidence on managerial horizon and incentives, documenting a concave relation between cash bonus and CEO age.

Who is in whose pocket? Director compensation, board independence, and barriers to effective monitoring

Journal of Financial Economics 2004 73(3), 497-524
We use a bargaining framework to examine empirically the relations between director compensation and board-of-director independence. Our evidence suggests that independent directors have a bargaining advantage over the CEO that results in compensation more closely aligned with shareholders’ objectives. Firms with more outsiders on their boards award directors more equity-based compensation. When the CEO's power over the board increases, compensation provides weaker incentives to monitor. Firms with more inside directors and with entrenched CEOs use less equity-based pay. Furthermore, firms with entrenched CEOs and CEOs who also chair the board are less likely to replace cash pay with equity.

Backing into being public: an exploratory analysis of reverse takeovers

Journal of Corporate Finance 2005 12(1), 54-79
We examine 121 reverse takeovers (RT), in which a privately held firm acquires a publicly traded firm to obtain their exchange listing. The public firms, many of which went public during the initial public offering (IPO) bubble, are generally poor performers. Their shareholders receive significant wealth gains upon announcement, suggesting that these events may provide shareholders of distressed firms a way to recover some of their investment. We observe little post-event improvement in operations or profitability, and only 46% of the sample survives two years. Thus, while reverse takeovers provide alternative means of going public, they are risky and may fail to generate long-term wealth.