The Relative Performance Puzzle
- 29 Downloads
The accepted theoretical models of executive compensation contracts all seem to imply that optimal remuneration packages should contain a relative performance element. The puzzle is that the empirical literature has found remarkably little relative performance evaluation. This paper aims at resolving this puzzle by introducing the notion that the manager can trade on assets other than her own company’s stock. Then the manager’s portfolio strategy always adjusts for the risks of her compensation contract and she replaces the firm’s benchmark with a “home-made” benchmark. She chooses exactly the weights and the compensation of the benchmark that would otherwise be chosen in an optimal contract. In many cases this is possible without short selling any assets. To the extent that performance benchmarks are correlated with traded assets they are redundant for the optimal contract. Accounting benchmarks are exempt from this verdict since they may help to insure the manager against risks that are not related to traded assets. This may help to understand the presence of relative performance elements in annual bonus plans.
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Aggarwal, Rajesh K./Samwick, Andrew, 1996, Executive Compensation, Strategic Competition, and Relative Performance Evaluation: Theory and Evidence, NBER Working paper, no. 5648 (July).Google Scholar
- Haubrich, Joseph G./Popova, Ivilina, 1998, Executive Compensation: A Calibration approach, Economic Theory (December).Google Scholar
- Huddart, Steven, 1999, Reputation and Performance Fee Effects on Portfolio Choice by Investments, Journal of Financial Markets (forthcoming) (October).Google Scholar
- Jensen, Michael C./Murphy, Kevin J., 1990 a, CEO Incentives — It’s Not How Much You Pay, But How, Harvard Business Review (May/June), pp. 138–153.Google Scholar
- Laux, Helmut, 1990, Die Irrelevanz erfolgsorientierter Anreizsysteme bei bestimmten Kapitalmarktbedingungen — Der Einperiodenfall, Zeitschrift Betriebswirtschaft, pp. 1341–1357.Google Scholar
- Marcus, Alan J., 1982, Risk Sharing and the Theory of the Firm, Bell Journal of Economics, pp. 369–378.Google Scholar
- Modigliani, Franco/Miller, Merton H., 1958, The Cost of Capital, Corporation Finance and the Theory of Investment, American Economic Review 48 (June), pp. 261–297.Google Scholar
- Murphy, Kevin J., 1999, Executive Compensation, mimeo, University of Southern California (April).Google Scholar
- Neus, Werner, 1989, Die Aussagekraft von Agency Costs, Zeitschrift für betriebswirtschaftliche Forschung 41, no. 6, pp. 472–490.Google Scholar
- Neus, Werner, 1996, Realinvestitionen, Finanzinvestitionen und Anreizverträge, Zeitschrift für Betriebswirtschaft 66, no. 9, pp. 1127–1147.Google Scholar
- Scharfstein, David S./Stein, Jeremy C., 1990, Herd Behavior and Investment, American Economic Review 80, no. 3 (June), pp. 465–479.Google Scholar