The Relative Performance Puzzle

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Admati, Anat R. and Pleiderer, Paul, 1997, Does it All Add Up? Benchmarks and the Compensation of Active Portfolio Managers, Journal of Business 70, no. 3, pp. 323–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Aggarwal, Rajesh K./Samwick, Andrew, 1996, Executive Compensation, Strategic Competition, and Relative Performance Evaluation: Theory and Evidence, NBER Working paper, no. 5648 (July).

  3. —, 1999, The Other Side of the Trade-Off: The Impact of Risk on Executive Compensation, Journal of Political Economy 107, no. 1 (February), pp. 65–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Antle, Rick/Smith, Abbie, 1986, An Empirical Investigation of the Relative Performance Evaluation of Corporate Executives, Journal of Accounting Research 24, no. 1 (Spring), pp. 1–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Banker, R. D./Datar, S. M., 1989, Sensitivity, precision, and linear aggregation of signals for performance evaluation, Journal of Accounting Research 27 (Spring), pp. 21–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Barro, Jason R./Barro, Robert J, 1990, Pay, Performance and Turnover of Bank CEOs, Journal of Labor Economics 8, no. 4, pp. 448–481.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Campbell, Tim S./Kracaw, William A., 1985, The Market for Managerial Labor Services and Capital Market Equilibrium, Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis 20, no. 3 (September), pp. 277–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. —, 1987, Optimal Managerial Incentive Contracts and the Value of Corporate Insurance, Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis 22, no. 3 (September), pp. 315–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Garen, John E., 1994, Executive Compensation and Principal-Agent Theory, Journal of Political Economy 102, no. 6 (December), pp. 1175–1199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Garvey, Gerald, 1997, Marketable Incentive Contracts and Capital Structure Relevance, Journal of Finance 52, no. 1 (March), pp. 353–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Gibbons, Robert/Murphy, Kevin J., 1990, Relative Performance Evaluation for Chief Executive Officers, Industrial and Labor Relations Review 43, no. Special Issue (February), pp. 30–S–51–S.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Haubrich, Joseph G., 1994, Risk Aversion, Performance Pay, and the Principal-Agent-Problem, Journal of Political Economy 102, no. 2 (April), pp. 258–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Haubrich, Joseph G./Popova, Ivilina, 1998, Executive Compensation: A Calibration approach, Economic Theory (December).

  14. Holmström, Bengt, 1979, Moral hazard and Observability, Bell Journal of Economics 10, pp. 74–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. —, 1982, Moral Hazard in Teams, Bell Journal of Economics 13, no. 2 (Autumn), pp. 324–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Holmström, Bengt/Milgrom, Paul, 1987, Aggregation and Linearity in the Provision of Intertemporal Incentives, Econometrica 55, no. 2 (March), pp. 303–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Huddart, Steven, 1999, Reputation and Performance Fee Effects on Portfolio Choice by Investments, Journal of Financial Markets (forthcoming) (October).

  18. Janakiraman, Surya N./Lambert, Richard A./Larcker, David F., 1992, An Empirical Investigation of the Relative Performance Evaluation Hypothesis, Journal of Accounting Research 30, no. 1 (Spring), pp. 53–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 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.

  20. —, 1990 b, Performance Pay and Top-Management Incentives, Journal of Political Economy 98, no. 2 (April), pp. 225–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Lambert, Richard A./Larcker, David, 1987, An Analysis of the Use of Accounting and Market Measures of Performance in Executive Compensation Contracts, Journal of Accounting Research 25, pp. 85–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Lambert, Richard A./Larcker, David/Verrecchia, Robert, 1991, Portfolio Considerations in Valuing Executive Compensation, Journal of Accounting Research 29, no. 1 (Spring), pp. 129–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Laux, Helmut, 1990, Die Irrelevanz erfolgsorientierter Anreizsysteme bei bestimmten Kapitalmarktbedingungen — Der Einperiodenfall, Zeitschrift Betriebswirtschaft, pp. 1341–1357.

  24. —, 1998, Zielkonflikte, Ziel der Motivation von Entscheidungsträgern und Irrelevanz einer linearen Erfolgsbeteiligung, in: Helmut Laux: Risikoteilung, Anreiz und Kapitalmarket, Heidelberg (Springer), pp. 325–346.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Marcus, Alan J., 1982, Risk Sharing and the Theory of the Firm, Bell Journal of Economics, pp. 369–378.

  26. 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 

  27. Murphy, Kevin J., 1999, Executive Compensation, mimeo, University of Southern California (April).

    Google Scholar 

  28. Neus, Werner, 1989, Die Aussagekraft von Agency Costs, Zeitschrift für betriebswirtschaftliche Forschung 41, no. 6, pp. 472–490.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Neus, Werner, 1996, Realinvestitionen, Finanzinvestitionen und Anreizverträge, Zeitschrift für Betriebswirtschaft 66, no. 9, pp. 1127–1147.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Scharfstein, David S./Stein, Jeremy C., 1990, Herd Behavior and Investment, American Economic Review 80, no. 3 (June), pp. 465–479.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Zwiebel, Jeffrey, 1995, Corporate Conservatism and Relative Compensation, Journal of Political Economy 103, no. 1 (February), pp. 1–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ernst Maug.

Additional information

I am grateful to Wolfgang Bühler (the editor), Ulf Schiller, and an anonymous referee for insightful comments on a previous version of this paper. All remaining errors are my own responsibility.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Maug, E. The Relative Performance Puzzle. Schmalenbach Bus Rev 52, 3–24 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03396608

Download citation