Journal of Productivity Analysis

, Volume 33, Issue 1, pp 67–80 | Cite as

The productivity effects of stock option schemes: evidence from Finnish panel data

Article

Abstract

In this study we investigate the productivity effects of employee stock option schemes. We estimate Cobb-Douglas production functions by using new panel data for all Finnish publicly listed firms during 1992–2002. The data enable us to distinguish broad-based option plans, for which all employees are eligible, from those selectively allocated to particular employees. For both type of schemes, our baseline fixed effects estimators consistently find statistically insignificant associations with firm productivity. When endogeneity of production inputs and option-schemes are taken into account we continue to find no evidence of a link with firm productivity. Our main findings are consistent with hypotheses that predict negligible effects of option plans for enterprise performance, such as those based on free riding, psychological expectancy theory, accounting myopia, or rent-seeking. We consider reasons why our empirical findings on the impact of broad-based options differ from those found in earlier studies.

Keywords

Productivity Panel data Employee stock options Compensation and compensation methods and their effects 

JEL Classification

D24 C33 J33 M52 

References

  1. Alchian A, Demsetz H (1972) Production, information costs, and economic organisation. Am Econ Rev 62:777–795Google Scholar
  2. Arellano M, Bond S (1991) Some tests of specification for panel data: Monte Carlo evidence and an application to employment equations. Rev Econ Stud 58:277–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arellano M, Bover O (1995) Another look at the instrumental variables estimation of error-components model. J Econ 68:29–51Google Scholar
  4. Arya A, Mittendorf B (2005) Offering stock options to gauge managerial talent. J Acc Econ 40:189–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baltagi BH, Wu PX (1999) Unequally spaced panel data regressions with AR(1) disturbances. Economet Theor 15(6):814–823Google Scholar
  6. Bebchuk LA, Fried JM (2003) Executive compensation as an agency problem. J Econ Perspect 17:71–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bergman NK, Jenter D (2007) Employee sentiment and stock option compensation. J Finance Econ 84:667–712CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bhargava A, Franzini L, Narendranathan W (1982) Serial correlation and the fixed effects model. Rev Econ Stud 49:533–549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Blasi J, Kruse D, Bernstein A (2003) In the company of owners: the truth about stock options and why every employee should have them. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Blundell RW, Bond S (1998) Initial conditions and moment restrictions in dynamic panel data models. J Econ 87:115–143Google Scholar
  11. Blundell RW, Bond S (2000) GMM estimation with persistent panel data: an application to production functions. Econ Rev 19(3):321–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Blundell RW, Bond S, Windmeijer F (2000) Estimation in dynamic panel data models: improving on the performance of the standard GMM estimators. In: Baltagi B (ed) Nonstationary panels, panel cointegration and dynamic panels, advances in econometrics 15. JAI Press, Elsevier Science, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  13. Cable J, Wilson N (1989) Profit-sharing and productivity: an analysis of UK engineering firms. Econ J 99:366–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Conyon MJ, Freeman RB (2004) Shared modes of compensation and firm performance: UK evidence. In: Blundell RW, Card D, Freeman RB (eds) Seeking a premier league economy. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  15. Core JE, Guay WR, Larcker DF (2003) Executive equity compensation and incentives: a survey. FRNBY Econ Policy Rev 9(1):27–50Google Scholar
  16. Freeman R, Kruse D, Blasi J (2008) Worker responses to shirking under shared capitalism. NBER Working paper 14227Google Scholar
  17. Griliches Z, Mairesse J (1998) Production functions: the search for identification. Econometrics and economic theory in the twentieth century: the Ragnar Frisch Centennial symposium, Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  18. Hall BJ (1998) The pay to performance incentives of executive stock options. NBER Working Paper 6674Google Scholar
  19. Hall BJ, Murphy KJ (2003) The trouble with stock options. J Econ Perspect 17:49–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hallock KF, Olson CA (2006) The value of stock options to non-executive employees. NBER Working Paper 11950Google Scholar
  21. Hanlon M, Rajgopal S, Shevlin T (2003) Are executive stock options associated with future earnings? J Acc Econ 36:3–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ikäheimo S, Kjellman A, Holmberg J, Jussila S (2004) Employee stock option plans and stock market reaction: evidence from Finland. Eur J Finance 10:105–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Inderst R, Müller H (2005) Benefits of broad-based option pay. CEPR Discussion Paper 4878Google Scholar
  24. Ittner CD, Lambert RA, Larcker DF (2003) The structure and performance of equity grants to employees of new economy firms. J Acc Econ 34:89–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jones DC, Kato T (1995) The productivity effects of employee stock-ownership plans and bonuses: evidence from Japanese panel data. Am Econ Rev 85:391–414Google Scholar
  26. Jones DC, Pliskin J (1991) The effects of worker participation, employee ownership and profit sharing on economics performance. In: Russell R, Rus V (eds) International handbook of participation in organizations, vol 2. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  27. Jones DC, Kalmi P, Mäkinen M (2006) The determinants of stock option compensation: evidence from Finland. Ind Relat 45:437–468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kandel E, Lazear EP (1992) Peer pressure in partnerships. J Polit Econ 100:801–817CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kruse DL (1992) Profit sharing and productivity: microeconomic evidence from the United States. Econ J 102:24–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kumbhakar SC, Dunbar A (1993) The Elusive ESOP-productivity link. J Public Econ 52:273–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Larcker DF (2003) Discussion of “Are executive stock options associated with future earnings?”. J Acc Econ 36:91–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Liljeblom E, Pasternack D (2006) Share repurchases, dividends and executive options: the effect of dividend protection. Eur J Financial Manag 12(1):7–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mäkinen M (2001) Optiot—Suomalaisjohtajien uusi kannustin. Title in English: stock options—the new incentive of Finnish executives. In: Finnish with English summary. The Research Institute of Finnish Economy, Series B182Google Scholar
  34. Mäkinen M (2007) Essays on stock option schemes and CEO compensation. HSE Acta Universitatis Oeconomicae Helsingiensis, A-291, HelsinkiGoogle Scholar
  35. Mäkinen M (2008) CEO compensation, firm size and firm performance: evidence from Finland. In: Oxelheim L, Wihlborg C (eds) Markets and compensation for executives in Europe. UK: Emerald Group Publishing, BingleyGoogle Scholar
  36. Meulbroek L (2001) The efficiency of equity linked compensation: understanding the full cost of awarding executive stock options. Finance Manag 30(2):5–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Murphy KJ (1999) Executive compensation. In: Ashenfelter OC, Card D (eds) Handbook of labor economics, vol 3B. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 2485–2563Google Scholar
  38. Oyer P (2004) Why do firms use incentives that have no incentive effects? J Finance 59:1619–1641CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Roodman D (2006) How to do xtabond2: an introduction to “Difference” and “System” GMM in Stata. Centre for global development. Working Paper 103, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  40. Rosen C (2006) The future of broad-based stock options: what research tells us. In: Kalmi P, Klinedinst M (eds) Participation in the age of globalization and information. Advances in the economic analysis of participatory and labor-managed firms, vol 9. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  41. Rousseau DM, Shperling Z (2003) Pieces of the action: ownership and the changing employment relationship. Acad Manag Rev 28:553–570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sesil JC, Kroumova MA, Blasi JR, Kruse DL (2000) Broad-based employee options in the US: do they impact company performance? Academy of management proceedings, HR:G1-G6Google Scholar
  43. Sesil JC, Kroumova MA, Blasi JR, Kruse DL (2002) Broad-based employee options in “New Economy” firms: company performance effects. Br J Ind Relat 40:273–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Vroom VH (1995) Work and motivation. Revised edition. Jossey-Bass, San FransiscoGoogle Scholar
  45. Wadhwani S, Wall M (1990) The effects of profit-sharing on employment, wages, stock returns and productivity: evidence from UK micro-data. Econ J 100:1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Weitzman ML, Kruse DL (1990) Profit sharing and productivity. In: Blinder A (ed) Paying for productivity. The Brookings Institution, Washington, pp 94–141Google Scholar
  47. Windmeijer F (2005) A finite sample correction for the variance of linear efficient two-step GMM estimators. J Econ 126:25–51Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsHamilton CollegeClintonUSA
  2. 2.Department of EconomicsHelsinki School of Economics and HECERHelsinkiFinland

Personalised recommendations