Review of Accounting Studies

, Volume 14, Issue 2–3, pp 269–306 | Cite as

Explicit relative performance evaluation in performance-vested equity grants

  • Mary Ellen Carter
  • Christopher D. Ittner
  • Sarah L. C. Zechman
Article

Abstract

Using data from FTSE 350 firms, we examine factors influencing explicit relative performance evaluation (RPE) conditions in performance-vested equity grants. We provide exploratory evidence on whether the use or characteristics of RPE are associated with efforts to improve incentives by removing common risk, other economic factors discussed in the RPE literature, or external pressure to implement RPE. We find that many of these economic factors, including common risk reduction, are more closely related to specific relative performance conditions than to the firm-level decision to use RPE in some or all of their equity grants. We also find that greater external monitoring by institutional investors or others is associated with plans with tougher overall RPE conditions. The relative performance conditions are binding in most RPE plans, with nearly two-thirds of the grants vesting only partially or not vesting at all. Further, we find evidence that vesting percentages vary in RPE and non-RPE plans.

Keywords

Compensation Equity incentives Relative performance Corporate governance 

JEL Classification

G30 J33 M41 M52 

References

  1. Aggarwal, R., & Samwick, A. (1999). Executive compensation, strategic competition and relative performance evaluation: Theory and evidence. The Journal of Finance, LIV, 1999–2043.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Antle, R., & Smith, A. (1986). An empirical investigation of the relative performance evaluation of corporate executives. Journal of Accounting Research, 24, 1–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Association of British Insurers. (2004). Principles and guidelines on remuneration, December 7, 2004.Google Scholar
  4. Baiman, S., & Demski, J. (1980). Economically optimal performance evaluation and control systems. Journal of Accounting Research, 18, 184–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bannister, J., & Newman, H. (2003). Analysis of corporate disclosures on relative performance evaluation. Accounting Horizons, 17, 235–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barro, J., & Barro, R. (1990). Pay, performance, and turnover of bank CEOs. Journal of Labor Economics, 8, 448–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barth, M., Beaver, W., & Landsman, W. (1998). Relative valuation roles of equity book value and net income as a function of financial health. Journal of Accounting & Economics, 25, 1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bettis, J., Bizjak, J., Coles, J., & Kalpathy, S. (2008). Stock and option grants with performance-based vesting provisions. Working paper, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=972424.
  9. Brennan, M. (2001). Discussion of the pricing of relative performance based incentives for executive compensation. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 28, 1189–1191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brisley, N. (2006). Executive stock options: Early exercise provisions and risk-taking incentives. Journal of Finance, 61(5), 2487–2509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Byrd, J., Johnson, M., & Porter, S. (1998). Discretion in financial reporting: The voluntary disclosure of compensation peer groups in proxy statement performance graphs. Contemporary Accounting Research, 15, 25–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Câmara, A. (2001). The pricing of relative performance based incentives for executive compensation. Journal of Business Finance and Accounting, 28, 1115–1139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Choudhary, J., & Orszag, A. (2003). On target: Are performance conditions on executive options driven by fundamentals? Watson Wyatt Technical Paper 2003-PB02.Google Scholar
  14. Choudhary, J., & Orszag, A. (2005). On target: An examination of CEO stock option performance hurdles. Watson Wyatt Technical Paper 2005-TR-6.Google Scholar
  15. Conyon, M., & Murphy, K. (2000). The prince and the pauper? CEO pay in the United States and United Kingdom. The Economic Journal, 110, F640–F671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Garvey, G., & Milbourn, T. (2003). Incentive compensation when executives can hedge the market: Evidence of relative performance evaluation in the cross section. The Journal of Finance, LVIII, 1557–1581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gerakos, J., Ittner, C., & Larcker, D. (2007). The structure of performance-vested stock option grants. In R. Antle, P. Liang, & F. Gjesdahl (Eds.), Essays on accounting theory in honour of Joel S. Demski. Norwell, MA: Springer.Google Scholar
  18. Gibbons, R., & Murphy, K. (1990). Relative performance evaluation for chief executive officers. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 43, 30–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Greenbury, R. (1995). Directors’ remuneration: Report of a study group chaired by Sir Richard Greenbury. London: Gee Publishing.Google Scholar
  20. Hemmer, T. (2004). Lessons lost in linearity: A critical assessment of the general usefulness of LEN models in compensation research. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 16, 149–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Himmelberg C., & Hubbard R. (2000). Incentive pay and market for CEOs: An analysis of pay-for-performance sensitivity. Working paper, Columbia University. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=236089.
  22. Holmstrom, B. (1982). Moral hazard in teams. Bell Journal of Economics, 13, 324–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hvide, H. (2002). Tournament rewards and risk taking. Journal of Labor Economics, 20, 877–898.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Indjejikian, R., & Nanda, D. (1999). Dynamic incentives and responsibility accounting. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 27, 177–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Indjejikian, R., & Nanda, D. (2002). Executive target bonuses and what they imply about performance standards. The Accounting Review, 77, 793–819.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Janakiraman, S., Lambert, R., & Larcker, D. (1992). An empirical investigation of the relative performance evaluation hypothesis. Journal of Accounting Research, 30, 53–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Joh, S. (1999). Strategic managerial incentive compensation in Japan: Relative performance evaluation and product market collusion. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 81, 303–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Johnson, S., & Tian, Y. (2000). The value and incentive effects of nontraditional executive stock option plans. Journal of Financial Economics, 57, 3–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kole, S. (1997). The complexity of compensation contracts. Journal of Financial Economics, 43, 79–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kuang, Y., & Suijs, J. (2006). Incentive effects of performance-vested stock options. Working paper, Erasmus University. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=917062.
  31. Lazear, E., & Oyer, P. (2007). Personnel economics. Chapter prepared for R. Gibbons & D. J. Roberts (Eds.), Handbook of organizational economics. NBER working paper no. W13480.Google Scholar
  32. Lazear, E., & Rosen, S. (1981). Rank order tournaments as optimum contracts. Journal of Political Economy, 121(3), 841–864.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Leone, A., & Rock, S. (2002). Empirical tests of budget ratcheting and its effect on managers’ discretionary accrual choice. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 33, 43–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lewellen, W., Park, T., & Ro, B. (1996). Self-serving behavior in managers’ discretionary information disclosure decisions. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 21(1996), 227–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Main, B. (2006). The ABI guidelines for share-based incentive schemes: Setting the hurdle too high? Accounting and Business Research, 36, 191–205.Google Scholar
  36. Matsumura, E., & Shin, J. (2006). An empirical analysis of an incentive plan with relative performance measures: Evidence from a postal service. The Accounting Review, 81, 533–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Merchant, K., & Manzoni, J. (1989). The achievability of budget targets in profit centers: A field study. The Accounting Review, 64, 539–558.Google Scholar
  38. Meyer, J., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. The American Journal of Sociology, 83, 340–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Murphy, K. (1999). Executive compensation. In O. Ashenfleter & D. Card (Eds.), Handbook of labor economics (Vol. 3). Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  40. Prendergast, C. (1999). The provision of incentives in firms. Journal of Economic Literature, XXXVII, 7–63.Google Scholar
  41. Rajgopal, S., Shevlin, T., & Zamora, V. (2006). CEO’s outside employment opportunities and the lack of relative performance evaluations in compensation contracts. The Journal of Finance, 61, 1813–1844.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Towers Perrin. (2005). Equity incentives around the world: The 2005 study. Stamford, CT: Towers Perrin.Google Scholar
  43. Westphal, J., & Zajac, E. (1994). Substance and symbolism in CEO’s long-term incentives plans. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 267–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Westphal, J., & Zajac, E. (1998). The symbolic management of stockholders: Corporate governance reforms and shareholder reactions. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43, 127–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Zajac, E., & Westphal, J. (1995). Accounting for the explanations of CEO compensation: Substance and symbolism. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 283–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Zhou, X., & Swan, P. (2003). Performance thresholds in managerial incentive contracts. Journal of Business, 76, 665–696.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mary Ellen Carter
    • 1
  • Christopher D. Ittner
    • 2
  • Sarah L. C. Zechman
    • 3
  1. 1.Carroll School of ManagementBoston CollegeChestnut HillUSA
  2. 2.The Wharton SchoolUniversity of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA
  3. 3.Booth School of BusinessUniversity of ChicagoChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations