This file is part of IDEAS, which uses RePEc data


[ Papers | Articles | Software | Books | Chapters | Authors | Institutions | JEL Classification | NEP reports | Search | New papers by email | Author registration | Rankings | Volunteers | FAQ | Blog | Help! ]

Career Concerns of Top Executives, Managerial Ownership and CEO Succession

Author info | Abstract | Publisher info | Download info | Related research | Statistics
Author Info
M. Martin Boyer ()
Hernan Ortiz Molina

Additional information is available for the following registered author(s):

Abstract

We model the portfolio decisions by managers with career concerns in a context where ownership of the firm's stock can affect the outcome of promotion contests. In addition to their utility from wealth, such managers derive utility from the monetary and non-monetary benefits (prestige) of running a corporation. Our theory predicts that top managers competing for the CEO position will distort their investment decisions away from the optimum portfolio choice in the absence of career concerns. Thus, our model suggests that changing career opportunities can explain portfolio decisions by managers and that insider ownership can help explain the outcomes of promotion contests. Our main testable predictions are that higher ownership by insiders increases their chances of being appointed CEO; that lower ownership by inside managers makes outside CEO appointments more likely; and that a lower probability of CEO turnover (and thus reduced promotion opportunities) leads inside managers to reduce their ownership in the firm and/or to leave the company. Using data on managerial ownership surrounding CEO turnover events, we find evidence supporting the predictions of our model. Overall, our main insight is that insider ownership, the outcome of promotion contests, the choice between inside and outside CEO replacements, and executive departure decisions are all related.

Nous développons un modèle de choix de portefeuille des gestionnaires dans un environnement où leurs chances d'être promu PDG sont liées à leur actionnariat dans l'entreprise. Puisque les gestionnaires valorisent leur nomination potentielle au rang de PDG, nous prédisons que leur choix de portefeuille sera biaisé par rapport au choix qu'ils auraient fait en l'absence d'anticipations carriéristes. Notre modèle prédit que des changements dans les chances d'être promu expliquent les choix de portefeuille des gestionnaires. En particulier, nous montrons empiriquement qu'un plus grand actionnariat augmente la chance d'être promu au rang de PDG, réduit la chance qu'un gestionnaire externe à l'entreprise soit nommé. De plus, une réduction dans la possibilité d'être promu réduit l'actionnariat des gestionnaires ou induit leur départ. Nous testons les hypothèses découlant du modèle en utilisant les changements dans l'actionnariat des gestionnaire lors de la démission du PDG. Les hypothèses importantes du modèle sont confirmées.

Download Info
To download:

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. Information about this may be contained in the File-Format links below. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://www.cirano.qc.ca/pdf/publication/2004s-34.pdf
File Format: application/pdf
File Function:
Download Restriction: no

Publisher Info
Paper provided by CIRANO in its series CIRANO Working Papers with number 2004s-34.

Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML (with abstract), plain text (with abstract), BibTeX, RIS (EndNote, RefMan, ProCite), ReDIF
Length:
Date of creation: 01 May 2004
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:cir:cirwor:2004s-34

Contact details of provider:
Postal: 2020 rue University, 25e �tage, Montr�al, Qu�c, H3A 2A5
Phone: (514) 985-4000
Fax: (514) 985-4039
Email:
Web page: http://www.cirano.qc.ca/
More information through EDIRC

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (Webmaster).

Related research
Keywords: managerial compensation; CEO succession; corporate tournament; portfolio allocation; rémunération des dirigeants; changement de PDG; tournoi corporatif; choix de portefeuille;

Other versions of this item:

Find related papers by JEL classification:
G32 - Financial Economics - - Corporate Finance and Governance - - - Financing Policy; Capital and Ownership Structure
G34 - Financial Economics - - Corporate Finance and Governance - - - Mergers; Acquisitions; Restructuring; Corporate Governance

This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
  1. Agrawal, Anup & Knoeber, Charles R. & Tsoulouhas, Theofanis, 2006. "Are outsiders handicapped in CEO successions?," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 619-644, June. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
    Other versions:
  2. Edward P. Lazear & Sherwin Rosen, 1981. "Rank-Order Tournaments as Optimum Labor Contracts," NBER Working Papers 0401, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
    Other versions:
  3. Huson, Mark R. & Malatesta, Paul H. & Parrino, Robert, 2004. "Managerial succession and firm performance," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(2), pages 237-275, November. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  4. Weisbach, Michael S., 1988. "Outside directors and CEO turnover," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(1-2), pages 431-460, January. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  5. Kole, Stacey R., 1997. "The complexity of compensation contracts," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 79-104, January. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  6. Chan, William, 1996. "External Recruitment versus Internal Promotion," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 14(4), pages 555-70, October. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  7. Rosen, Sherwin, 1986. "Prizes and Incentives in Elimination Tournaments," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 76(4), pages 701-15, September. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
    Other versions:
  8. Borokhovich, Kenneth A. & Parrino, Robert & Trapani, Teresa, 1996. "Outside Directors and CEO Selection," Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 31(03), pages 337-355, September. [Downloadable!]
  9. Bognanno, Michael L, 2001. "Corporate Tournaments," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 19(2), pages 290-315, April. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  10. Michael Waldman, 2003. "Ex Ante versus Ex Post Optimal Promotion Rules: The Case of Internal Promotion," Economic Inquiry, Oxford University Press, vol. 41(1), pages 27-41, January.
  11. Himmelberg, Charles P. & Hubbard, R. Glenn & Palia, Darius, 1999. "Understanding the determinants of managerial ownership and the link between ownership and performance," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 53(3), pages 353-384, September. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
    Other versions:
  12. Parrino, Robert, 1997. "CEO turnover and outside succession A cross-sectional analysis," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(2), pages 165-197, November. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  13. Robert Gibbons & Michael Waldman, 1999. "A Theory Of Wage And Promotion Dynamics Inside Firms," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 114(4), pages 1321-1358, November. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  14. Eli Ofek & David Yermack, 2000. "Taking Stock: Equity-Based Compensation and the Evolution of Managerial Ownership," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 55(3), pages 1367-1384, 06. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
Full references

Statistics
Access and download statistics

Did you know? IDEAS indexes over 800000 items of research in Economics alone.

This page was last updated on 2010-3-17.


This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Department of Economics, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Connecticut using RePEc data on a server sponsored by the Society for Economic Dynamics.