Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login

The Managerial Labor Market and the Governance Role of Shareholder Control Structures in the UK

Contents:

Author Info

  • Renneboog, L.D.R.
  • Trojanowski, G.

    (Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research)

Abstract

We simultaneously analyze two mechanisms of the managerial labor market: CEO turnover and monetary remuneration schemes.Sample selection models and hazard analyses applied to a random sample of 250 firms listed on the London Stock Exchange over a six-year pre-Cadbury period show that managerial remuneration and the termination of labor contracts play an important role in mitigating agency problems between managers and shareholders.We find that both the CEO's industry-adjusted monetary compensation and their replacement are strongly performance-sensitive.Top executive turnover is shown to serve as a disciplinary mechanism for corporate underperformance, whereas the level of monetary compensation rewards good performance.We also investigate whether specific corporate governance mechanisms (different types of blockholders or of boards of directors) have an impact on managerial disciplining or on the pay-for-performance contracts.There is little evidence of outside shareholder monitoring and CEOs with strong voting power successfully resisting replacement irrespective of corporate performance.This case of strong managerial entrenchment is even exacerbated when the CEO also holds the position of chairman of the board.In firms with large outside shareholdings, CEO compensation is lower, but outside shareholder do not impose a stricter performance-related incentive remuneration scheme.When insiders have strong voting power, the CEOs remuneration is lower except when the stock price performance is poor: it seems that when the CEOs wealth resulting from their investment goes down due to decreasing stock prices, the CEOs cash compensation is higher.The presence of a remuneration committee has no impact on remuneration.Finally, we find strong support for the incentive effect-hypothesis of remuneration: CEOs with higher levels of monetary compensation attain better subsequent accounting and stock price-based measures of corporate performance.

Download Info

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. 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://arno.uvt.nl/show.cgi?fid=4367
Our checks indicate that this address may not be valid because: 404 Not Found. If this is indeed the case, please notify (Richard Broekman)
Download Restriction: no

Bibliographic Info

Paper provided by Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research in its series Discussion Paper with number 2002-68.

as in new window
Length:
Date of creation: 2002
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:dgr:kubcen:200268

Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://center.uvt.nl

Related research

Keywords: labour turnover; agency theory; labour market; managers; corporate governance; shareholders; corporate ownership;

Find related papers by JEL classification:

References

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.:
as in new window
  1. Heckman, James J, 1979. "Sample Selection Bias as a Specification Error," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 47(1), pages 153-61, January.
  2. Franks, J. & Mayer, C. & Renneboog, L.D.R., 1998. "Who Disciplines Bad Management?," Discussion Paper 1998-130, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
  3. Sloan, Richard G., 1993. "Accounting earnings and top executive compensation," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(1-3), pages 55-100, April.
  4. Shleifer, Andrei & Vishny, Robert W, 1997. " A Survey of Corporate Governance," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 52(2), pages 737-83, June.
  5. Denis, David J & Denis, Diane K, 1995. " Performance Changes Following Top Management Dismissals," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 50(4), pages 1029-57, September.
  6. Jensen, Michael C & Murphy, Kevin J, 1990. "Performance Pay and Top-Management Incentives," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 98(2), pages 225-64, April.
  7. Girma, Sourafel & Steve Thompson & Peter Wright, 2002. "Merger Activity and Executive Pay," Royal Economic Society Annual Conference 2002 87, Royal Economic Society.
  8. Admati, Anat R & Pfleiderer, Paul & Zechner, Josef, 1994. "Large Shareholder Activism, Risk Sharing, and Financial Market Equilibrium," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 102(6), pages 1097-1130, December.
  9. Luc Renneboog & Julian Franks & Colin Mayer, 1999. "Who Disciplines Management in Poorly Performing Companies?," OFRC Working Papers Series 1999fe01, Oxford Financial Research Centre.
  10. Fama, Eugene F, 1980. "Agency Problems and the Theory of the Firm," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 88(2), pages 288-307, April.
  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.
  12. Amemiya, Takeshi, 1984. "Tobit models: A survey," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 24(1-2), pages 3-61.
  13. Sanford Grossman & Oliver Hart, . "An Analysis of the Principal-Agent Problem," Rodney L. White Center for Financial Research Working Papers 15-80, Wharton School Rodney L. White Center for Financial Research.
  14. Chung, Kee H. & Pruitt, Stephen W., 1996. "Executive ownership, corporate value, and executive compensation: A unifying framework," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 20(7), pages 1135-1159, August.
  15. John, Kose & Senbet, Lemma W., 1998. "Corporate governance and board effectiveness1," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 22(4), pages 371-403, May.
  16. Conyon, Martin J & Murphy, Kevin J, 2000. "The Prince and the Pauper? CEO Pay in the United States and United Kingdom," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 110(467), pages F640-71, November.
  17. Weisbach, Michael S., 1988. "Outside directors and CEO turnover," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(1-2), pages 431-460, January.
  18. Jensen, Michael C. & Meckling, William H., 1976. "Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 305-360, October.
  19. Kole, Stacey R., 1997. "The complexity of compensation contracts," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 79-104, January.
  20. Rachel M. Hayes & Scott Schaefer, 2000. "Implicit Contracts and the Explanatory Power of Top Executive Compensation for Future Performance," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 31(2), pages 273-293, Summer.
  21. Tim Jenkinson & Alexander Ljungqvist, 1999. "The Role of Hostile Stakes in German Corporate Governance," OFRC Working Papers Series 1999fe02, Oxford Financial Research Centre.
  22. Warner, Jerold B. & Watts, Ross L. & Wruck, Karen H., 1988. "Stock prices and top management changes," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(1-2), pages 461-492, January.
  23. 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.
  24. Agrawal, Anup & Knoeber, Charles R., 1996. "Firm Performance and Mechanisms to Control Agency Problems between Managers and Shareholders," Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 31(03), pages 377-397, September.
  25. La Porta, Rafael & Lopez-de-Silanes, Florencio & Schleifer, Andrei & Vishny, Robert, 2001. "Investor Protection and Corporate Governance," Working Paper Series rwp01-017, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
  26. Rajesh Aggarwal & Andrew A. Samwick, 1998. "The Other Side of the Tradeoff: The Impact of Risk on Executive Compensation," NBER Working Papers 6634, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  27. Murphy, K.J. & Gibbons, R., 1990. "Optimal Incentive Contracts in the Presence of Career Concerns : Theory and Evidence," Papers 90-09, Rochester, Business - Managerial Economics Research Center.
  28. Denis, David J. & Kruse, Timothy A., 2000. "Managerial discipline and corporate restructuring following performance declines," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(3), pages 391-424, March.
  29. Charles Kahn & Andrew Winton, 1998. "Ownership Structure, Speculation, and Shareholder Intervention," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 53(1), pages 99-129, 02.
  30. Conyon, Martin & Gregg, Paul & Machin, Stephen, 1995. "Taking Care of Business, Executive Compensation in the United Kingdom," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 105(430), pages 704-14, May.
  31. Weisbach, Michael S., 1995. "CEO turnover and the firm's investment decisions," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 159-188, February.
  32. Denis, David J. & Sarin, Atulya, 1999. "Ownership and board structures in publicly traded corporations," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(2), pages 187-223, May.
  33. Agrawal, Anup & Knoeber, Charles R., 1998. "Managerial compensation and the threat of takeover," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(2), pages 219-239, February.
  34. Anup Agrawal & Charles R. Knoeber, . "Firm Performance and Mechanisms to Control Agency Problems between Managers and Shareholders (Revision of 29-94)," Rodney L. White Center for Financial Research Working Papers 8-96, Wharton School Rodney L. White Center for Financial Research.
  35. Kim, Oliver & Suh, Yoon, 1993. "Incentive efficiency of compensation based on accounting and market performance," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(1-3), pages 25-53, April.
  36. Jennifer E. Bethel & Julia Porter Liebeskind & Tim Opler, 1998. "Block Share Purchases and Corporate Performance," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 53(2), pages 605-634, 04.
  37. Hallock, Kevin F., 1997. "Reciprocally Interlocking Boards of Directors and Executive Compensation," Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 32(03), pages 331-344, September.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

Citations

Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
as in new window

Cited by:
  1. Minguez-Vera, Antonio & Martin-Ugedo, Juan Francisco, 2007. "Does ownership structure affect value? A panel data analysis for the Spanish market," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 16(1), pages 81-98.
  2. Pawlina, G. & Renneboog, L.D.R., 2005. "Is Investment-Cash Flow Sensitivity Caused by the Agency Costs or Asymmetric Information? Evidence from the UK," Discussion Paper 2005-23, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
  3. Szilagyi, P.G., 2007. "Corporate Governance and the Agency Costs of Debt and Outside Equity," Open Access publications from Tilburg University urn:nbn:nl:ui:12-321510, Tilburg University.
  4. Emilio Barucci & Carlo Bianchi & Mirko Frediani, 2006. "CEO Turnover in the Italian Financial Market," Giornale degli Economisti, GDE (Giornale degli Economisti e Annali di Economia), Bocconi University, vol. 65(2), pages 127-154, November.
  5. Chisari, Omar O. & Ferro, Gustavo, 2009. "Gobierno Corporativo: los problemas, estado actual de la discusión y un ejercicio de medición para Argentina
    [Corporate Governance: the problems, the current stage of the discussion and a measure
    ," MPRA Paper 15630, University Library of Munich, Germany.
  6. Howard Bodenhorn, 2010. "Federal and State Commercial Banking Policy in the Federalist Era and Beyond," NBER Chapters, in: Founding Choices: American Economic Policy in the 1790s, pages 151-176 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.

Lists

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

Statistics

Access and download statistics

Corrections

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:dgr:kubcen:200268. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Richard Broekman).

If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.