Risk Taking of Executives under Different Incentive Contracts: Experimental Evidence
AbstractClassic financial agency theory recommends compensation through stock options rather than shares to induce risk neutrality in otherwise risk averse agents. In an experiment, we find that subjects acting as executives do also take risks that are excessive from the perspective of shareholders if compensated through options. Compensation through restricted company stock reduces the uptake of excessive risks. Even under stock-ownership, however, experimental executives continue to take excessive risksâ€”a result that cannot be accounted for by classic incentive theory. We develop a basic model in which such risk-taking behavior is explained based on a richer array of risk attitudes derived from Prospect Theory. We use the model to derive hypotheses on what may be driving excessive risk taking in the experiment. Testing those hypotheses, we find that most of them are indeed borne out by the data. We thus conclude that a prospect-theory-based model is more apt at explaining risk attitudes under different compensation regimes than traditional principal-agent models grounded in expected utility theory.
Download InfoIf 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.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by University of Munich, Department of Economics in its series Discussion Papers in Economics with number 12210.
Date of creation: Apr 2011
Date of revision:
prospect theory; expected utility theory; risk attitude; executive compensation; reference dependence; experimental finance;
Find related papers by JEL classification:
- D03 - Microeconomics - - General - - - Behavioral Economics; Underlying Principles
- G28 - Financial Economics - - Financial Institutions and Services - - - Government Policy and Regulation
- G32 - Financial Economics - - Corporate Finance and Governance - - - Financing Policy; Financial Risk and Risk Management; Capital and Ownership Structure; Value of Firms; Goodwill
- J33 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Wages, Compensation, and Labor Costs - - - Compensation Packages; Payment Methods
- L22 - Industrial Organization - - Firm Objectives, Organization, and Behavior - - - Firm Organization and Market Structure
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
- NEP-ALL-2011-04-23 (All new papers)
- NEP-CBE-2011-04-23 (Cognitive & Behavioural Economics)
- NEP-EXP-2011-04-23 (Experimental Economics)
- NEP-UPT-2011-04-23 (Utility Models & Prospect Theory)
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.:
- Booij, Adam S. & van Praag, Bernard M. S. & van de Kuilen, Gijs, 2009.
"A Parametric Analysis of Prospect Theory's Functionals for the General Population,"
IZA Discussion Papers
4117, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
- Adam Booij & Bernard Praag & Gijs Kuilen, 2010. "A parametric analysis of prospect theory’s functionals for the general population," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 68(1), pages 115-148, February.
- Adam S. Booij & Bernard M.S. Van Praag & Gijs Van De Kuilen, 2009. "A Parametric Analysis of Prospect Theory's Functionals for the General Population," CESifo Working Paper Series 2609, CESifo Group Munich.
- Michael S. Haigh & John A. List, 2005.
"Do Professional Traders Exhibit Myopic Loss Aversion? An Experimental Analysis,"
Journal of Finance,
American Finance Association, vol. 60(1), pages 523-534, 02.
- Michael Haigh & John List, 2005. "Do professional traders exhibit myopic loss aversion? An experimental analysis," Artefactual Field Experiments 00052, The Field Experiments Website.
- Haigh, Michael S. & List, John A., 2002. "Do Professional Traders Exhibit Myopic Loss Aversion? An Experimental Analysis," Working Papers 28554, University of Maryland, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
- Jennifer Carpenter, 1999. "Does Option Compensation Increase Managerial Risk Appetite?," New York University, Leonard N. Stern School Finance Department Working Paper Seires 99-076, New York University, Leonard N. Stern School of Business-.
- Uri Gneezy & Arie Kapteyn & Jan Potters, 2003.
"Evaluation Periods and Asset Prices in a Market Experiment,"
Journal of Finance,
American Finance Association, vol. 58(2), pages 821-838, 04.
- Uri Gneezy & Arie Kapteyn & Jan Potters, 2002. "Evaluation Periods and Assett Prices in a Market Experiment," Working Papers 02-02, RAND Corporation Publications Department.
- Gneezy, U. & Kapteyn, A. & Potters, J.J.M., 2002. "Evaluation Periods and Asset Prices in a Market Experiment," Discussion Paper 2002-8, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
- John List & Charles Mason, 2010.
"Are ceos expected utility maximizers?,"
Artefactual Field Experiments
00090, The Field Experiments Website.
- Brian J. Hall & Jeffrey B. Liebman, 1997.
"Are CEOs Really Paid Like Bureaucrats?,"
NBER Working Papers
6213, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Chip Heath & Steven Huddart & Mark Lang, 1999. "Psychological Factors And Stock Option Exercise," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 114(2), pages 601-627, May.
- U Schmidt & H Zank, 2002.
"What is Loss Aversion?,"
The School of Economics Discussion Paper Series
0209, Economics, The University of Manchester.
- Richard T. Holden, 2005. "The Original Management Incentive Schemes," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 19(4), pages 135-144, Fall.
- Enrico Diecidue & Jeroen van de Ven, 2008. "Aspiration Level, Probability Of Success And Failure, And Expected Utility," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 49(2), pages 683-700, 05.
- Gerlinde Fellner & Matthias Sutter, .
"Causes, consequences, and cures of myopic loss aversion - An experimental investigation,"
2008-01, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, University of Innsbruck.
- Gerlinde Fellner & Matthias Sutter, 2009. "Causes, Consequences, and Cures of Myopic Loss Aversion - An Experimental Investigation," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 119(537), pages 900-916, 04.
- Gerlinde Fellner & Matthias Sutter, 2005. "Causes, consequences, and cures of myopic loss aversion - An experimental investigation," Papers on Strategic Interaction 2005-15, Max Planck Institute of Economics, Strategic Interaction Group.
- Gerlinde Fellner & Matthias Sutter, 2008. "Causes, consequences, and cures of myopic loss aversion - An experimental investigation," Jena Economic Research Papers 2008-004, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena, Max-Planck-Institute of Economics.
- Fellner, Gerlinde & Sutter, Matthias, 2005. "Causes, consequences, and cures of myopic loss aversion - An experimental investigation," Discussion Paper Series of SFB/TR 15 Governance and the Efficiency of Economic Systems 171, Free University of Berlin, Humboldt University of Berlin, University of Bonn, University of Mannheim, University of Munich.
- Gerlinde Fellner & Matthias Sutter, 2008. "Causes, consequences, and cures of myopic loss aversion - An experimental investigation," Department of Economics Working Papers wuwp116, Vienna University of Economics, Department of Economics.
- Gerlinde Fellner & Matthias Sutter, 2005. "Causes, consequences, and cures of myopic loss aversion - An experimental investigation," Bonn Econ Discussion Papers bgse16_2005, University of Bonn, Germany.
- Ben Greiner, 2004. "The Online Recruitment System ORSEE 2.0 - A Guide for the Organization of Experiments in Economics," Working Paper Series in Economics 10, University of Cologne, Department of Economics.
- Manel Baucells & Martin Weber & Frank Welfens, 2011. "Reference-Point Formation and Updating," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(3), pages 506-519, March.
- Mohammed Abdellaoui & Aurelien Baillon & Laetitia Placido & Peter P. Wakker, 2011. "The Rich Domain of Uncertainty: Source Functions and Their Experimental Implementation," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(2), pages 695-723, April.
- Bebchuk, Lucian Arye & Fried, Jesse, 2003.
"Executive Compensation as an Agency Problem,"
CEPR Discussion Papers
3961, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
- Jinkwon Lee, 2008. "The effect of the background risk in a simple chance improving decision model," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 36(1), pages 19-41, February.
- Agrawal, Anup & Mandelker, Gershon N, 1987. " Managerial Incentives and Corporate Investment and Financing Decision s," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 42(4), pages 823-37, September.
- Chris Starmer, 2000. "Developments in Non-expected Utility Theory: The Hunt for a Descriptive Theory of Choice under Risk," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 38(2), pages 332-382, June.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Alexandra Frank).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.