IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/manchs/v84y2016i1p1-24.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Was Adam Smith Right? Evidence of Compensating Differential in CEO Pay

Author

Listed:
  • Swarnodeep HomRoy

Abstract

This paper estimates the compensating differential in CEO pay for the increasing risk of dismissal using contracted severance pay eligibility of the CEO as the main instrument. US CEOs receive a 3 per cent premium in pay for each percentage point increase in the risk of dismissal. In pointing to the dismissal risk as a determinant of CEO pay, these findings contribute to the debate on the recent growth in CEO pay and the potential impacts of governance reforms.

Suggested Citation

  • Swarnodeep HomRoy, 2016. "Was Adam Smith Right? Evidence of Compensating Differential in CEO Pay," Manchester School, University of Manchester, vol. 84(1), pages 1-24, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:manchs:v:84:y:2016:i:1:p:1-24
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1111/manc.12086
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lazear, Edward P & Rosen, Sherwin, 1981. "Rank-Order Tournaments as Optimum Labor Contracts," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 89(5), pages 841-864, October.
    2. Joshua D. Angrist & Alan B. Krueger, 2001. "Instrumental Variables and the Search for Identification: From Supply and Demand to Natural Experiments," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 15(4), pages 69-85, Fall.
    3. Kenneth M. Lehn & Mengxin Zhao, 2006. "CEO Turnover after Acquisitions: Are Bad Bidders Fired?," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 61(4), pages 1759-1811, August.
    4. Xavier Gabaix & Augustin Landier, 2008. "Why has CEO Pay Increased So Much?," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 123(1), pages 49-100.
    5. Yermack, David, 2006. "Golden handshakes: Separation pay for retired and dismissed CEOs," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 237-256, September.
    6. Michael C. Jensen, 2010. "The Modern Industrial Revolution, Exit, and the Failure of Internal Control Systems," Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, Morgan Stanley, vol. 22(1), pages 43-58.
    7. Ian Gregory-Smith & Steve Thompson & PeterW. Wright, 2009. "Fired or Retired? A Competing Risks Analysis of Chief Executive Turnover," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 119(536), pages 463-481, March.
    8. Florian S. Peters & Alexander F. Wagner, 2014. "The Executive Turnover Risk Premium," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 69(4), pages 1529-1563, August.
    9. Andres Almazan & Javier Suarez, 2003. "Entrenchment and Severance Pay in Optimal Governance Structures," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 58(2), pages 519-548, April.
    10. Engel, Ellen & Hayes, Rachel M. & Wang, Xue, 2007. "The Sarbanes-Oxley Act and firms' going-private decisions," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(1-2), pages 116-145, September.
    11. Moretti, Enrico, 2000. "Do Wages Compensate for Risk of Unemployment? Parametric and Semiparametric Evidence from Seasonal Jobs," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 20(1), pages 45-66, January.
    12. 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 225-264, April.
    13. Stock, James H & Wright, Jonathan H & Yogo, Motohiro, 2002. "A Survey of Weak Instruments and Weak Identification in Generalized Method of Moments," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 20(4), pages 518-529, October.
    14. 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.
    15. Eriksson, Tor, 1999. "Executive Compensation and Tournament Theory: Empirical Tests on Danish Data," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 17(2), pages 262-280, April.
    16. Bebchuk, Lucian A. & Fried, Jesse M., 2003. "Executive Compensation as an Agency Problem," Berkeley Olin Program in Law & Economics, Working Paper Series qt81q3136r, Berkeley Olin Program in Law & Economics.
    17. Fee, C. Edward & Hadlock, Charles J., 2004. "Management turnover across the corporate hierarchy," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 3-38, February.
    18. Lucian Arye Bebchuk & Jesse M. Fried, 2003. "Executive Compensation as an Agency Problem," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 17(3), pages 71-92, Summer.
    19. John E. Core & Wayne R. Guay & Tjomme O. Rusticus, 2006. "Does Weak Governance Cause Weak Stock Returns? An Examination of Firm Operating Performance and Investors' Expectations," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 61(2), pages 655-687, April.
    20. Conyon, Martin J, 1998. "Directors' Pay and Turnover: An Application to a Sample of Large UK Firms," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 60(4), pages 485-507, November.
    21. Graham, John R. & Harvey, Campbell R. & Puri, Manju, 2015. "Capital allocation and delegation of decision-making authority within firms," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 115(3), pages 449-470.
    22. 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.
    23. Zhang, Ivy Xiying, 2007. "Economic consequences of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(1-2), pages 74-115, September.
    24. Steven N. Kaplan & Bernadette A. Minton, 2012. "How Has CEO Turnover Changed?," International Review of Finance, International Review of Finance Ltd., vol. 12(1), pages 57-87, March.
    25. repec:fth:prinin:455 is not listed on IDEAS
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:manchs:v:84:y:2016:i:1:p:1-24. 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: (Wiley Content Delivery). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/semanuk.html .

    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 CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service 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.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.