IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

An Empirical Analysis of the SEC's 1992 Proxy Reforms on Executive Compensation

  • Johnson, Marilyn F.

    (Michigan State U)

  • Nelson, Karen K.

    (Stanford U)

  • Shackell, Margaret B.

    (U of Notre Dame)

Registered author(s):

    We examine the SEC's 1992 proxy reforms that expanded the amount of information about executive pay that is required to be disclosed in corporate proxy statements and permitted shareholders to file proxy proposals about executive compensation. Using a sample of executive compensation proposals filed against 64 firms during 1992-1995. We find that the stock market reaction to the reforms suggest that they imposed significant political costs on firms, without offsetting benefits to shareholders in the form of improved monitoring. We also find that the proposal filing decision primarily reflects populist political concerns about pay policies, but that voting outcomes primarily reflect shareholder concerns about the degree of incentive alignment provided by the firm's compensation contracts.

    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:
    Our checks indicate that this address may not be valid because: 500 Can't connect to ( [302 Found]--> If this is indeed the case, please notify ()

    Download Restriction: no

    Paper provided by Stanford University, Graduate School of Business in its series Research Papers with number 1679.

    in new window

    Date of creation: Feb 2001
    Date of revision:
    Handle: RePEc:ecl:stabus:1679
    Contact details of provider: Postal: Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-5015
    Phone: (650) 723-2146
    Fax: (650)725-6750
    Web page:

    More information through EDIRC

    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. 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.
    2. Robert Gibbons & Kevin J. Murphy, 1990. "Relative performance evaluation for chief executive officers," Industrial and Labor Relations Review, ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 43(3), pages 30-51, February.
    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. Strickland, Deon & Wiles, Kenneth W. & Zenner, Marc, 1996. "A requiem for the USA Is small shareholder monitoring effective?," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(2), pages 319-338, February.
    5. Murphy, Kevin J., 1997. "Executive compensation and the Modern Industrial Revolution1," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 15(4), pages 417-425, July.
    6. DeAngelo, Harry & DeAngelo, Linda, 1991. "Union negotiations and corporate policy *1: A study of labor concessions in the domestic steel industry during the 1980s," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 3-43, November.
    7. Choi, Stephen, 2000. "Proxy Issue Proposals: Impact of the 1992 SEC Proxy Reforms," Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 16(1), pages 233-68, April.
    8. Lewellen, Wilbur G. & Park, Taewoo & Ro, Byung T., 1996. "Self-serving behavior in managers' discretionary information disclosure decisions," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 227-251, April.
    9. Palepu, Krishna G., 1986. "Predicting takeover targets : A methodological and empirical analysis," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(1), pages 3-35, March.
    10. Paul L. Joskow & Nancy L. Rose & Catherine Wolfram, 1996. "Political Constraints on Executive Compensation: Evidence from the Electric Utility Industry," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 27(1), pages 165-182, Spring.
    11. Jensen, M.C. & Murphy, K.J., 1988. "Performance Pay And Top Management Incentives," Papers 88-04, Rochester, Business - Managerial Economics Research Center.
    12. 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.
    13. Gordon, Lilli A & Pound, John, 1993. " Information, Ownership Structure, and Shareholder Voting: Evidence from Shareholder-Sponsored Corporate Governance Proposals," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 48(2), pages 697-718, June.
    14. Fama, Eugene F, 1991. "Time, Salary, and Incentive Payoffs in Labor Contracts," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 9(1), pages 25-44, January.
    15. Steven Huddart, 1993. "The Effect of a Large Shareholder on Corporate Value," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 39(11), pages 1407-1421, November.
    16. Baber, William R. & Janakiraman, Surya N. & Kang, Sok-Hyon, 1996. "Investment opportunities and the structure of executive compensation," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(3), pages 297-318, June.
    17. Bushman, Robert M. & Indjejikian, Raffi J., 1993. "Accounting income, stock price, and managerial compensation," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(1-3), pages 3-23, April.
    18. Bushman, Robert M. & Indjejikian, Raffi J. & Smith, Abbie, 1996. "CEO compensation: The role of individual performance evaluation," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 161-193, April.
    19. Karpoff, Jonathan M. & Malatesta, Paul H. & Walkling, Ralph A., 1996. "Corporate governance and shareholder initiatives: Empirical evidence," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(3), pages 365-395, November.
    20. Mikkelson, Wayne H. & Partch, M. Megan, 1988. "Withdrawn Security Offerings," Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 23(02), pages 119-133, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

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

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ecl:stabus:1679. 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: ()

    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.

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.