IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hke/wpaper/wp2021-08.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Motivating Collusion

Author

Listed:
  • Sangeun Ha

    (The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology)

  • Fangyuan Ma

    (Peking University HSBC Business School)

  • Alminas Žaldokas

    (The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology)

Abstract

We examine how executive compensation can be designed to motivate product market collusion. We look at the 2013 decision to close several regional offices of the Department of Justice, which lowered antitrust enforcement for firms located near these closed offices. We argue that this made collusion more appealing to the shareholders, and find that these firms increased the sensitivity of executive pay to local rivals' performance, consistent with rewarding the managers for colluding with them. The affected CEOs were also granted more equity compensation, which provides long-term incentives that could foster collusive arrangements.

Suggested Citation

  • Sangeun Ha & Fangyuan Ma & Alminas Žaldokas, 2021. "Motivating Collusion," HKUST CEP Working Papers Series 202108, HKUST Center for Economic Policy.
    • Handle: RePEc:hke:wpaper:wp2021-08
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://cep.hkust.edu.hk/sites/default/files/publications_media/full_paper/WP%202021-08_0.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Robert Gibbons & Kevin J. Murphy, 1989. "Relative Performance Evaluation for Chief Executive Officers," Working Papers 628, Princeton University, Department of Economics, Industrial Relations Section..
    2. Fershtman, Chaim & Judd, Kenneth L, 1987. "Equilibrium Incentives in Oligopoly," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 77(5), pages 927-940, December.
    3. Rajesh K. Aggarwal & Andrew A. Samwick, 1999. "The Other Side of the Trade-off: The Impact of Risk on Executive Compensation," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 107(1), pages 65-105, February.
    4. Spagnolo, Giancarlo & Bloomfield, Matthew & Marvao, Catarina, 2020. "Relative Performance Evaluation, Sabotage and Collusion," CEPR Discussion Papers 15115, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    5. Steven D. Sklivas, 1987. "The Strategic Choice of Managerial Incentives," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 18(3), pages 452-458, Autumn.
    6. Robert Gibbons & Kevin J. Murphy, 1990. "Relative Performance Evaluation for Chief Executive Officers," ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 43(3), pages 30, April.
    7. Huck, Steffen & Normann, Hans-Theo & Oechssler, Jorg, 2004. "Two are few and four are many: number effects in experimental oligopolies," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 53(4), pages 435-446, April.
    8. Sung Wook Joh, 1999. "Strategic Managerial Incentive Compensation In Japan: Relative Performance Evaluation And Product Market Collusion," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 81(2), pages 303-313, May.
    9. Kristin Wilson & Stan Veuger, 2017. "Information Frictions in Uncertain Regulatory Environments: Evidence from U.S. Commercial Banks," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 79(2), pages 205-233, April.
    10. Tanja Artiga González & Markus Schmid & David Yermack, 2019. "Does Price Fixing Benefit Corporate Managers?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(10), pages 4813-4840, October.
    11. Bizjak, John M. & Lemmon, Michael L. & Naveen, Lalitha, 2008. "Does the use of peer groups contribute to higher pay and less efficient compensation?," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 90(2), pages 152-168, November.
    12. Giancarlo Spagnolo, 2000. "Stock-Related Compensation and Product-Market Competition," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 31(1), pages 22-42, Spring.
    13. Dan Bernhardt & Christopher P. Chambers, 2006. "Profit sharing (with workers) facilitates collusion (among firms)," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 37(3), pages 483-502, September.
    14. Reitman, David, 1993. "Stock Options and the Strategic Use of Managerial Incentives," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 83(3), pages 513-524, June.
    15. Albuquerque, Ana, 2009. "Peer firms in relative performance evaluation," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 69-89, October.
    16. Eliezer M. Fich & Anil Shivdasani, 2006. "Are Busy Boards Effective Monitors?," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 61(2), pages 689-724, April.
    17. Antle, R & Smith, A, 1986. "An Empirical-Investigation Of The Relative Performance Evaluation Of Corporate-Executives," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 24(1), pages 1-39.
    18. Agrawal, Anup & Jaffe, Jeffrey F & Karpoff, Jonathan M, 1999. "Management Turnover and Governance Changes following the Revelation of Fraud," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 42(1), pages 309-342, April.
    19. David De Angelis & Yaniv Grinstein, 2015. "Performance Terms in CEO Compensation Contracts," Review of Finance, European Finance Association, vol. 19(2), pages 619-651.
    20. Spagnolo, Giancarlo, 2005. "Managerial incentives and collusive behavior," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 49(6), pages 1501-1523, August.
    21. Joseph E. Harrington, Jr, 2006. "How Do Cartels Operate?," Economics Working Paper Archive 531, The Johns Hopkins University,Department of Economics.
    22. García, Diego & Norli, Øyvind, 2012. "Geographic dispersion and stock returns," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 106(3), pages 547-565.
    23. 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.
    24. Harrington, Joseph E., 2006. "How Do Cartels Operate?," Foundations and Trends(R) in Microeconomics, now publishers, vol. 2(1), pages 1-105, August.
    25. Janakiraman, Sn & Lambert, Ra & Larcker, Df, 1992. "An Empirical-Investigation Of The Relative Performance Evaluation Hypothesis," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(1), pages 53-69.
    26. Gerard Hoberg & Gordon Phillips, 2016. "Text-Based Network Industries and Endogenous Product Differentiation," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 124(5), pages 1423-1465.
    27. Barry J. Nalebuff & Joseph E. Stiglitz, 1983. "Prices and Incentives: Towards a General Theory of Compensation and Competition," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 14(1), pages 21-43, Spring.
    28. Klasa, Sandy & Ortiz-Molina, Hernán & Serfling, Matthew & Srinivasan, Shweta, 2018. "Protection of trade secrets and capital structure decisions," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 128(2), pages 266-286.
    29. Stefan Zeume, 2017. "Bribes and Firm Value," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 30(5), pages 1457-1489.
    30. Faulkender, Michael & Yang, Jun, 2010. "Inside the black box: The role and composition of compensation peer groups," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 96(2), pages 257-270, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ha, Sangeun & Ma, Fangyuan & Žaldokas, Alminas, 2024. "Motivating collusion," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    2. Miguel Antón & Florian Ederer & Mireia Giné & Martin Schmalz, 2023. "Common Ownership, Competition, and Top Management Incentives," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 131(5), pages 1294-1355.
    3. Dirk Jenter & Fadi Kanaan, 2015. "CEO Turnover and Relative Performance Evaluation," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 70(5), pages 2155-2184, October.
    4. Tor‐Erik Bakke & Hamed Mahmudi & Ashley Newton, 2020. "Performance peer groups in CEO compensation contracts," Financial Management, Financial Management Association International, vol. 49(4), pages 997-1027, December.
    5. Spagnolo, Giancarlo & Bloomfield, Matthew & Marvao, Catarina, 2020. "Relative Performance Evaluation, Sabotage and Collusion," CEPR Discussion Papers 15115, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    6. Christoph Feichter & Frank Moers & Oscar Timmermans, 2022. "Relative Performance Evaluation and Competitive Aggressiveness," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(5), pages 1859-1913, December.
    7. Dragan Ilić & Sonja Pisarov & Peter S. Schmidt, 2019. "Preaching water but drinking wine? Relative performance evaluation in international banking," Swiss Journal of Economics and Statistics, Springer;Swiss Society of Economics and Statistics, vol. 155(1), pages 1-25, December.
    8. Na, Ke, 2020. "CEOs’ outside opportunities and relative performance evaluation: evidence from a natural experiment," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 137(3), pages 679-700.
    9. Ryan T. Ball & Jonathan Bonham & Thomas Hemmer, 2020. "Does it pay to ‘Be Like Mike’? Aspiratonal peer firms and relative performance evaluation," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 25(4), pages 1507-1541, December.
    10. Ili, Dragan & Pisarov, Sonja & Schmidt, Peter S., 2015. "Preaching Water But Drinking Wine? Relative Performance Evaluation in International Banking," Working papers 2015/10, Faculty of Business and Economics - University of Basel.
    11. Agranov, Marina & Tergiman, Chloe, 2013. "Incentives and compensation schemes: An experimental study," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 238-247.
    12. Barreda-Tarrazona, Iván & Georgantzís, Nikolaos & Manasakis, Constantine & Mitrokostas, Evangelos & Petrakis, Emmanuel, 2016. "Endogenous managerial compensation contracts in experimental quantity-setting duopolies," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 205-217.
    13. Albuquerque, Ana, 2009. "Peer firms in relative performance evaluation," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 69-89, October.
    14. Dragan Ilić & Sonja Pisarov & Peter S. Schmidt, 2015. "Preaching water but drinking wine? Relative performance evaluation in international banking," ECON - Working Papers 208, Department of Economics - University of Zurich, revised Aug 2016.
    15. Kaniel, Ron & DeMarzo, Peter, 2016. "Relative Pay for Non-Relative Performance: Keeping up with the Joneses with Optimal Contracts," CEPR Discussion Papers 11538, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    16. Francis, Bill & Hasan, Iftekhar & Mani, Sureshbabu & Ye, Pengfei, 2016. "Relative peer quality and firm performance," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 122(1), pages 196-219.
    17. Carola Frydman & Dirk Jenter, 2010. "CEO Compensation," Annual Review of Financial Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 2(1), pages 75-102, December.
    18. Marco Celentani & Rosa Loveira-Pazó, 2004. "What form of relative performance evaluation?," Economics Working Papers 744, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
    19. An, Suwei, 2023. "Essays on incentive contracts, M&As, and firm risk," Other publications TiSEM dd97d2f5-1c9d-47c5-ba62-f, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    20. repec:eee:labchp:v:3:y:1999:i:pb:p:2373-2437 is not listed on IDEAS
    21. Hamamura, Jumpei & Hayakawa, Sho, 2019. "The optimal choice of a relative performance indicator in product market competition," MPRA Paper 93921, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Product Market Collusion; Corporate Governance; Managerial Compensation;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • G34 - Financial Economics - - Corporate Finance and Governance - - - Mergers; Acquisitions; Restructuring; Corporate Governance
    • G38 - Financial Economics - - Corporate Finance and Governance - - - Government Policy and Regulation
    • L22 - Industrial Organization - - Firm Objectives, Organization, and Behavior - - - Firm Organization and Market Structure

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:hke:wpaper:wp2021-08. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 bibliographic 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kathy Wong (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ceusthk.html .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.