Volume 9, Issue 3, September 2020, Page: 49-59
Variation in Executive Compensation and Allocation of Cash Flow
Chihchung Chien, Department of Finance, Asia University, Taichung, Taiwan
Shikuan Chen, Department of International Business, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan
Mingjen Chang, Department of Economics, National Dong Hwa University, Hualien, Taiwan
Received: May 31, 2020;       Accepted: Jun. 17, 2020;       Published: Jul. 4, 2020
DOI: 10.11648/j.eco.20200903.11      View  219      Downloads  103
Abstract
This study investigates whether the variation in executive compensation play an important role in allocation of internal generated cash flow. Several financial literature focus on the issue of cash-flow sensitivity on various uses of internally generated cash flow. Firms are able to distribute their incremental cash flow to payout dividends, reimburse debt, raise equity, hold cash as precautionary savings or increase the investment to obtain the growth opportunity in the future. However, a few studies investigate the change in cash-flow sensitivity on various uses after incorporating the variation in executive compensations and other control variables. According to academic theory of incentive-pay and agency problems, CEOs have incentive to allocate more cash flow to risky investment projects in order to increase their contingent rewards if there is more free cash flow in a firm. Accordingly, we propose that cash-flow sensitivity on investment and cash holding are more volatile than other uses in firms when we take account of variation in different types of executive compensation. This proposition highlight an interesting phenomenon that overinvestment directly connects to overpayment of CEOs. Moreover, we clarify that restriction on executive compensation, perhaps reduces the agency cost but it also forces firms to reduce managerial talent or effort such that cash-flow sensitivity of various uses would rely on the type of executive compensation. Using the cash-flow sensitivity model, we find that the variation in executive compensation would change the allocation of cash flow and lead to agency problems. After controlling the firm’s characteristics, CEO’s characteristics and governance characteristics, we highlight that time varying excess executive compensation significantly explain the cash-flow sensitivity on various uses. In particular, the performance-sensitive pay (incentive-pay) induced by self-serving motivation and unobserved CEO talent is responsible for variation in cash-flow sensitivity on internal cash flow allocation.
Keywords
Cash-flow Sensitivity, Excess Executive Compensation, Performance-sensitive Pay, Self-serving Motivation, Unobserved CEO Talent
To cite this article
Chihchung Chien, Shikuan Chen, Mingjen Chang, Variation in Executive Compensation and Allocation of Cash Flow, Economics. Vol. 9, No. 3, 2020, pp. 49-59. doi: 10.11648/j.eco.20200903.11
Copyright
Copyright © 2020 Authors retain the copyright of this article.
This article is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Reference
[1]
Abel, A. B., 1990, Asset prices under habit formation and catching up with the joneses, American Economic Review 80, 38-42.
[2]
Abowd, J. M., F. Kramarz, and D. N. Margolis, 1999, High wage workers and high wage firms, Econometrica 67, 251-333.
[3]
Albuquerque, A. M., G. De Franco, and R. S. Verdi, 2013, Peer choice in ceo compensation, Journal of Financial Economics 108, 160-181.
[4]
Almeida, H., M. Campello, and M. S. Weisbach, 2004, The cash flow sensitivity of cash, Journal of Finance 59, 1777-1804.
[5]
Almeida, Heitor, and Murillo Campello, 2007, Financial constraints, asset tangibility, and corporate investment, Review of Financial Studies 20, 1429-1460.
[6]
Almeida, Heitor, and Murillo Campello, 2010, Financing frictions and the substitution between internal and external funds, Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis 45, 589-622.
[7]
Amoako-Adu, B., V. Baulkaran, and B. F. Smith, 2011, Executive compensation in firms with concentrated control: The impact of dual class structure and family management, Journal of Corporate Finance 17, 1580-1594.
[8]
Balafas, N., and C. Florackis, 2014, Ceo compensation and future shareholder returns: Evidence from the london stock exchange, Journal of Empirical Finance 27, 97-115.
[9]
Bebchuk, L. A., and J. A. Fried, 2003, Executive compensation as an agency problem, Journal of Economic Perspectives 17, 71-92.
[10]
Benmelech, Efraim, Eugene Kandel, and Pietro Veronesi, 2010, Stock-based compensation and ceo (dis)incentives, Quarterly Journal of Economics 125, 1769-1820.
[11]
Bizjak, John, Michael Lemmon, and Nguyen Thanh, 2011, Are all ceos above average? An empirical analysis of compensation peer groups and pay design, Journal of Financial Economics 100, 538-555.
[12]
Bizjak, John M., Michael L. Lemmon, and Lalitha Naveen, 2008, Does the use of peer groups contribute to higher pay and less efficient compensation? Journal of Financial Economics 90, 152-168.
[13]
Brick, I. E., O. Palmon, and J. K. Wald, 2006, Ceo compensation, director compensation, and firm performance: Evidence of cronyism, Journal of Corporate Finance 12, 403-423.
[14]
Cai, J., and R. A. Walkling, 2011, Shareholders’ say on pay: Does it create value? Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis 46, 299-339.
[15]
Campbell, J. Y., and J. H. Cochrane, 1999, By force of habit: A consumption-based explanation of aggregate stock market behavior, Journal of Political Economy 107, 205-251.
[16]
Cao, J., X. F. Pan, and G. Tian, 2011, Disproportional ownership structure and pay-performance relationship: Evidence from china's listed firms, Journal of Corporate Finance 17, 541-554.
[17]
Capezio, A., J. Shields, and M. O'Donnell, 2011, Too good to be true: Board structural independence as a moderator of ceo pay-for-firm-performance, Journal of Management Studies 48, 487-513.
[18]
Cebon, P., and B. E. Hermalin, 2015, When less is more: The benefits of limits on executive pay, Review of Financial Studies 28, 1667-1700.
[19]
Chang, X., S. Dasgupta, G. Wong, and J. Q. Yao, 2014, Cash-flow sensitivities and the allocation of internal cash flow, Review of Financial Studies 27, 3628-3657.
[20]
Chang, Yuk Ying, Sudipto Dasgupta, and Gilles Hilary, 2010, Ceo ability, pay, and firm performance, Management Science 56, 1633-1652.
[21]
Core, J. E., R. W. Holthausen, and D. F. Larcker, 1999, Corporate governance, chief executive officer compensation, and firm performance, Journal of Financial Economics 51, 371-406.
[22]
Dey, A., E. Engel, and X. H. Liu, 2011, Ceo and board chair roles: To split or not to split? Journal of Corporate Finance 17, 1595-1618.
[23]
Edmans, Alex, Xavier Gabaix, Tomasz Sadzik, and Yuliy Sannikov, 2012, Dynamic ceo compensation, Journal of Finance 67, 1603-1647.
[24]
Gao, H. S., J. Harford, and K. Li, 2012, Ceo pay cuts and forced turnover: Their causes and consequences, Journal of Corporate Finance 18, 291-310.
[25]
Goergen, Marc, and Luc Renneboog, 2011, Managerial compensation, Journal of Corporate Finance 17, 1068-1077.
[26]
Kaustia, M., and V. Rantala, 2015, Social learning and corporate peer effects, Journal of Financial Economics 117, 653-669.
[27]
Malmendier, Ulrike, Geoffrey Tate, and Jon Yan, 2011, Overconfidence and early-life experiences: The effect of managerial traits on corporate financial policies, Journal of Finance 66, 1687-1733.
[28]
Milbourn, T. T., 2003, Ceo reputation and stock-based compensation, Journal of Financial Economics 68, 233-262.
[29]
Minnick, K., and L. Rosenthal, 2014, Stealth compensation: Do ceos increase their pay by influencing dividend policy? Journal of Corporate Finance 25, 435-454.
[30]
Otto, Clemens A., 2014, Ceo optimism and incentive compensation, Journal of Financial Economics 114, 366-404.
Browse journals by subject