CEO Pay Slice and Cost Stickiness
0
조회
0
다운로드
2
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
In this study, we examine the effect of CEO pay slice (CPS) on cost stickiness. By following Bebchuk et al. (2011), we measure CPS as the CEO’s total compensation as a fraction of the combined total compensation of the top five executives. Costs are sticky if the magnitude of costs increase is bigger than the magnitude of costs decrease associated with an equivalent decrease in economic activity (Venieris et al. 2015). Bebchuk et al. (2011) and Chintrakarn et al. (2014) indicate that CPS represents the ability of a CEO to extract rents. According to the agency theory, CPS is likely to increase cost stickiness due to high agency costs. Conversely, the stewardship theory suggests that CPS is likely to reduce cost stickiness because a CEO is not an opportunistic agent, but a good steward (Donaldson and Davis 1991) acting in the best interest of shareholders by setting costs at an optimal level. Using a sample of 34,746 firm－year observations in the United States for the period 1992 to 2019, our results find a nonmonotonic relationship between CPS and cost stickiness. Specifically, relatively low CPS results in less cost stickiness. However, when CPS surpasses a certain point (approximately 45 percent of CPS), cost stickiness dramatically increases. These results are consistent when endogeneity issues are controlled by using propensity score matching regression. Finally, we find that corporate governance restructuring forced by the Global Financial Crisis mitigates the effect of CPS on cost stickiness, emphasizing the importance of implementing effective corporate governance and CEO compensation structure.
Abstract
In this study, we examine the effect of CEO pay slice (CPS) on cost stickiness. By following Bebchuk et al. (2011), we measure CPS as the CEO’s total compensation as a fraction of the combined total compensation of the top five executives. Costs are sticky if the magnitude of costs increase is bigger than the magnitude of costs decrease associated with an equivalent decrease in economic activity (Venieris et al. 2015). Bebchuk et al. (2011) and Chintrakarn et al. (2014) indicate that CPS represents the ability of a CEO to extract rents. According to the agency theory, CPS is likely to increase cost stickiness due to high agency costs. Conversely, the stewardship theory suggests that CPS is likely to reduce cost stickiness because a CEO is not an opportunistic agent, but a good steward (Donaldson and Davis 1991) acting in the best interest of shareholders by setting costs at an optimal level. Using a sample of 34,746 firm－year observations in the United States for the period 1992 to 2019, our results find a nonmonotonic relationship between CPS and cost stickiness. Specifically, relatively low CPS results in less cost stickiness. However, when CPS surpasses a certain point (approximately 45 percent of CPS), cost stickiness dramatically increases. These results are consistent when endogeneity issues are controlled by using propensity score matching regression. Finally, we find that corporate governance restructuring forced by the Global Financial Crisis mitigates the effect of CPS on cost stickiness, emphasizing the importance of implementing effective corporate governance and CEO compensation structure.
참고문헌 (41)
- 곽영민, "최고경영자에 대한 경영권 집중화 수준과 기업가치", 회계학연구, 42(1), pp.187~226 (2017), 한국회계학회[DOI]
- 지상현, "최고경영자 영향력과 회계보수주의 : 지배구조, 내부회계관리운영조직, 감사품질에 따라", 국제회계연구, (83), pp.127~157 (2019), 한국국제회계학회[DOI]
- 김용식, "기업지배구조가 경영권 집중도에 미치는 영향", 국제회계연구, (77), pp.77~109 (2018), 한국국제회계학회[DOI]
- 김지영, "CEO 임금 비중(CPS)과 경영투명성 ：회계이익－과세소득 차이 정보를 활용하여", 세무회계연구, (58), pp.229~248 (2018), 한국세무회계학회[DOI]
- Al－Najjar, B., "Determinants and value relevance of UK CEO pay slice", International Review of Applied Economics, 30(3), pp.403~421 (2016)
- Anderson, M., "Cost behavior and fundamental analysis of SG&A costs", Journal of Accounting, Auditing & Finance, 22(1), pp.1~28 (2007)
- Anderson, M., "Are selling, general, and administrative costs “stick”?", Journal of Accounting Research, 41(1), pp.47~63 (2003)
- Balakrishnan, R., "Does capacity utilization affect the “stickiness” of cost?", Journal of Accounting, Auditing, and Finance, 19(3), pp.283~300 (2004)
- Banker, R., "Asymmetric cost behavior", Journal of Management Accounting Research, 26(2), pp.43~79 (2014)
- Banker, R., "Employment protection legislation, adjustment costs and cross－country differences in cost behavior", Journal of Accounting and Economics, 55(1), pp.111~127 (2013)
- Bebchuk, L., "The CEO pay slice", Journal of Financial Economics, 102(1), pp.199~221 (2011)
- Brüggen, A., "SG&A cost stickiness and equity－based executive compensation: Does empire building matter?", Journal of Management Control, 25(3－4), pp.169~192 (2014)
- Bugeja, M., "Cost stickiness in Australia: Characteristics and determinants", Australian Accounting Review, 25(3), pp.248~261 (2015)
- Calleja, K., "A note on cost stickiness: Some international comparisons", Management Accounting Research, 17(2), pp.127~140 (2006)
- Cannella, A., "Contrasting perspectives on strategic leaders: Toward a more realistic view of top managers", Journal of Management, 23(3), pp.213~237 (1997)
- Chen, C., "The agency problem, corporate governance, and the asymmetrical behaviour of selling, general, and administrative costs", Contemporary Accounting Research, 29(1), pp.252~282 (2012)
- Chintrakarn, P., "How do powerful CEOs view dividends and stock repurchases? Evidence from the CEO pay slice (CPS)", International Review of Economics & Finance, 58, pp.49~64 (2018)
- Chintrakarn, P., "Powerful CEOs and capital structure decisions: Evidence from the CEO pay slice (CPS)", Applied Economics Letters, 21(8), pp.564~568 (2014)
- Chintrakarn, P., "How do powerful CEOs view corporate risk－taking? Evidence from the CEO pay slice (CPS)", Applied Economics Letters, 22(2), pp.104~109 (2015)
- Chung, C., "Institutional investors and cost stickiness: Theory and evidence", The North American Journal of Economics and Finance, 47, pp.336~350 (2019)
- Davis, J., "Toward a stewardship theory of management", Academy of Management Review, 22(1), pp.20~47 (1997)
- Dierynck, B., "Do managerial incentives drive cost behavior? Evidence about the role of the zero earnings benchmark for labor cost behavior in private Belgian firms", The Accounting Review, 87(4), pp.1219~1246 (2012)
- Donaldson, L., "Stewardship theory or agency theory: CEO governance and shareholder returns", Australian Journal of Management, 16(1), pp.49~64 (1991)
- Doucouliagos, C., "A note on the evolution of homo economicus", Journal of Economic Issues, 28(3), pp.877~883 (1994)
- Habib, A., "Corporate social responsibility and cost stickiness", Business & Society, 58(3), pp.453~492 (2019)
- Jensen, M., "Economics social institutions", pp.163~231 (1979), Springer
- Jiraporn, P., "Capital structure, CEO dominance, and corporate performance", Journal of Financial Services Research, 42(3), pp.139~158 (2012)
- Jouber, H., "How does CEO pay slice influence corporate social responsibility? USCanadian versus Spanish－French listed firms", Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 26(2), pp.502~517 (2019)
- Kama, I., "Do earnings targets and managerial incentives affect sticky costs?", Journal of Accounting Research, 51(1), pp.201~224 (2013)
- Kuang, Y., "CEO overconfidence and cost stickiness", Management Control & Accounting, 2, pp.26~32 (2015)
- Li, W., "Product market competition and cost stickiness", Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, 49(2), pp.283~313 (2017)
- Mo, K., "CEO pension and selling, general and administrative cost stickiness", International Journal of Entrepreneurship, 22(4) (2018)
- Prabowo, R., "State ownership, socio－political factors, and labor cost stickiness", European Accounting Review, 27(4), pp.771~796 (2018)
- Usman, M., "Gender diversity in compensation committees and CEO pay: Evidence from China", Management Decision, 56(5), pp.1065~1087 (2018)
- Venieris, G., "Organisation capital and sticky behaviour of selling, general and administrative expenses", Management Accounting Research, 26, pp.54~82 (2015)
- Via, N., "Sticky cost behaviour: Evidence from small and medium sized companies", Accounting & Finance, 54(3), pp.753~778 (2014)
- Vo, T., "CEO pay disparity: Efficient contracting or managerial power?", Journal of Corporate Finance, 54, pp.168~190 (2019)
- Withisuphakorn, P., "Co－opted directors and powerful CEOs:Evidence from the CEO pay slice (CPS)", Applied Economics Letters, 24(6), pp.381~386 (2017)
- Yang, T., "CEO duality and firm performance: Evidence from an exogenous shock to the competitive environment", Journal of Banking and Finance, 49, pp.534~552 (2014)
- Yao, K., "Cost stickiness, ownership concentration and enterprise risk－Empirical evidence from Chinese listed manufacturing companies", American Journal of Industrial and Business Management, 8(1), pp.163~174 (2018)
- Zagonov, M., "CEO pay slice as a measure of CEO dominance", Research in International Business and Finance, 45, pp.571~576 (2018)