CEO Compensation and Board Structure – Rejoinder
10 Pages Posted: 16 Jun 2012
Date Written: April 18, 2012
Abstract
In their reply to our critique, Chhaochharia and Grinstein (2012) suggest that (i) Apple is a prime example of how board regulations affect CEO pay and should therefore not be excluded from the study, and (ii) their original results are robust to excluding the outliers when extending the pre-event sample period from 2000 to 2002 back to 1996. In this rejoinder, we (i) dispute that Apple is a fitting example to illustrate the causal effect of board independence on CEO pay, (ii) caution against drawing conclusions about the robustness of the results from the new regression results in the reply (e.g., due to lack of relevance, sample selection issues, and more outlier effects), and (iii) argue that important omissions in the reply cast further doubt on the conclusions advocated by CG. In a nutshell, the existing evidence simply does not support the view that mandated board independence helps rein in executive compensation.
Keywords: Executive Compensation, CEO Pay, Managerial Power, Board Structure, Board Independence, Corporate Governance, Compensation Committee, Sarbanes-Oxley, NYSE, Nasdaq
JEL Classification: G34, G38, J31, J33
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation
Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?
Recommended Papers
-
Are CEOS Really Paid Like Bureaucrats?
By Brian J. Hall and Jeffrey B. Liebman
-
Are CEOS Really Paid Like Bureaucrats?
By Brian J. Hall and Jeffrey B. Liebman
-
The Other Side of the Tradeoff: The Impact of Risk on Executive Compensation
-
Good Timing: CEO Stock Option Awards and Company News Announcements
-
Good Timing: CEO Stock Option Awards and Company News Announcements
-
The Use of Equity Grants to Manage Optimal Equity Incentive Levels
By John E. Core and Wayne R. Guay
-
The Other Side of the Tradeoff: the Impact of Risk on Executive Compensation
-
Stock Options for Undiversified Executives
By Brian J. Hall and Kevin J. Murphy