Is 'Say on Pay' Justified?
6 Pages Posted: 15 Aug 2009 Last revised: 22 Sep 2009
Date Written: 2009
Abstract
There is growing political support for adopting a 'Say on Pay' requirement for executive compensation - that is, shareholders must sign off on executive compensation. This paper examines three premises fundamental to the 'Say on Pay; movement: that current executive compensation is unjustifiably high, that federal legislation is required to address that high compensation, and that federal legislation would be effective in this aim. The paper finds that all three claims are problematic.
Keywords: federalism, say on pay, h.r. 1257, executive compensation, corporate governance, principal-agent dilemma, director primacy, shareholder activism
JEL Classification: D60, D70, G30, G34, G38, J33, L10, L21, M10
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation
Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?
Recommended Papers
-
Corporate Governance and Shareholder Initiatives: Empirical Evidence
By Jonathan M. Karpoff, Paul H. Malatesta, ...
-
The Impact of Shareholder Activism on Target Companies: A Survey of Empirical Findings
-
Shareholder Activism and Corporate Governance in the United States
-
Monitoring: Which Institutions Matter?
By Kai Li, Jarrad Harford, ...
-
Hedge Fund Activism, Corporate Governance, and Firm Performance
-
By Tim C. Opler and Jonathan S. Sokobin
-
The Evolution of Shareholder Activism in the United States
By Stuart Gillan and Laura T. Starks