{"title":"Executive Compensation and Financial Performance Measures: Evidence from Significant Financial Institutions","authors":"Cao Hoang Anh Le, Yaowen Shan, Stephen Taylor","doi":"10.1111/auar.12315","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>We survey the use of financial performance measures in determining executive pay among significant Australian financial institutions. We document evidence of the pervasiveness with which externally disclosed non-GAAP (non-Generally Accepted Accounting Principles) financial measures are also used internally to determine variable remuneration, with the apparent popularity of cash profit after tax in short-term incentives plans. Our evidence also highlights the increasing use of peer group-adjusted measures (e.g., relative cash earnings per share and return on equity ranking against a peer group) in determining longer-run incentives, despite the fact that members of the peer group do not measure financial performance in a directly comparable manner. Detailed analysis of the four major trading banks (Australia and New Zealand Banking Group, Commonwealth Bank, National Australia Bank and Westpac) reveals differences in the way non-GAAP earnings measures are calculated across the major banks, as well as some variation over time in the way individual banks measure performance. We also document evidence of non-GAAP earnings restatements, with around 25% of non-GAAP results subsequently being restated. These restatements are more likely to result in a downward revision of the initially reported non-GAAP result than an upward revision. We therefore conclude that existing measures of financial performance used to determine senior executive compensation are not as ‘objective’, as might be assumed.</p>","PeriodicalId":51552,"journal":{"name":"Australian Accounting Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2020-07-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/auar.12315","citationCount":"12","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian Accounting Review","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/auar.12315","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BUSINESS, FINANCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 12
Abstract
We survey the use of financial performance measures in determining executive pay among significant Australian financial institutions. We document evidence of the pervasiveness with which externally disclosed non-GAAP (non-Generally Accepted Accounting Principles) financial measures are also used internally to determine variable remuneration, with the apparent popularity of cash profit after tax in short-term incentives plans. Our evidence also highlights the increasing use of peer group-adjusted measures (e.g., relative cash earnings per share and return on equity ranking against a peer group) in determining longer-run incentives, despite the fact that members of the peer group do not measure financial performance in a directly comparable manner. Detailed analysis of the four major trading banks (Australia and New Zealand Banking Group, Commonwealth Bank, National Australia Bank and Westpac) reveals differences in the way non-GAAP earnings measures are calculated across the major banks, as well as some variation over time in the way individual banks measure performance. We also document evidence of non-GAAP earnings restatements, with around 25% of non-GAAP results subsequently being restated. These restatements are more likely to result in a downward revision of the initially reported non-GAAP result than an upward revision. We therefore conclude that existing measures of financial performance used to determine senior executive compensation are not as ‘objective’, as might be assumed.