Executive Compensation and Financial Performance Measures: Evidence from Significant Financial Institutions

IF 3.1 3区 管理学 Q2 BUSINESS, FINANCE
Cao Hoang Anh Le, Yaowen Shan, Stephen Taylor
{"title":"Executive Compensation and Financial Performance Measures: Evidence from Significant Financial Institutions","authors":"Cao Hoang Anh Le,&nbsp;Yaowen Shan,&nbsp;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.

高管薪酬与财务绩效衡量:来自重要金融机构的证据
我们调查使用财务绩效指标在确定高管薪酬显著澳大利亚金融机构。我们记录的证据表明,外部披露的非公认会计原则(non-GAAP)财务指标也普遍用于内部确定可变薪酬,在短期激励计划中,税后现金利润显然很受欢迎。我们的证据还强调,在确定长期激励措施时,越来越多地使用同行群体调整措施(例如,相对每股现金收益和相对于同行群体的股本回报率排名),尽管同行群体的成员并不以直接可比的方式衡量财务绩效。对四大贸易银行(澳大利亚和新西兰银行集团、联邦银行、澳大利亚国民银行和西太平洋银行)的详细分析揭示了各大银行计算非公认会计准则收益的方式的差异,以及各银行衡量业绩的方式随时间的变化。我们还记录了非gaap收益重述的证据,其中约25%的非gaap业绩随后被重述。这些重述更有可能导致最初报告的非公认会计准则结果的向下修订,而不是向上修订。因此,我们得出结论,用于确定高管薪酬的现有财务绩效指标并不像人们可能认为的那样“客观”。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Australian Accounting Review
Australian Accounting Review BUSINESS, FINANCE-
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
17.60%
发文量
31
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信