共同所有制下的高管激励

IF 7.2 1区 经济学 Q1 BUSINESS, FINANCE
Thomas Schneider
{"title":"共同所有制下的高管激励","authors":"Thomas Schneider","doi":"10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2025.102806","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Relative performance evaluation (RPE) increases competition and limits pay-for-luck by rewarding executives for outperforming rivals. This study tests whether institutional investors reduce RPE use when they own stakes in competing firms. Contrary to this, the Big Three asset managers – BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street – demonstrate strong preferences for RPE, reflected in portfolio firms' RPE adoptions, say-on-pay vote support, and peer group selections. No evidence suggests that common ownership by these or other institutional investors reduces RPE, as confidence bounds and point estimates are near zero. Overall, the rising prevalence of RPE challenges concerns about anticompetitive effects from common ownership.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":15525,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Corporate Finance","volume":"93 ","pages":"Article 102806"},"PeriodicalIF":7.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Executive incentives under common ownership\",\"authors\":\"Thomas Schneider\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2025.102806\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Relative performance evaluation (RPE) increases competition and limits pay-for-luck by rewarding executives for outperforming rivals. This study tests whether institutional investors reduce RPE use when they own stakes in competing firms. Contrary to this, the Big Three asset managers – BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street – demonstrate strong preferences for RPE, reflected in portfolio firms' RPE adoptions, say-on-pay vote support, and peer group selections. No evidence suggests that common ownership by these or other institutional investors reduces RPE, as confidence bounds and point estimates are near zero. Overall, the rising prevalence of RPE challenges concerns about anticompetitive effects from common ownership.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15525,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Corporate Finance\",\"volume\":\"93 \",\"pages\":\"Article 102806\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":7.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Corporate Finance\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0929119925000744\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"经济学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS, FINANCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Corporate Finance","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0929119925000744","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BUSINESS, FINANCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

相对绩效评估(RPE)增加了竞争,并通过奖励表现优于竞争对手的高管来限制按运气付工资。本研究检验了当机构投资者持有竞争公司的股份时,是否会减少RPE的使用。与此相反,三大资产管理公司——贝莱德(BlackRock)、先锋(Vanguard)和道富(State Street)——表现出对RPE的强烈偏好,这反映在投资组合公司的RPE采用、薪酬话语权投票支持和同行群体选择上。没有证据表明这些或其他机构投资者的共同所有权会降低RPE,因为置信限和点估计接近于零。总的来说,RPE的日益流行挑战了对共同所有权的反竞争影响的担忧。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Executive incentives under common ownership
Relative performance evaluation (RPE) increases competition and limits pay-for-luck by rewarding executives for outperforming rivals. This study tests whether institutional investors reduce RPE use when they own stakes in competing firms. Contrary to this, the Big Three asset managers – BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street – demonstrate strong preferences for RPE, reflected in portfolio firms' RPE adoptions, say-on-pay vote support, and peer group selections. No evidence suggests that common ownership by these or other institutional investors reduces RPE, as confidence bounds and point estimates are near zero. Overall, the rising prevalence of RPE challenges concerns about anticompetitive effects from common ownership.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Corporate Finance
Journal of Corporate Finance BUSINESS, FINANCE-
CiteScore
11.80
自引率
3.30%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: The Journal of Corporate Finance aims to publish high quality, original manuscripts that analyze issues related to corporate finance. Contributions can be of a theoretical, empirical, or clinical nature. Topical areas of interest include, but are not limited to: financial structure, payout policies, corporate restructuring, financial contracts, corporate governance arrangements, the economics of organizations, the influence of legal structures, and international financial management. Papers that apply asset pricing and microstructure analysis to corporate finance issues are also welcome.
×
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