上市公司高管薪酬与企业绩效外文文献翻译最新
高管薪酬分散公司治理与企业绩效【外文翻译】
本科毕业论文（设计）外文翻译原文：Executive pay dispersion, corporate governance, and firmperformanceExecutive compensation has been a central research topic in economics and business during the past two decades, recently gaining impetus in the wake of corporate scandals that have exposed significant vulnerabilities in corporate governance and the subsequent far reaching regulatory changes (Sarbanes–Oxley). Prior research into executive compensation has primarily focused on issues related to the level and structural mix of compensation packages, and their sensitivity to firm performance (Lambert and Larcker 1987; Jensen and Murphy 1990; Yermack 1995; Baber et al. 1996; Hall and Liebman 1998; Core et al. 1999; Murphy 1999; Bryan et al. 2000). Early compensation studies focused on the CEO, subsequently expanding the scope to the compensation of the entire managerial team. Thus, for example, Aggarwal and Samwick (2003) report that managers with divisional responsibilities have lower pay–performance sensitivities than do managers with broad oversight authority, who in turn have lower pay–performance sensitivities than does the CEO, concluding that pay–performance sensitivity increases with the span of authority. Similarly, Barron and Waddell (2003) examine the characteristics of compensation packages of the five highest paid executives and find that higher rank managers have a greater proportion of incentive-based compensation in pay packages than do lower ranked executives.The issue of pay dispersion across managerial team members has received conceptual attention by labor economists and organization theorists, yet scant empirical research has been performed to date. In this study, we investigate empirically the effect of managerial compensation dispersion on firm performance.We draw on two competing models—the tournament theory and equity fairness arguments—to formulate our hypotheses: Tournament theory (Lazear and Rosen,1981) views the advancement of executives in the corporate hierarchy as a tournament in which individuals compete for promotion and rewards. High-performing executives with considerable managerial potential win promotion and commensurate compensation. A large spread of compensation across corporate hierarchical levels attracts talented and venturesome participants to compete in the managerial tournament, providing extra incentives to exert effort. The winners’ talent and the extra effort exerted will, according to the tournament model, translate to high firm performance.The empirical evidence on the tournament theory is rather limited and results are mixed. Supporting evidence comes from studies of sport activities (Ehrenberg and Bognanno,1990; Becker and Huselid,1992) and by controlled experiments (Bull et al.,1987). In business settings, Main et al. (1993), using survey data for top executives in 200 US firms, during 1980–1984, report that a greater spread of top-executive compensation is positively related to firm performance. Similarly, based on proprietary data of 210 Danish firms during 1992–1995, Eriksson (1999) provides somewhat weak evidence that higher pay dispersion is positively related to firm performance. In contrast, O’Reilly et al. (1988) do not find support for the tournament argument in a sample of 105 Fortune 500 firms, and Conyon et al. (2001) report that variation in executive compensation is not associated with enhanced firm performance in a sample of 100 UK firms in 1997.In contrast with the tournament model, notions of equity fairness postulate that the quality of social relations in the workplace affect firm performance (Akerlof and Yellen,1988,1990; Milgrom,1988; Milgrom and Roberts,1990) and that large pay dispersion adversely affects employee relations and morale, leading to counterproductive organizational activities, which eventually reduce firm performance. Supporting evidence for the adverse effects of wage dispersion on performance is also limited. Using a sample of university faculty, Pfeffer and Langton (1993) report that greater wage dispersion within academic departments reducesfaculty satisfaction as well as research productivity and collaboration among colleagues. There is also some preliminary evidence in business settings (Drago and Garvey,1998) that supports the argument for equity fairness.In this study we examine a sample of 12,197 firm-year observations for 1,855 US companies spanning the period 1992–2003, and find that firm performance, measured by Tobin’s Q and alternatively by stock returns, is positively associated with the compensation dispersion of the firm s’ top-management team. Additionally, we document that firms with large compensation dispersion have higher future return on assets (ROA) than comparable lower pay dispersion companies. Collectively, our results suggest that the compensation dispersion of the top management team is positively related to firm performance.Our analysis also indicates that the association between firm performance and pay dispersion is conditional on agency costs and corporate governance structure. Specifically, high pay dispersion is associated with better performance in firms with high agency costs related to managerial discretion (e.g., firms with large R&D expenditures). This finding supports the notion that in firms with assets or activities that are difficult for shareholders to monitor, a greater pay dispersion mitigates some of the managers–shareholders agency costs by motivating managers to improve long-term firm performance. Our findings are also consistent with prior studies’ result that firms with high growth opportunities are more likely to substitute direct monitoring with equity-based compensation incentives to reduce agency costs of managerial discretion (Smith and Watts,1992; Gaver and Gaver,1993; Bryan et al.,2000). We further find that the positive association between firm performance and pay dispersion is stronger for firms with more effective corporate governance. Specifically, firms with a high proportion of outside directors on the board and with CEOs who are not board chair have a stronger positive association between firm performance and pay dispersion. Thus, our results corroborate the complementary roles of compensation contracts and corporate governance in reducing agency costs (Mehran,1995; Hartzell and Starks,2003).This study contributes to the managerial compensation research on severaldimensions. Primarily, it provides comprehensive and updated evidence that managerial compensation dispersion is positively associated with firm performance. Pay dispersion per se was so far a somewhat neglected area in managerial compensation research. Our study thus contributes to recent research that focuses on the executive-team compensation (Aggrawal and Samwick,2003; Barron and Waddell,2003), compared to prior compensation research that was often restricted to the CEO. This study also extends the literature on the interaction between corporate governance and the structure of managerial compensation. For the corporate governance strand of research we show that improved governance structures (such as a higher proportion of independent board members and separation of the CEO and Chairman positions) enhances the positive association between pay dispersion and firm performance. Thus, corporate governance and managerial pay dispersion are complementary and perhaps mutually enhancing mechanisms for strengthening firm performance. In the context of shareholders–mangers agency costs, we provide evidence suggesting that managerial pay dispersion can potentially mitigate agency costs in firms that are difficult to monitor. More generally, our study supports the notion that the structure of executive compensation affects agency costs and firm performance.Prior research and our hypotheses1. Tournament theoryThis theory (Lazear and Rosen,1981) views the advancement of executives in a corporate hierarchy as a contest in which individuals compete for promotion and rewards. High-performing executives win promotions and receive prizes in the form of generous pay and perks in their new positions. The compensation spread across hierarch ical levels (large‘‘prizes’’ at the top) provides extra incentives to participate in the managerial ‘‘tournament’’ and exert considerable efforts to win the top prize. The main elements of the tournament theory are as follows: (i) Tournaments reward players with prizes based upon relative performance. The best performer receives the largest prize while the worst performer receives the smallest. (ii) Rewards are intrinsically nonlinear. (iii) The spread in prizes increases with the number ofcompetitors. (iv)Participants with low ability will choose higher risk strategies to increase the probability of winning. Thus, a participant’s ability is negatively related to the variability of his/her performance.Empirical evidence supporting the tournament theory was obtained in sport settings. For example, Ehrenberg and Bognanno (1990) examine the performance of golfers and conclude that as prize differentials increase, players’ performance improves. Becker and Huselid (1992) examine the performance of drivers in professional auto racing, and report that pay dispersion has positive incentive effects on both individual performance and driver safety. In a business setting, Main et al. (1993) use survey data for 200 firms during 1980–1984 and report that pay differential increases substantially as one ascends the corporate hierarchy, consistent with tournament theory’s prediction that extra weight on top-ranking prizes motivates participants to aspire to higher goals, and that the dispersion in top compensation increases with the number of contestants. The main finding of Main et al. (1993) is that firm performance is positively associated with executive pay dispersion. In a similar vein, Bognanno (2001) reports that the CEO pay rises with the number of vice-presidents competing for the top position. However, he finds that inconsistent with the tournament prediction, firms do not maintain short-term promotion incentives, as longer time in position prior to promotion reduces the effect of pay increase from the promotion. Finally, Conyon et al. (2001) examine a sample of 100 large UK firms during 1997–1998 and find no evidence that larger pay dispersion is positively associated with improved firm performance. O’Reilly et al. (1988) report similar findings for the United States. Thus, the business-setting evidence on the tournament theory is mixed and somewhat dated.2. Equity fairnessEconomic theory asserts that in equilibrium wages are equal to employees’ marginal productivities. Such mainstream thinking has been challenged: Drawing on social exchange models, equity notions, and related work in sociology and psychology, Akerlof and Yellen (1988, 1990), Milgrom and Roberts (1988), and Levine (1991) argue that low pay dispersion may have a positive effect on employee efforts andproductivity by creating harmonious and efficient labor relations thereby leading to higher output and productivity. In a similar vein, Levine (1991) develops a model showing that lowering pay dispersion can increase employee cohesiveness, which in turn will enhance productivity.Further insight into the economic efficiency associated with a low pay dispersion is provided by Lazear (1989), and Milgrom and Roberts (1990): If promotion and salaries are based on relative rather than individual performance, as postulated by tournament theory, then employees will advance not only by performing well, but also by seeing to it that their rivals perform poorly. Consequently, employees have weaker incentives to cooperate, and in extreme cases may engage in outright sabotage of others’ activities. To mitigate this, a firm may encourage cooperation by, among other things, reducing pay dispersion. Low dispersion may reduce effort, but at the same time increase cooperation. Thus, in general, it is optimal on productivity grounds to compress wage structure, to some extent, to promote cooperation (Lazear,1989).4 In a similar vein, Milgrom and Roberts (1990) use the principal-agent framework to suggest that employees may engage in rent-seeking activities to secure influence over organizational decision processes. Such influence-oriented activities arise when organizational decisions affect the distribution of wealth or other benefits among members or constituent groups. In their selfish interest, the affected individuals attempt to influence the decision process to their benefit. Furthermore, if firms cannot perfectly monitor output, workers may have incentives to exaggerate their output and lobby for higher wages. Thus, for example, the proponents of a project (e.g., R&D) may devote excessive effort to build the best possible case for investing in that project, hiding potential difficulties and focusing on the upside, while at the same time trying to denigrate competing proposals. Such arguments have led Milgrom and Roberts (1990) to promote wage compression under certain circumstances to alleviate these counterproductive activities.Empirical tests of the above equity fairness arguments include the work of Pfeffer and Langton (1993), who report that the higher the wage dispersion of university faculty, the lower their satisfaction and research productivity and the lesslikely it is that faculty members will collaborate on research. Similarly, Cowherd and Levine (1992) report a positive relationship between product quality and various measures of interclass pay equity (low wage dispersion). Drago and Garvey (1998) report that strong promotion incentives are associated with reduced employee cooperation and individual efforts. Contradicting the equity fairness predictions, Hibbs and Locking (2000) report that compression of wage dispersion in Swedish companies depressed output and labor productivity.Source: Kin Wai Lee,Baruch Lev,Gillian Hian Heng Yeo,2008"Executive pay dispersion, corporate governance,and firm performance".Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting , V ol.30,pp.315-338.译文：高管薪酬分散，公司治理，与企业绩效管理人报酬在过去二十年来是经济和商业中心的研究课题，最近在公司丑闻曝光后，已获得在公司治理中的漏洞和随后的重大深远（萨班斯）监管改革的动力。
上市公司高管薪酬与公司绩效的实证研究外文翻译
文献出处：Asia Pacific Journal of Management volume 36, pages1111–1164(2019)原文：Interactive effects of executive compensation, firm performance and corporate governance: Evidence from an Asian marketAbstract：Much of the management compensation literature focuses either on the level and structure of executives’ pay or the pay-for-performance sensitivity in a set of corporate governance structure in the Western economies. In this study, we examine the interactive effect of executive compensation, firm performance and corporate governance in different institutional and governance settings of an emerging market economy. Capturing monitoring and incentive alignment aspects as suggested in agency theory, we argue that in a markedly different executive compensation system in Thailand, the interrelationships between executive compensation, firm performance and corporate governance would exhibit some similarities to those found in developed economies. While there remains sparse research on how these relationships operate in Thailand, using data for 432 publicly listed Thai firms between 2000 and 2011, we find evidence of a reciprocal positive significant relationship between compensation and performance, as well as between corporate governance and performance. However, a reciprocal relationship is not found between corporate governance and compensation, which shows a mono-directional positive significant relationship running from corporate governance to compensation. These findings show similarities with those of developed economies and provide support for the need for an effective governance system to determine optimal executive compensation that will enhance firm performance and value. Our findings thus add some potentially noteworthy dimensions to the compensation literature that are especially important to policy makers and other stakeholders, and aiming to shape an optimal governance system in the emerging markets around the world.The relationship between executive compensation, firm performance andcorporate governance is a topical research area in contemporary governance literature. As predicted by agency theory, governance scholars have long proposed methods for monitoring and designing incentive alignment for executive compensation contracts in modern corporations to address agency problems, whereby ownership is separated from control (Jensen & Meckling, 1976; Sanchez-Marin & Baixauli-Soler, 2014). Much of the literature on management compensation focuses either on the level and structure of executive compensation or compensation-for-performance sensitivity in a set of corporate governance structures in Western economies (Core, Holthausen, & Larcker, 1999; Murphy, 1999; Bryan, Hwang, & Lilien, 2000; Frydman & Saks, 2010a; Grundy & Li, 2010; Goergen & Renneboog, 2011; Pepper, Gore, & Crossman, 2013; Reddy, Abidin, & You, 2015). Other studies highlight the mono-directional relationship between firm performance and executive compensation, between internal governance mechanisms and firm performance, and between internal corporate governance and executive compensation (Cyert, Sok-Hyon, & Kumar, 2002; Coles, Daniel, & Naveen, 2008; Lee, Lev, & Yeo, 2008; Sapp, 2008; Ramdani & Witteloostuijn, 2010; Conyon & He, 2011; Ozkan, 2011;Wintoki, Linck, & Netter, 2012; Schultz, Tian, & Twite, 2013).While a few studies explore the ‘bi-directional’ relationships between firm performance and executive compensation with complementary corporate governance mechanisms (e.g. Lee et al., 2008; Huang & Chen, 2010; Smirnova & Zavertiaeva, 2017; Buachoom, 2017), only one study uses 1 year contemporaneous data and a three stage least squared (3SLS) approach to investigate the ‘tri-directional’ relationships between executive compensation, firm performance and corporate governance in the South African market (e.g. Ntim, Lindop, Osei, & Thomas, 2015). Despite the voluminous research in this field, the extant literature reports mixed and inconclusive findings and there is a lack of clear evidence of robust relationships. The diversity and inconsistencies in the empirical findings are possibly due to not addressing the causal relationships between the governance mechanisms that are endogenously determined in a firm’s contracting and operating environments (Liu, Miletkov, Wei, & Yang, 2015) and to differences in country-specific institutionalfactors/characteristics and methodological approaches/choices (i.e. assumptions and hypotheses adopted, sample periods and size, and variables selected etc.) adopted by researchers (Farooque, 2010). However, the tri-directional (i.e. simultaneous/causal/endogenous) relationships between compensation, performance and governance have never been investigated in the literature using the dynamic panel generalized method of moments (GMM).In this paper, we investigate the reciprocal and dynamic relationships between executive compensation, firm performance and corporate governance in listed firms in Thailand – an Asian emerging market.Footnote1 Unlike prior studies, we attempt to provide a more nuanced view of the broader interactive (i.e. tri-directional) relationships between executive compensation, firm performance and corporate governance in Thailand. In fact, the issue of interactive relationships between them is heavily under researched in the literature, both in developed and emerging-market countries. Compared to Western countries, emerging countries typically have distinct institutional and governance characteristics, along with less developed legal and other public institutions and enforcement mechanisms for the protection of investor rights. Our study is largely motivated by the fact that Thailand has a poor institutional environment with weak legal rights and weak investor protection. Although Thailand adopted the key elements of the corporate governance principles of OECD countries after the Asian financial crisis in 1997, compared to the U.S. and other OECD countries, Thailand typically has a less-developed and weaker institutional environment where protection of investor rights is poor. As a result, minority shareholders are less well protected from expropriation by controlling shareholders. Therefore, it is unclear whether the relationships between executive compensation, firm performance and corporate governance in prior studies can be generalised to Thailand due to the unique characteristics of its listed firms that are derived from its development status, social background and political environment. To date, few studies have examined the relationship between corporate governance and firm performance in Thailand, as wellas the success of the corporate governance system in protecting shareholders’ interests (Alba, Claessens, & Djankov, 1998; Wiwattanakantang, 2001; Kim, Kitsabunnarat, & Nofsinger, 2004; Yammeesri & Herath, 2010; Meeamol, Rodpetch, Rueangsuwan, & Lin, 2011). The current study attempts to fill this research gap by examining the interrelationships between executive compensation, firm performance and corporate governance in Thai listed firms.Theory, literature and hypotheses：Theoretical perspectiveAlthough the vast majority of the literature grounded in agency theory reports that the agency problem may arise between principals and agents (Type I), a limited yet growing stand of studies show that conflicts between principals and principals (Type II) are also common in certain contexts, particularly in emerging markets. Agency theory explains that when control is separated from ownership, it generally leads to some conflicts of interest between owners and executives or agents, as well as between majority/controlling shareholders and minority shareholders, especially in the case where some majority shareholders become executives of the firm (Anderson et al., 2007; Hansmann & Kraakman, 2004; Jensen & Meckling, 1976; Shleifer & Vishny, 1997). Shleifer and Vishny (1997) contend that the private benefits from control rights (opportunism) are frequent manifestations of the agency problem that need to be addressed. Both types of agency problem typically incur huge costs to corporations that result from the controller’s private benefits being detrimental to the value of the firm. To protect the interests of owners, to ensure interest alignment and to deter the non-stewardship behaviour of the controlling party, agency theory suggests that an effective governance system is a suitable strategy for reducing agency costs (Conheady, McIlkenny, Opong, & Pignatel, 2015). That is, in order to enhance performance, firms need to establish some governance mechanisms as a monitoring system (for protecting owners’ interest) and incentive (for convergence of interest) instruments to mitigate conflicts of interest among participants of the firm (Daily, Dalton, & Cannella, 2003). Corporate governance protects shareholders’ interests by setting up these mechanisms to effectively reduce the impact of the agency problem(Nam & Nam, 2004; Velnampy, 2013). There are two strategies to address conflicts, ‘regulatory’ and ‘governance’: regulatory strategies rely on rules, standards, or laws to eliminate the conflicts between agents and principals of the firm, and governance strategies include ‘monitoring’ and ‘incentive’ provisions (Hansmann & Kraakman, 2004).译文：高管薪酬、公司绩效与公司治理的互动效应:来自亚洲市场的证据摘要：许多管理薪酬文献关注的要么是高管薪酬的水平和结构，要么是西方经济体一套公司治理结构中的绩效薪酬敏感性。
高管薪酬和激励外文翻译(可编辑)
高管薪酬和激励外文翻译外文题目Executive Compensation And Incentives 外文出处 Acodemy of Management Perspectives,20062:p25-40 外文作者 Martin J. Conyon原文:Executive Compensation And IncentivesMartin J. ConyonExecutive compensation is a complex and controversial subject. For many years, academics, policymakers, and the media have drawn attention to the high levels of pay awarded to U.S. chief executive officers CEOs, questioning whether they are consistent with shareholder interests. Some academics have further argued that flaws in CEO pay arrangements and deviations from shareholders’ interests are widespread and considerable. For example, Lucian Bebchuk and Jesse Fried provide a lucid account of the managerial power view and accompanying evidence. Marianne Bertrand and Sendhil Mullainathan too provide an analysis of the ‘skimming view’ of CEO pay. In contrast, John Core et al. present an economic contracting approach to executive pay and incentives, assessing whether CEOs receive inefficient pay without performance. In this paper, we show what has happened to CEO pay in the United States. We do not claim to distinguishbetween the contracting and managerial power views of executive pay. Instead, we document the pattern of executive pay and incentives in the United States, investigating whether this pattern is consistent with economic theory.The Context: Who Sets Executive Pay Before examining the empirical evidence presented in this paper, it is important to consider the pay-setting process and who sets executive pay. The standard economic theory of executive compensation is the principal-agent model. The theory maintains that firms seek to design the most efficient compensation packages possible in order to attract, retain, and motivate CEOs, executives, and managers. In the agency model, shareholders set pay. In practice, however, the compensation committee of the board determines pay on behalf of shareholders. A principal shareholder designs a contract and makes an offer to an agent CEO/ manager. Executive compensation ameliorates a moral hazard problem i.e., manager opportunism arising from low firm ownership. By using stock options, restricted stock, and long-term contracts, shareholders motivate the CEO to imize firm value. In other words, shareholders try to design optimal compensation packages to provide CEOs with incentives to align their mutual interests. This is the contract approach to executive pay. Following Core, Guay, and Larcker, an efficient or optimal contract is one “tha t imizes the net expected economic value to shareholders after transaction costs such ascontracting costs and payments to employees. An equivalent way of saying this is that contracts minimize agency costs.”Several important ideas flow from this definition. First, the contract reduces manager opportunism and motivates CEO effort by providing incentives through risky compensation such as stock options. Second, the optimal contract does not imply a “perfect” contract, only that the firm designs the best contract it can in order to avoid opportunism and malfeasance by the manager, given the contracting constraints it faces. Third, in this arrangement, the firm does not necessarily eliminate agency costs, but instead evaluates the marginal benefits of implementing the contract relative to the marginal costs of doing so. Improvements in regulation or corporate governance can possibly alter these costs and benefits, making different contracts desirable. Moreover, what is efficient at one point in time may not be at another. Improvements in board governance, for example by adding independent directors, may lead to different patterns of compensation, stock, and option contracts that are desirable for one firm but not another.An alternative theory is that CEOs set pay. This is the managerial power view, exemplified recently by Bebchuk and Fried. In this theory, the board and compensation committee cooperate with the CEO and agree on excessive compensation, settling on contracts that are not in shareholders’ inte rests. This excess pay constitutes an economic rent,an amount greater than necessary to get the CEO to work in the firm. The constraints the CEOs face are reputation loss and embarrassment if caught extracting rents, what Bebchuk and Fried call “outrage costs.” Outrage matters because it can impose on CEOs both market penalties such as devaluation of a manager’s reputation and social costs?the social costs come on top of the standard market costs. They argue that market constraints and the social costs coming from excessively favorable pay arrangements are not sufficient in preventing considerable deviations from optimal contracting.Executive CompensationThere is substantial disclosure about U.S. executive compensation. The Securities and Exchange Commission SEC expanded and enhanced disclosure rules for U.S. executives in 1992. As a result, the proxy statements of firms contain considerable detail on stock ownership, stock options, and all components of compensation for the top five corporate executives. There are four basic components to executive pay, each having been the subject of much research. First, executives receive a base salary, which is generally benchmarked against peer firms. Second, they enjoy an annual bonus plan, usually based on accounting performance measures. Third, executives receive stock options, which represent a right, but not the obligation, to purchase shares in the future at some pre-specified exercise price. Lastly, pay includes additional compensation such asrestricted stock, long-term incentive plans, and retirement plans.Executive IncentivesWe now turn to executive incentives and the link between pay and firm performance. The evidence demonstrates that executive compensation and the fraction of pay accounted for by option grants increased during the 1990s. Principal-agent theory predicts that a firm designs contracts in order to yield optimal incentives, therefore motivating the CEO to imize shareholder value. In designing the contract, the firm recognizes the CEO is risk averse. Thus, imposing greater incentives requires more pay to compensate the agent for increased risk. In the previous section, the paper demonstrated that CEO pay has increased. Next, we examine what has happened to CEO incentives. The analysis shows that executives have considerable equity incentives that create a strong and increasing link between CEO wealth and firm performance. This finding seems at odds with the notion that executive pay and performance are decoupled. It is, however, consistent with other economic evidence, showing that the link between pay and performance has been increasing in the United States.Executives receive incentives from several sources. They receive financial incentives from salary and bonus, as well as new grants of options and restricted stock, which together measure flow compensation. They also receive incentives from changes in their aggregate holdings of stock and options in the firm, as described in detail below. Finally, theprobability of termination because of poor performance gives the CEO an incentive to pursue strategies that imize firm value. In this case, if terminated, an executive suffers reputation loss and human capital devaluation in the managerial labor market. However, this paper?consistent with other recent research in financial economics?focuses on compensation and equity incentives, leaving aside career concerns and the labor market for managerial talent. In other words, it restricts attention to financial incentives.The key to understanding financial incentives is recognizing that they arise from the entire portfolio of equity holdings and not simply from current pay. Equity incentives, then, are the incentives to increase the stock price arising from the managers’ ownership of financial securities in the firm. For example, a CEO may receive 100,000 options this year, which might add to 400,000 options granted in previous years, for a total of 500,000 options held. If the stock price decreases, then the value of the 100,000 options granted this year declines? but so does the value of the options accumulated from previous years. Since the CEO will care about the whole stock of 500,000 options, not simply this year’s 100,000, executive compensation received in any given year provides only a partial picture of CEO wealth and incentives. To understand CEO incentives fully, it is important to focus on the aggregate amount of shares, restricted stock, and stock options that the CEO owns in the firm.The evidence shows that CEOs have plenty of financial incentives, arising primarily from CEO ownership of stock and options in their firms. Again, we would stress that such financial incentives are only one factor motivating executives. Agents are as likely to be motivated by intrinsic factors of the job, career concerns, social norms, tournaments, and the like. One problem with stock options and other forms of incentive pay is not that they provide too few incentives, but that they may lead to unintended consequences. It is well known that incentives can bring about behavior by the agent that was unanticipated by the principal. In a classic paper, Steven Kerr highlighted the folly of rewarding A while hoping for B. In short, he articulated the notion that one gets what one pays for. If one rewards activity A and not B, then people will exert effort on A, while de-emphasizing B. Kerr illustrates his point with an array of examples from politics, industry, and human resource management. In general, this is a problem of providing appropriate incentives to agents engaging in multiple tasks. More recently, Robert Gibbons has discussed the design of incentive programs recognizing such problems.Another problem with incentive compensation is that it may encourage opportunistic behavior by managers, manipulation of performance measures, or cheating. The powerful and often unanticipated effects of financial incentives on economic outcomes have been documented in diverse contexts such as classroom teaching, real estate markets,vehicle inspection markets, and the behavior of physicians. In the corporate context, David Yermack demonstrates that CEOs opportunistically time the award of option grants around earnings announcements in order to increase their compensation. Other studies find that private information is used by executives to engineer abnormally large option exercises and hence the payouts from those options. In addition, studies show that firms with more incentives are associated with greater earnings manipulation. Recent studies show that the likelihood of a firm being the target of fraud allegations is positively correlated with option incentives. In short, options and incentive pay may motivate managerial behavior that is not always anticipated or ideal. When designing compensation plans, boards must be aware of the unwanted as well as beneficial effects of incentives.ConclusionsExecutive compensation is a controversial and complex subject that continues to attract the attention of the media, policymakers, and academics. Contract theory predicts that shareholders use pay to provide incentives for the CEO to focus on imizing long-term firm value. Since CEOs have relatively low ownership of firm shares, they might otherwise behave opportunistically. An alternative theoretical perspective, the managerial power view, is that CEOs control the pay-setting process and set their own pay. This theory predicts that compliant compensationcommittees and boards provide CEOs with excess pay or compensation “rents” and that contracts are suboptimal from the shareholders’ perspective. Distinguishing between these two theories is an important challenge for future research.This paper provides evidence on what has happened to CEO pay between 1993 and 2003. It shows that total compensation increased significantly over this period. Grants of stock options to CEOs and executives are the main driver of CEO pay gains. The paper also documents that CEOs have important financial incentives. These arise from the portfolio of firm stock and options owned by the CEO. The important point is that, if the stock price declines significantly, the value of the CEOs’ assets falls. Analogously, if asset prices increase, so does CEO wealth. In consequence, the wealth of the CEO varies with the stock price performance of the firm. An important research challenge is to fully understand the potentially unintended consequences of providing greater incentives to agents.In practice, CEO compensation contracts are determined by compensation committees that may have conflicting incentives to align with the CEO leading to suboptimal contracts and excess pay or with shareholders leading to optimal contractsand appropriate pay. The analysis in this paper illustrates that U.S. boards and compensation committees are becoming more independent measured by fewer insider directors and a greater number of outsidedirectors. The evidence showsthat the presence of affiliated directors on the compensation committee an instance where greater managerial power is expected does not lead to greater CEO pay or fewer CEO incentives.In summary, high pay itself is not evidence of inefficient contracts but may simply reflect the market for CEOs and the pay necessary to attract, retain, and motivate talented individuals. Boards of directors need to design compensation contracts to align the interests of owners with managers. One test of whether the corporate governance system is working appropriately, including executive compensation arrangements, is to evaluate economic performance. Holmstrom and Kaplan investigate the state of U.S. corporate governance in the wake of corporate scandals. They conclude that the U.S. economy has performed well, both on an absolute basis and relative to other countries over about two decades. Importantly, the economy has been robust even after the scandals were revealed. This is not to deny that improvements in governance arrangements may be beneficial. Furnishing CEOs with appropriate compensation and incentives is desirable for a healthy economy. However, ensuring that the contracting process is not corrupted is an important goal for corporate governance extracts译文:高管薪酬和激励Martin J. Conyon高管薪酬是一种既复杂又有争议的话题。
薪酬与绩效的关系 外文翻译
On the correlation between executive compensation and corporate performance 来源：Al Farooque, O., Buachoom, W. & Hoang, N. On the correlation between executive compensation and corporate performance. Asia Pac J Manag 36, 1111–1164 (2016).It is an important way to improve work efficiency and promote the development of the enterprise, as well as an important measure to strengthen and promote the sense of responsibility of employees. Among all employees, the compensation of senior executives accounts for the largest proportion, which means that the value of senior executives to the development of enterprises is the largest, so the compensation of senior executives is directly related to the performance of enterprises. But at present, for many enterprises, the lack of scientific, fair and sustainable executive compensation affects the improvement of enterprise performance. Just based on such a background environment, this study, after studying and elaborating the correlation between executive compensation and corporate performance, puts forward some views and proposals for the standardized development of executive compensation.There is inevitable between executive compensation and corporate performance correlation, many scholars in our country are also on the link on research and analysis, some of which are more representative of the views and opinions, such as Hall and L I ebman to hundreds of companies in the United States in 1994-2004 data as sample, to study the correlation between executive compensation and corporate performance. It is found that there is a significant correlation between executive compensation and corporate performance. After searching, consulting, reading and analyzing relevant literature, this paper puts forward some views on the correlation between executive compensation and corporate performance from the following three aspects.First, the most significant relationship between executive compensation and corporate performance is the positive correlation. In other words, the more ideal the executive compensation is, the more value the executive will create for the enterprise and the higher the enterprise performance will be. In essence, this reflects the effectiveness ofa typical monetary compensation incentive. In practice, many Chinese companies, especially listed companies, have realized the promotion effect of executive compensation on corporate performance, so they are learning from foreign experience to explore the establishment of scientific compensation mechanism and incentive mechanism. This is actually a reflection of giving full play to the important value of senior talents.Second, from the perspective of enterprise types, the relationship between executive compensation and corporate performance of listed companies is more specific. For listed companies in China, the proportion of shares held by senior executives is relatively small. In this case, the performance of the company is significantly correlated with the regression of senior executives' shares at the linear level. Although the coupling degree of the linear model finally established is relatively low, it fully shows that the executive shareholding also plays a role in promoting the development and progress of the company's performance to a large extent. The return of the executive compensation of executives holding performance mainly reflects in: executives shareholding is not actually on executive compensation incentive levels play a substantial role, this also means that the current our country listed company and many small and medium-sized enterprise executive compensation incentive ways is very single, give priority to in order to pay incentives and cannot ascend executives work enthusiasm.Third, there is also a correlation between executive compensation and the overall size of the company. The bigger the company, the more opportunities there are for executive compensation to increase. As a result, many corporate executives are willing to work on expanding their companies. As the scale of the company continues to expand, the more resources and real power executives have in their hands, the more complicated the management methods are, and the higher the requirements for their own abilities are. The more effort executives put in, the more they are rewarded. Hence the positive correlation between executive pay and company size.译文：关于高管薪酬与公司绩效的相关性重视企业内部人力资源薪酬管理的优化，使员工能够尽快地适应企业文化和工作内容，是提高工作效率、促进企业发展的一个重要途径，同时也是增强和提升员工的责任心的一个重要的举措。
上市企业经营绩效与高管薪酬激励研究外文文献翻译
文献出处: Firth M. The study on operating performance of listed companies and executive compensation incentive [J]. Journal of Corporate Finance, 2015，12（5）41-51.原文The study on operating performance of listed companies and executive compensationincentiveFirth MAbstractExecutive compensation problems is the result of modern enterprise ownership and control separated, target inconsistency exists between the owners and executives, the problem such as asymmetric information, the complexity and uncertainty of modern enterprise operation is exacerbated by the seriousness of this problem, and through the contract signed with executive compensation performance, design and implement a good compensation plan can effectively solve the above problems. In today's knowledge economy, the competition between enterprises is actually the competition between talents, executives, especially excellent executives has become the core of enterprise resources, in view of the particularity of human capital of executives, executives how to effectively motivate, attract and promote the interests of the enterprise has become the key to enterprise development, and executive pay is playing such a role.Keywords: Executive compensation, Business performance, Listed Company1 IntroductionSeparate ownership and control is modern enterprise the most significant characteristics (Bale and Means, 1932).The shareholders of the owners in an enterprise have the final property ownership and the residual claims, but often there is no direct management control. Business management on behalf of the owner of control, but don't take the final decision. In the case of two rights separation is as the main body of the ownership as the main operational control shareholders and the enterprise management to form a layer between the principal-agent relationships. According to rational economic man hypothesis, the principal (owner) and the agent(management) have different between the objective function, at the same time, there exists a phenomenon of information asymmetry, the company's senior managers there is power and ability to implement on-the-job consumption "opportunistic behavior", which came at the expense of the interests of the owners at the expense of, is also the focus of the agency cost, reflect, it requires enterprises to establish an effective mechanism of incentive and constraint. By the implementation of these mechanisms can excite the work enthusiasms of agent, and can minimize the agency cost of the enterprise, so as to realize the "win-win" between principal and agent. Human society has begun to enter the knowledge economy era, the executives with high and new technical knowledge and skills has become the key to the development of enterprises, enterprises in the market competition is talented person's competition, in today's increasingly internationalized talent flow speed and, utmost respect talented person, is the key to enterprises in the competition occupy the initiative. Therefore, the enterprise owners how to through a set of incentive constraint mechanism to arouse the enthusiasm of executives, minimize agency costs, has become the key problem in the principal-agent relationship.2 Literature reviewIn the 90 s and 1980 s executive compensation has become an important field of academic research, the current executive compensation research literature is largely based on agency theory as the theoretical basis; it requires managers pay package design should make the interests of the managers consistent with the interests of shareholders. Multiple theory school of scholars use all kinds of data on compensation performance problems made all kinds of inspection. But neither empirical results are consistent with theoretical predictions, there is conflict between each other. Such as Belkaoui and Picur (1993), Koehhar and Levitas (1998) and Gray and Canella (1997) study showed that the correlation coefficient between CEO pay and company size to 0.1 at lower, the level of 0.110 and 0.170, and Boyd (1994), Finke1SteinandB.Yd (1998) and Sander and Carpenter (1998) argues that between the correlation coefficient is 0.62, 0.50 and 0.42.The same conflict results also exist in the research about the relation between pay performance. Like Finkelstein and Boyd (1998) foundthat return on equity (ROE) with monetary compensation and long-term returns between the correlation coefficient is 0.13 and 2.03 respectively; Johnson (1982) found that the correlation coefficient of 0.003.And Belliveau, Reilly and Wade (1996) found that CEO pay with ROE correlation coefficient of 0.410.Gomez Mejia (1994), the empirical study summarized: "although the empirical study of CEO pay a dime a dozen, but we know very little about executive remuneration or. “Many causes of the difference of the results of the study: the different data sources, different statistical techniques, different samples and different control variables, etc.Most of the empirical study in the United States listed companies as samples, mainly to pay as the research object, and given priority to with big companies. In the empirical study, Jensen and Murphy (1990) widely cited in the literature, since 90, and most of the empirical research in accordance with its research paradigm. In this article has pioneering meaning in the literature, they estimated the 1295 companies between 1974 and 1986 of 10400 senior managers compensation performance sensitivity, results show that the shareholder wealth of $1000 per change, CEO of wealth will be $3.25 move together. Lippert and Moore (1994) found that the pay performance sensitivity significantly negative correlation with growth, industry control, scale, and with the internal and the institutional investors holding and the term is not relevant. LIPPert and Moore (1995) found that the pay performance sensitivity to low the company has more independent directors or stronger shareholder control. MeConaughy and Mishra (1996) found that sensitivity associated with the company's future performance. The research is on compensation performance sensitivity calculation with Jensen and Murhpy computing (1990).With Jensen and Murhpy (1990) study of pay levels are different. Other documents against U.S. companies pay structures were studied. Genhart and Milkovich (1990) analysis of the more than 200 enterprises, 14000 senior and mid-level managers' pay, found that managers' pay and performance related and wages are not related. Their results also showed that mixed compensation levels and future profitability is related. Their contribution is caused people's understanding to pay structure. Similarly, Leonard (1990) have found S0 s long-term incentive plans ofthe company than the company has a long-term incentive plans, there are a higher return on equity (ROE).Hamid Mehran (1995) on a random sample of 153 manufacturing companies in 1979-1980 executive pay the inspection support incentive compensation claims, but also shows the level of motivation rather than the form of motivation to inspire the motivation of managers to increase the value of the company. Corporate performance with management ownership and equity incentive is in proportion to the total compensation level of positive correlation. He also found that equity-based compensation in the company of outside directors more applied more widely. In the end or by outside big shareholders higher insider ownership of company Ricky is in less equity compensation applications.3 Theoretical foundation of the executive compensation3.1 The principal-agent theoryIn the early days of the private enterprise, the enterprise owners or operators of the two functions, so as long as the owners are rational economic man, he will actively work for their own enterprise profit maximization, at the same time as the enterprise risk takers, he will be careful decisions, try to avoid risk. In classical enterprises, therefore, there is no power shortage and behavior distortion problem. However, with the deepening of socialized big division of labor, the production of modern enterprise system, enterprise's ownership and operation separate, its separation and led to the emergence of the principal and agent relationship, both are driven by their own interests, as the manager of the enterprise owners want as agent of the principal researchers to their own interests targeting action in accordance with the owners. And managers also is own expected utility maximization as the goal, so that both the goal of the inconsistency.3.2 The human capital theoryFrom the Angle of economics to study the compensation problem, main is to pay as senior executives in the Labor market price. In labor economics, the compensation decision mechanism on the Labor market mainly is the human capital theory. The economic activities of listed companies in the final analysis is conducted by people, the economic efficiency of listed companies in the final analysis depends on people'senthusiasm. Economic history shows that, under different institutional arrangements, the person of ability and hard work, especially the potential and creativity is the fundamental symbol of success for an enterprise system is good or bad. Therefore, economic efficiency of listed companies, the human capital property rights problems and natural economic behavior is the foundation of can't avoid. Property rights established the significance, is to make the economic behavior of the internalization of external effects, so as to produce the stimulation of strong momentum. A property rights system, therefore, the strength of the economic incentive function, mainly with the efforts of the economic subject is associated with the proximity of remuneration. Top management is the most important role in the development of modern enterprises, executive personnel is the enterprise decision makers, leaders and commanders, is the soul of the enterprise, is a leader in the development of enterprises, therefore is also an important force in China's economic and social development. Grew up in a special environment during the transition period of our country in the top management, than the business operators in the market economy country pressure is bigger, heavier burden. Especially the burden of the senior executives of state-owned enterprises with the development of the enterprise solution and two pairs of heavy burden, they want to pay more than the number of times the energy often, previously unimaginable responsibility and risk. Therefore, should recognize the importance of enterprise senior management personnel. Establish training, selection and use of enterprise management mechanism, giving them reasonable compensation.3.3 Equity theoryProblems from the Angle of psychology to study senior managers' pay mainly will be paid as a method that can meet the demand of senior executives inner and elements, to encourage executives to work enthusiasm and initiative, to improve executive performance from the individual level. In the psychology of motivation theory, the design of compensation and compensation management is based on the theory of influential Stacy Adams equity theory. Adams fair theory, the staff would first think about the ratio of their income to pay, and then will his income pay comparing with relevant income pay others. If employees feel him with others of thesame, the ratio of thought is to the state fair. If both feel not the same, the ratio of injustice are produced, namely, they may think their income is too low or too high. After this injustice, the staff will try to correct it.3.4 Strategic compensation theoriesTo think from the perspective of management, enterprises pay problem, more attention is pay management support for the enterprise strategic goals, namely how to through the compensation system to effectively help enterprises to gain a competitive advantage. About compensation management how to support the enterprise strategic target, this is the main content of the strategic compensation system design. The so-called strategic compensation, it is to point to will pay up to the enterprise strategic level, to thinking through what kind of compensation policies and compensation management system to support enterprise competitive strategy, and help enterprises to gain competitive advantage.4 The design principle of executive compensation system4.1 Principles of pay and performanceOptimal executive compensation design is the executive compensation and its operation performance, the compensation depends on the company's operating results, the design should follow the principle of the main executive compensation scheme. This principle is the principle of balance between the interests of the owner and operator. Because follow this principle, the owner and operator revenue the stand or fall of same direction as the firm's performance. Business is business risk, managers' compensation and corporate business performance has a direct relationship. Considering the operators are people too, also want to maintain family and their own survival. Considering the uncertainties of doing business at the same time, if the executive compensation and its business performance, completely will take too much risk. As a result, the executive compensation can be divided into two parts: part of the fixed income, the amount is able to maintain their personal and family life, have insurance effect. Part is risk income, completely and enterprise performance, good management can be even more greatly than the fixed income part, make its income risk, incentive role.4.2 Effective incentive principlesModern enterprise system, the organization (shareholders) and individual (senior management) is a kind of principal-agent relationship. Incentive is to strengthen and accordance of individual behavior, organizational goals, in other words, is to guide individual behavior maximize the development to achieve organizational goals. Due to corporate executives is a special company employees, has the position of privilege, enjoy "on-the-job consumption", it brought outside the regular salary incentive to executives to meet the material benefits, this need to some extent, belongs to the fair in Adams fair theory. However, in many state-owned enterprises, on-the-job consumption often goes far beyond a reasonable level, showing a high cost of self-motivation. And stands in stark contrast to the executive pay, some executive’s on-the-job consumption optional the gender is strong, too much abuse, even in a state of out of control. Has issued relevant laws and regulations, shall be forbidden.4.3 Effective restriction principleExecutives is an enterprise's decision-making and operators directly, plays an vital role in the fate of the enterprise, if in the design of enterprise organization system, lack of necessary and effective supervision and restriction mechanism, will likely agent risk. On entrepreneur behavior with some restrictions, these constraints are usually the behavior rule, violating these rules will be punished. Constraint mechanism has defined the entrepreneur behavior, the role of maintaining the order of economic activities, for the standardization of the enterprise behavior, economic and social benign operation has an indispensable positive function.译文上市企业经营绩效与高管薪酬激励研究Firth M摘要高管薪酬问题的产生源于现代企业所有权和控制权的相互分离，所有者与公司高管之间存在着目标不一致、信息不对称等问题，现代企业经营的复杂性和不确定性更是加剧了这一问题的严重性，而通过与高管签订薪酬绩效契约，设计和执行一份良好的薪酬方案可以有效地解决上述问题。
外文翻译--董事会结构,高管薪酬和公司绩效：以房地产投资信托基金为例
本科毕业论文（设计）外文翻译原文二：Board Composition, Executive Remuneration,And CorporatePerformance: The Case Of ReitsIntroductionStockholders in modern corporations are the residual risk bearers. As they don't have the expertise to run their firms, stockholders must rely on the firm'smanagement team. Jensen and Ruback (1983) defined the management team as the top managers as well as the board of directors of the firm. The separation between ownership and control in the modern corporation creates the incentives for managers to pursue their self-interest goals and not to maximize the shareholders’ wealth in what is termed in the literature as the agency conflict.Researchers have suggested many mechanismsby which managers are curbed from maximizingsolely their own utilities.These mechanisms (seeAgarwal and Knoeber 1996) can be either externalones, such as market for corporate control or internalones, such as the board of directors. The board ofdirectors is a basic element of corporate governance.The main functions of corporate boards are evaluating and approving strategies formulated by managers, providing an appropriate vehicle for stock holders desiring representation in company boards, and performing vigorous monitoring of managers’ actions to make sure that d ecisions by top managers come in line with shareholders’ interests. The literature is rich with studies that have shown the positive effect of the outside board members on firm value .The theory says that the way a board of directors is formed is intended to minimize the agency conflict costs. Also, some studies have shown how the size of the board affects corporate value (Yermack 1996; Zahra et al. 1989; Eisenberg et al. 1998). Consequently, the board of directors is an important governance mechanism that ensures that the interests ofshareholders and management are closely aligned, which would have its effects on corporate performance.In addition to the internal mechanisms that mitigate agency conflicts, managerial remuneration is an important device that can be used effectively to align the interests of stockholders and managers. The extent to which the remuneration package can achieve that alignment of interests is an empirical question. From a theoretical point of view, managerial remuneration should correlate weakly with corporate performance. The annual bonus usually is given in good as well as bad performance times. Good performance pushes the bonus up while bad performance does not depress the bonus. However, empirically, the relationship between management remuneration and corporate performance was detected and shown to exist. Generally, studies have found that there is a positive relation between managerial remuneration and corporate performance (Hamid 1995; Davis et al. 1994; Finnerty et al. 1993). Managerial remuneration and corporate performanceThe issue of managerial incentives has been heavily researched in financial economics. Managerial incentives, at least from a theoretical point of view, have an energetic effect on mitigating the moral hazard problem inherited in individual contracts. This would have a major impact upon firm's financial performance. Hamid (1995) examined the relationship between CEO compensation structure, ownership, and firm performance. He mainly focused upon the equity type of compensation not the cash compensation. His results confirmed a significant positive relationship between CEO equity compensation and firm Performance.Other types of compensation also have a positive effect on corporate performance even after considering some control variables. Davis and Shelor (1995) also documented a significant relationship between executive total compensation, firm size, and firm performance. Cannon and V ogt (1995) used Jensen’s measure to proxy for REITs financial performance and examined how severe the agency costs in REITs are. They find that advisor REITs with lowdirector ownership tend to underperform and pay higher advisor payments than do their counterparts with high ownership. They find no such relationship for self-administered REITs. These results show thatself-administered REITs make better use of marketbased performance compensation than do advisor REITs. Lewellen, Loderer, Martin, and Blum (1992) found that there is a significant relationship between managerial compensation and firm economic performance. Their results confirmed that compensation packages are designed to mitigate the agency conflict costs. In most previous studies, the relation between managerial remuneration and corporate performance was examined and shown to be positive when using total remuneration package, which includes usually (1) base cash remuneration, (2) incentive cash remuneration, (3) stock options, and (4) relative performance remuneration. This study, however, is concerned only with cash remuneration since it represents about 80% of total remuneration package.Board composition and financial performanceThe issue of board composition has deep roots in financial economics literature. Whether the way board of directors is formed can affect the economic value and performance of a firm has been investigated by a lot of researchers.The empirical evidence not solidly convincing regarding this issue when considering the entire literature, although many empirical studies support a positive relationship between boards dominated by outside directors and corporate performance. Cotter, Shivdasani, and Zenner (1997) documented evidence showing the positive effect of the outside directors on corporate performance as they found that shareholders’ gains fro m tender offers would be greater for targets with independent board members than for other targets. Rosenstein and Wyatt (1994) examined the wealth effects when an officer of one public corporation joins the board of directors of another corporation. They find that the nonfinancial sending firms experience negative returns while the receiving firms do not gain from these appointments. This suggests that when executives join boards of other corporations, they become distracted from shareholders wealth maximization objective. The financial sending firms experience positive returns when sending their officers to other firms. Barnhart et al. (1994) investigated the effect of board composition on company performance. When they do not control for variables that have effects on company performance, the relationship between corporate performance, proxied by market-to-book ratio of equity, and board composition issignificant. When they account for managerial ownership and variation across industries, board composition is found to be related to market-to-book ratio in a nonlinear fashion. Lee, Rosenstein, Rangan, and Davidson (1992) revealed the effectiveness of the board of directors in enhancing firm performance by showing that stock prices of firms whose boards are dominated by independent directors are associated with larger abnormal returns than those of companies whose boards are dominated by less independent directors. Byrd and Hickman (1992) reviewed the literature and supported the conjecture of the positive relationship between corporate profitability and boards dominated by outside independent directors. Gilson (1990) also confirmed the idea that board composition is related to financial performance of firms as he documented an evidense that after company default, board composition is altered significantly by creditors who tend to appoint their representatives to the board. Byrd and Hickman (1990) showed that the stocks of firms whose at least 50% of their board members are independent are associated with higher returns for stockholders in case of acquisitions. They noted, however, that these results are sensitive to the method used to classify directors. Rosenstein and Wyatt (1990) also showed that the addition of an outside director increased corporate value. In a theoretical paper, Zahra and Pearce (1989) developed a theoretical integrative model which specifies important relationships between board variables and company performance. They noted that these relationships depend on several internal (industry factors, legal aspects, etc.) and external (ownership structure, company life cycle, complexity of operation, etc.) contingencies identified in their model. All these attributes play an important role in determining directors’ success in executing their contro l and monitoring roles, which is a prerequisite for a glamourous company performance.Molz’s (1988) findings do not support the association between firm performance and the managerial dominated boards.Weisbach (1988) shows that companies with outside-dominated boards are more likely to replace a CEO based on performance than companies with insider-dominated boards. The bulk of the previous literature shows a positive relationship between outside directors and corporate performance. The premise that is brought up by this study is that effective monitoring does notcome from all outside directors as hypothesized by some previous studies in the literature, but it comes only from that group of directors that is able to ask the hard questions. Previous literature in corporate governance classifies outside directors into two categories: gray outsiders and pure (independent) outsiders. The gray outsiders have some type of affiliation with the company on whose board they sit, which could limit their capability to exercise effective monitoring on management. These affiliations include legal, banking, consultancy, and other relationships. Pure outside directors, on the other hand, have no relationship with the company other than their directorship and, hence, bear no costs from challenging managers. Byrd and Hichman (1990) showed that the method of classifying board of directors causes the relationship between board composition and corporate performance to change. Board size and corporate performanceTheoretically, it is expected that coordination and communication will be more effective and decisionmaking problems will be less in relatively small boards, which might positively affect board performance. On the other hand, large boards have the tendency to include directors with diverse expertise and skills. These two contradicted premises deserve more inspection in the REITs industry due to their different control system. On top of that, there is a scarcity in the literature regarding studies of the relation between board size and corporate performance. This study conjectures that, in general, the ideal board size varies with firm size. Eisenberg, Sundgren, and Wells (1998) used accounting figures to measure firm performance. They found evidence that small boards had positive effects on corporate performance. Yermack (1996) adopted the point of view of a negative association between board size and performance. He founds an inverse relationship between the two variables. This suggests that the small size of a board of directors helps to improve the efficiency of the decision making process and, hence, promotes shareholders, interests. Brown and Maloney (1992) also found that smaller boards of directors are associated with better firm performance. Given that the previous studies have cross-sectionally examined many industries, the documented relationship might be altered when studying one industry with unique features regarding the control system.Performance measureThe literature is filled with different types of financial performance measures. All these measures can be categorized as either accounting-based measures or market-oriented measures. Usually, accounting measures that are constructed from financial statements data are highly criticized in the finance community. Also, these measures usually do not account for differences in systematic risk; hence, they diverge from the economic market value of firms (see Benston 1985). That is why financial analysts sometimes reclassify some balance sheet items in order to judge the precise liquidity of a firm.On the other hand, the market-based performance measures are determined solely and collectively by the market participants who interpret managers’ signals correctly, assuming efficient financial markets, and usually firm managers have no discretion over these measures. Based upon that, and because the sample firms are publicly owned companies and hence their securities are priced in financial markets, this study will use a market-based financial performance measure to measure REI Ts’ financial performance. Tobin’s Q, as a market-based performance measure, represents a sharp measure of corporate value. Since it incorporates the value of all assets, it is supposed to reflect both the quality of monitoring practiced by pure directors and the degree to which shareholders’ interests and those of managers are aligned, assuming that REITs’ securities are priced in efficient capital markets. Tobin’s Q can be defined as the ratio of the firm value to its assets replacement costs. The literature is filled with different versions of Tobin’s Q. Since no consensus is reached as to the best Tobin’s Q ratio, three different ratios of Tobin’s Q will be used in this study. This procedure serves two purposes. The first is to test the sensitivity of the results to different definitions of corporate performance proxied by Tobin’s Q. Second, the effect of employing different versions of Tobin’s Q on the results of many different studies in the literature is partly resolved. The three versions of Tobin’s Q employed in this study are as follows:Q1=(MVE+TA-EQ1)/TAwhere MVE is the product of stock price (year close) by the common stocksoutstanding .TA is total asset, and EQ is the book value of equity.Q2=(MVE/ book value of Net Assets)^2Q3=((MVE+LTD+STE+ PSALV)/TA)^3Where LTD is the book value of long term debt.STD is the book value of the short-term debt, and PSALV is the preferred stock at liquidation value. For the sake of illustration, the correlation among the three versions of Tobin’s Q was calculat ed and was shown to be very high. Therefore, it is expected to have similar results as far as our analysis is concerned.ConclusionThis study has investigated the effect of the composition of the board of directors (a monitoring mechanism) and managerial remuneration (bonding mechanism) on the corporate performance of REITs. The results indicate that there is a negative relationship between cash managerial remuneration and firm performance. Also, unlike some previous studies, this paper shows that only pure directors are able to practice effective monitoring and gray directors have no significant effect on firm performance. The outside directors, both gray and pure, have no impact upon finance performance in the REITs industry. Moreover, this paper tackled the board size effect investigated previously in the literature. The findings of this study confirm a nonlinear relationship between board size and firm performance. The relationship is negative when board size is small, and it turns positive when board size grows.Source:Turki Alshimmiri,2004.“Board Composition, Executive Remuneration, And Corporate Performance: The Case Of Reits”.Corporate Ownership & Control August.pp.104-112.译文：董事会结构，高管薪酬和公司绩效：以房地产投资信托基金为例简介股东是现代公司的的剩余风险承担者。
企业薪酬体系设计外文文献翻译中文字数3000多字
企业薪酬体系设计外文文献翻译中文字数3000多字The success of any management strategy is dependent on the people who make up an XXX any enterprise。
and the XXX。
It is essential for an XXX can attract。
retain。
and motivate employees。
XXX enterprises。
and the design of a n system is not only an effective way to XXX on the design and performance XXX'ssalary system。
with a particular XXX.2 The Importance of a Well-Designed Salary SystemA well-designed salary system XXX。
It can help attract and retain top talent。
XXX。
and increase productivity。
Moreover。
a salary system that is XXX。
it XXX to design a salary system that aligns with their business objectives and values。
while also meeting the XXX.3 XXXEquity incentives are an essential component of a well-designed salary system。
especially for XXX incentives。
such as stock ns and restricted stock units。
我国上市公司高管薪酬与绩效关系实证研究的外文翻译
文献出处:Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 362)原文：An Empirical Study of Relationship Between Executive Compensation and Performances of Chinese Listed Company—Based on Simultaneous Equations ModelAbstract：As a potentially important internal incentive, the executive compensation has gradually become a research focus. Based on simultaneous equations model and principal component analysis, this paper studies the relationship between executive compensation and corporate performance. Using comprehensive financial and accounting data on China’s manufacturing listed companies from 2009 to 2012, we find that the improved corporate performance can advance executive compensation. At the same time, we also find executive compensation has positive feedback effect to company performance. The paper also sees that the company’s equity incentive has the potency to improve the effectiveness of the performance. This result offers insights to shareholders focused on enhancing the design of internal corporate governance mechanism.Keywords：Simultaneous equations model Principal component analysis Executive compensation Corporate performance1 Introduction：According to the modern agency theory, with the separation of ownership and executive, the objective conflict between corporate executive and shareholders intensifies. To reduce such conflict, shareholders through the remuneration incentive mechanism allow the executive to have some residual claim, so that makes their goals consistent. Meanwhile, in the condition of trust-agent theory, due to the information asymmetry, the managers have the motivation to pursuing their own interests. Toreduce agency cost and maximize wealth, the shareholders tend to through the company performance to determine the executives pay, trying to motivate managers to act in the best interest of shareholders.However, a survey shows that under the influence of the 2008 international financial crisis, the overall profits of China’s quoted companies generally decline, while the payment of the executives continues to rise. It had aroused strong opposition among the investors. By comparing the 431 quoted companies in 2007 and 2008, the data shows that the profits of quoted companies decrease by 26.2 billion Yuan in total, while the executives pay increase by 200 million Yuan [1] . This is aroused the public question the relationship between the executive compensation and company performance. What is the interaction between the two things? The paper will discuss this question by establishing simultaneous equations and get some new discoveries.We will test the interaction between the executives compensation and company performance by establishing simultaneous equations. To avoid the limitation of single variables, we will get the overall performance index through the analysis of the principal components of the four variables. However, there are still some limitations in the paper, mainly reflected in the following aspects: (1) The analysis of the incentive theory for executive compensation is not thorough. Besides the low level of domestic executives pay and the different pay in each period also caused diverse results. (2) The data is limited to the industrial quoted companies from 2009 to 2012, and the influence of industries and some non-financial factors are not considered. (3) Because the performance indicators are too much to listed, the paper only use four indicators to reflect the company performance, so it may not completely represent the true performance of the company.2 Literature Review2.1 The Incentive Effects of Executive CompensationAs for the study of executive incentive and compensation, the overseas scholars involve in the field earlier. With the change of the external environment, the conclusion also changes. Taussings and Baker [2] are the earliest scholars to study enterprise salary, finding little correlation of executive compensation withperformances. By analyzing external determinants of enterprise CEO compensation, Finkelstein and Hambrick [3] found that different remuneration packages have different effects on CEO’s behavior, and ultimately affect the company’s overall performance. Jensen and Murphy [4] found that if the CEO compensation increase or decrease by every $3.25, then the shareholder’s wealth will increase or decrease by every $1000. Accordingly, compensation and shareholder’s wealth are positively correlated. Mehran [5] found that executive compensation incentive became a driving force for improving corporate performances. With the development of theories and methods, studies from abroad tend to believe that executive compensation has a significant effect on corporate performance. By analyzing the relationship between compensation quantity and corporate performance in three incentive schemes, Li et al.[6] found that the increasing in executive compensation can significantly improve the corporate performance. Generally speaking, with time goes on, an increasing number of scholars believe that the incentive for executive compensation works indeed.2.2 The Impact of Corporate Performance on Executive CompensationTheoretically, attaching executive compensation to corporate performance can reduce the probability of Agency’s conflict, and positive relationship exists. Many scholars attempted to use various analytical methods to test this theory, but conclusion varied. By using Black-Scholes model to analyze the relationship between the CEO’s compensation and the share value in stock market of 478 large U.S companies, Hall [7] found that the value of the company increased by every 10 %, management salaries and bonuses would increase by 2.4 %. Lai [8] who concentrated on the impact of incentive mechanism and governance structure on company’s compensation, found that the executive compensation was positively related to accounting performance significantly but irrelevant to market performance, thus he believed that quoted companies inclined to regard accounting performance as incentive assessment indicator. Mao and Zhang [9] tested the relation between Executive compensation and corporate performance in domestic quoted companies through ownership structure indicators, finding that the positive relationship between executive compensation and corporate performance existed, and the executives increased their salaries through theimprovement of corporate performance. In turn, the increase in salaries impels them to work harder to improve corporate performance.3 Theoretical Analysis and HypothesesThe aim of incentive mechanism is to make executives act in the best interest of shareholders and to improve efficiency, which is also the cornerstone of incentive mechanism. In order to improve their income and appreciate the compensation given by principal, managers work harder. Meanwhile,they consider more for the shareholders when they behave, which will undisputedly reduce the agency cost and improve corporate performance. According to the above, we can propose hypothesis.Hypothesis 1. (H1) Executive compensation incentive indeed has a positive effect on corporate performance in the domestic quoted companies, that is, with the increase in salary, the corporate performance gradually increases.According to principal-agent theory, the separation of ownership and management forces companies to hire more external managers. Due to there is a serious information asymmetry between the principal (shareholders) and their proxies (managers), and that managers have a practical “control” and lack the necessary binding mechanism. Then, these make the managers tend to have the on-the-job consumption motives or do not work hard to shirk their responsibilities. In order to reduce the agent cost of information asymmetry and the risk of moral hazard, stockholders will sign the contract for pay-performance with the managers before their entry. Under the contract, corporate performance is directly related to the interests of executive by linking executive compensation and corporate performance. Thus, in order to maximize their individual interests, the managers must work hard to improve the performance of the company. It can be concluded from the above theory that it exist significant positive relationship between executive compensation and corporate performance. Therefore, we propose the following hypothesis.Hypothesis 2. (H2) Executive compensation is affected by the performance of the company, that is, the executive compensation increase with the increase of the performance of the company.However, in reality, the relationship between management compensation andperformance of quoted companies in China seems generally weak. According to the survey, because of the effection of the global financial crisis in 2008, profits of quoted companies in China generally declined, but executives’ payment did not fall but rise. Comparing the data in the year of 2007 and 2008 of 431 quoted companies, we found that total profits of quoted companies had fallen by 26.2 billion Yuan, while the executive pay had increased by 200 million Yuan [1]. Based on this, we propose the alternative hypothesis.Hypothesis 3. (H3) Executive compensation and corporate performance are not related.4 Study Design4.1 Sample Selection and Data SourcesAll samples are derived from CSMAR database system and the data analysis is completed by SPSS17.0 and EXCEL. According to the research, we collected annual data of Manufacturing quoted Companies in Shen & Hu A-share Stock Market between 2009 and 2012 as sample. In order to ensure the effectiveness of research sample, we sifted:(1)Rejected a Stock quoted companies which issue B stock or H stock simultaneously;(2)Rejected ST orST quoted companies which have poor performance;(3)Rejected the quoted companies which don’t disclose detailed data or have incomplete data;(4)Rejected the quoted companies which executive couldn’t be paid;(5)Rejected the quoted companies which Tobin’s Q value is more than 2.Based on the above principles, we get the effective samples: 1144 samples of 2012, 895 samples of 2011, 430 samples of 2010, and 487 samples of 2009.4.2 Selection of Variable1. Compensation indexThis paper selects the cash compensation that the executive got to measure their incentive compensation index, and choose the average figure of the top three compensation of executive as the executive compensation index. In order to eliminate the influence of scale, we choose Natural Logarithm, denoted by AP.2. Corporate performance indexAgency theory put emphasis on using multiple indicators to exclude the deviation from Single indicator, to reduce the agency’s opportunity cost and to eliminate conflicts. In order to work better, this paper select ROANPMROTA and Tobin’s Q (market performance indicator). Meanwhile, after the analysis of factors, we select the common factor to reflect corporate performance and use it to comprehensively evaluate and analysis samples’ performance.3. Control variablesIn order to reflect the relation between executive compensation and corporate performance better, and avoid the phenomenon of spurious regression, the paper adds corporate size, GRO, LEV and MSR in Empirical model.5 Empirical Results5.1 Descriptive StatisticsTable 7 provides the variables’ descriptive statistics of sample companies. It shows that the sample companies’ performance (F) is 0.504, median is 0.506 and indicates that the sample’s overall profitability is good. Executive compensation (AP) minimum is 9.338, maximum is 15.865, standard deviation is 0.924, indicating that there is a big difference between the executive compensation. The maximum ofexecutive shareholding ratio (MSR) is 97.3 %, the minimum value is 0, the median is 1 %, average is 16.7 %. It shows that the executives which hold no stock or lower stock ownership in sample company exists wildly, and it has a limited equity incentive. At the same time, sample company’s executives also have large differences in shareholding.Other control variables-company size (SIZE), growth (GRO) and financial leverage (LEV)- differ largely, indicating that the company size, growth and the degree of financial risk are different, and it helps to control the impact on each variables of the sample companies.5.2 Regression AnalysisAccording to the regression results of simultaneous equations in Table 8, we know that the correlation coefficient between executive compensation (AP) and firm performance (F) is 0.012 and there are 10 % passed the test about level of significance. It shows that the executive compensation of sample companies produce incentives to improve the company performance. Thus, the hypothesis 1 is verified. Meanwhile, we also find that the relationship is not particularly significant. It proves that the company performance is not the only factor to determine the executive compensation. With the increase in executives’ power; compensation may not meet the growing “appetite”. The correlation coefficient between the performance of the company (F) and executive compensation (AP) is 0.356, significantly correlated at the 1 % level, and salary increases with the improvement of the performance of the company. This conclusion confirms the hypothesis 2. The empirical results show that thepay-performance under the contract, executive compensation is indeed linked to the corporate performance in sample companies’. In order to maximize their own interests, executives must strive to improve business performance and to achieve the final goal through this way.In addition, in the incentive compensation equation, we can find that there is a significant positive correlation between executive shareholding ratio (MSR) and company performance (F). This suggests that when the company executive enjoys the right of residual claim, they will tend to be consistent with the interests ofshareholders. The more the executive hold shares, the larger the correlation is. They will regard enterprise as a community of interests, and strive to improve the company’s operating performance. And in the compensation criterion equation, executive shareholding ratio (MSR) and executive compensation (AP) were positively related, but not significantly, probably in Chinese enterprises, executive stock ownership is not widespread. In addition, when executives hold stocks, it might exclude executive who owned equity in order to avoid suspicion at the pay-setting.Meanwhile, when the variance inflation factor is greater than 10, we usually think that a serious multicollinearity exists between variables. However, the simultaneous equation model of multiple linear diagnosis result shows that the maximum value of the equation inflation factor (VIF) is 1.43, which is far less than 10, so there is no multicollinearity between the model variables.6 ConclusionsAccording to a empirical study about relationship between Executive Compensation and Performances, the present paper can draw third important contributions: First, in China, the “pay-performance incentive” mechanism has been established, but compensation incentive and restriction mechanism is not perfect. This paper argues that Incentive compensation cannot make the senior executive interest be achieved. The incentive compensation can’t control moral hazard and adverse selection problems that caused by Incentive invalid. These situations moved in a vicious cycle. Second, the improved performance of the company can advance executive compensation. At the same time, we find Executive compensation has positive feedback effect to company performance.Third, the company’s equity incentive has the potency to improve the effectiveness of the performance.The empirical results show that the companies need to establish the evaluation standards that can truly reflect the overall performance. Through the combined accounting performance indicator and corporate market performance indicator, the pay-performance incentive mechanism will play an effectively role to solve incentive incompatibility problems which caused by agency problems. Simultaneously, because of a lower proportion of managerial ownership it can’t effectively solve the problemof moral hazard and adverse selection between executive and shareholders. If companies can moderately increase the proportion of managerial ownership and elaborate the influence of Equity incentive effectively, then the company can complementarily be promoted from cash compensation incentive and Equity incentive. These will change the structure of the unitary executive compensation, so potential effectiveness exits.Overall, according to endogenous perspective, analyze the relationship between executive compensation and corporate performance is a beneficial supplement based on existing research. The study results suggest that there is not a completely symmetrical affection between executive compensation and corporate performance. However, China and the west has a completely different institutional background. Therefore, to better understand the causes and consequences of symmetrical affection between executive compensation and corporate performance, future studies should focus on the unique China’s characteristics of the institutional environment, such as equity structure.译文：基于联立方程模型的我国上市公司高管薪酬与绩效关系实证研究摘要:高管薪酬作为一种潜在的重要内部激励，逐渐成为研究的热点。
- 1、下载文档前请自行甄别文档内容的完整性，平台不提供额外的编辑、内容补充、找答案等附加服务。
- 2、"仅部分预览"的文档,不可在线预览部分如存在完整性等问题,可反馈申请退款(可完整预览的文档不适用该条件!)。
- 3、如文档侵犯您的权益，请联系客服反馈,我们会尽快为您处理(人工客服工作时间：9:00-18:30)。
文献出处：Mehran H. The study on the correlation of Senior Executive Compensation and corporate performance in listed companies [J]. Journal of financial economics, 2016, 2(3): 161-174.原文The study on the correlation of Senior Executive Compensation and corporateperformance in listed companiesMehran HAbstractDue to information asymmetry between owners and executives, led to the moral risk and adverse selection problems. How to make the executive is satisfying the interests of the white body at the same time maximize the enterprise value ultimately achieve a win-win situation, become a great concern of many scholars.This paper from two aspects of theory and the literature reviewed the executive compensation and corporate performance of the related content. Then the relationship between executive compensation and corporate performance empirical research. This article mainly from two aspects to analyze the correlation between executive compensation and corporate performance, is a longitudinal descriptive statistical analysis, samples are divided into general descriptive statistical analysis and descriptive statistical analysis, the second is to collect data, respectively, the university and multivariate linear regression analysis, selection of the top three executive pay means the natural logarithm of executive compensation, return on equity and earnings per share measure of enterprise performance, and to join the company size, financial leverage, ownership concentration, executives shareholding, the proportion of state-owned shares, the proportion of independent directors, the chairman and general manager of situation eight control variables, the size of the board of supervisors.Keywords: the listed company, executive compensation and corporate performanceIntroductionModern enterprise mostly adopts share-holding system operation, the emergence of the joint-stock company, led to the separate ownership with the agency. Shareholders as the owner of the enterprise property eventually, but not to participate in enterprise management and decision-making, but the entrusted agent for the management and operation enterprises, formed "by a proxy" relationship. Agent instead of shareholders as the authorized agent of the enterprise, its status or senior management of the enterprise. Considering the agent's risk factor, such as level of morality, ability, together with information asymmetry between shareholders and executives, can produce the agency cost.Executives as the human capital of enterprise is the most important and scarce, because its mastery of the enterprise management decision-making, the height of the enterprise control rights virtually increased the likelihood they use right to violate the interests of the shareholders. In order to solve this contradiction, shareholders adopted both constraints and incentive mechanism to balance the principal-agent relationship, can excite the work enthusiasms of executives unceasingly, can maximum limit to maximize shareholder wealth. Whether to stand in the Angle of the shareholders or executives, the company's performance is the important measure of executive pay. So, study on executive compensation and corporate performance correlation for an enterprise to formulate salary incentive mechanism and solve the problem of agency costs, it is very necessary.Literature reviewThe correlation of executive compensation and corporate performance Murphy (1985) 1964-1981 using the company data, chose the 73 largest manufacturing enterprises of the data of 500 managers as the research sample, using empirical method to test the stock yield, the relationship between executive compensation and corporate earnings growth, the conclusion is: the elasticity value cash incentives for the value of the company is near to 0.11, measured with returns to shareholders of company performance pay was significantly positively related to relationship with the manager. The conclusion and Coughlan and Schmidt (1985) of the two scholars research conclusion.Carpenter and Sanders (2002) through the study concluded that: the senior management team and for board members incentives related relationship, motivation of the senior management team can more effectively improve the business performance.Phillip and Cyril (2004) by using linear regression and curve correlation analysis method of combining the, general manager of relationship between pay and performance indicators for empirical research, the conclusion is: the general manager, general manager of wages, and payment of remuneration bonuses both are positively correlated with corporate performance.Kevin (2011) by 2006-2009, 280 companies listed on the nose study draws the following conclusions: executive compensation and corporate performance (measured by return on equity as index) was significantly positive correlation; Affect the executive compensation level of the most significant variable is the size of the company.The influential factors of executive payCores, j., Holthausen, R.W. and Larkers, D.F (2005) in corporate governance structure as the breakthrough point to study the relationship between general manager compensation and corporate performance, the results show that if the company governance structure is imperfect, the condition of the compensation is the general manager will appear on the high side; General manager compensation and negatively related stake, was positively correlated with the size of the board.Kin Wai Lee (2005), Pieter Duffhues etc. (2008) after analyzing the influence factors of the company's executive compensation get the following conclusion: the board of directors of the company locates the geographical position, industry, and the size is about pay will have an impact factor; Whether they are of good corporate governance structure will largely affect the corporate performance.Kim and Hwang (2009) argue that directors only without actual contact with the enterprise are in the true sense of independence. The two scholars to fortune 100 companies in 2005 data from 1996-2005 as a sample for empirical research, get the following conclusion: director independence negatively related with executive pay,with pay performance sensitivity and in accordance with the performance was a positive correlation decision term chance.Research hypothesisExecutive compensation and corporate performance"The ownership and operation separate" on the one hand, make the enterprise economic efficiency was improved, but on the other hand also brought "by a proxy" problem. The principal and agent are in the pursuit of self-interest maximization, but due to the differences between the interests of both the demand, but on the market and the existence of information asymmetry phenomenon, in this case, the agent can make the behavior of the damage the interests of the principal for your own benefit, "moral hazard" and "adverse selection" problem such as will as, thus appeared the agency cost. In order to balance the principal-agent relationship, in turn, reduce agency cost; the owner will need to sign a compensation contract and operators. Compensation contracts, executive compensation and corporate performance, executive compensation determined by business performance, to link executive compensation and corporate performance effectively. In this case, the executive in order to improve their own reward will try my best to company management and company performance can be improved.Hypothesis 1: executive compensation and corporate performance are related Executive pay and company sizeThe size of the company has a large influence on executive pay. Compared with the smaller companies, the company size, the greater the division of the thinner, the more people, the more the more complex organization structure, operation and management problems, which makes operators face a greater risk of management and pressure, the ability and quality of senior executives put forward higher requirements. In this case, in order to good operation and management company, senior executives must pay more time and energy, and few businesses to be able to do this kind of ability, therefore, senior executives for more pay and logical.Hypothesis 2: executive pay scale is related with the companyExecutive compensation and the asset-liability ratioCompensation incentive of listed company's purpose is to reduce agency costs, ownership and operation separate, and keep the reasonable capital structure can reduce agency costs, thereby increasing the interests of the shareholders.Jesen and Michael (1986) put forward the free cash flow, said he thought the enterprises need to pay interest and principal on debt financing, so that the company's free cash flow is reduced, executives waste of corporate resources and reduce the chance of a successful, at the same time, through the debt contract, creditors have the supervision of executive behavior motivation, this agency problem between executives and shareholders and ease. When the company debt levels continue to improve, the creditor supervision executive behavior motive is also a corresponding increase. On the margin, as creditors supervision of external supervision and internal salary incentive mechanism can be substituted, therefore, when the enterprise debt level enhances unceasingly, the external supervision be enhanced, so that you can properly reduce the level of salary incentive, thus make executive pay in a certain extent, be suppressed.Hypothesis 3: executive compensation is negatively related to the asset-liability ratioExecutive pay and ownership concentrationIn general, if the company's ownership concentration is high, the big shareholder control of the executive ability of the stronger the will, they will be susceptible to the stimulation of interests for executives to implement effective supervision, prevent using executive position to improve their pay too much to damage the interests of the shareholders. On the contrary, when the company's equity dispersion, due to the constraints of the supervisory cost and especially when the benefits of less supervision cost, small and medium-sized shareholders motivation will gradually disappear, the supervision of such executives will have larger power, thus they would use the position to raise their pay.Demsetz and Leh (1985), Shleifer and Vishny (1986) through the study found that in the practical work, because shareholders to supervise the management of the cost is high, in fact only the big shareholders have the ability to effectively supervise. When the company the more dispersed ownership, especiallywhen the benefits of less supervision cost, small shareholder supervision and motivation will be weakens even disappears completely, it will make managers to easily get more power, so that they can in advantage position in negotiations with shareholders to pay for their higher pay.Hypothesis 4: executive compensation is negatively related to the ownership concentrationExecutive compensation and executive shareholding"The ownership and operation separate" bring the problem of "entrust - agent”. The principal and the agent is "rational economic man", they are all in the pursuit of self-interest maximization, but due to the differences between the interests of both the demand and the market exists the phenomenon of information asymmetry, agents may make the behavior of the damage the interests of the principal for your own benefit, thus formed the agency cost. One of the effective ways to solve the principal-agent problem is equity incentive to executives, let executives holding shares of the company. Executive stock holding company, the more the interests of executives and the company's interests more closely, so both have common interests, enterprise value maximization. Executives in order to realize their own interests will inevitably to do all the management of the company, improve the efficiency of the enterprise, so that executives can get higher pay.Hypothesis 5: executive compensation and executive shareholding is related Research prospectFirst, in terms of executive pay, in addition to consider the disclosure of financial report of listed companies of monetary income, can also consider the effect of non-monetary income and hidden income. Secondly, in terms of business performance, due to the stock market is not mature, share price volatility, stock prices it is difficult to accurately reflect the operating performance of enterprises, this article only selected the return on equity, earnings per share both accounting profit index to measure business performance. With the continuous development of the securities market and perfect, in a follow-up study can use market value indicators (such as Thbins. Q value, economic value added, etc.) To measure business performance. Finally, the influenceof the relationship between executive compensation and corporate performance factors can also, from the perspective of the other external factors and internal factors on executive compensation and corporate performance relationship of further research.译文上市公司高管薪酬与企业绩效的相关性研究Mehran H摘要由于所有者与公司高管之间存在信息不对称,导致了风险道德、逆向选择等问题。