Mathias Arrfelt

Moving Closer to the Action: Examining Compensation Design Effects on Firm Risk

We examine the influence of CEO equity-based compensation on strategic risk taking by the firm. Building off the Behavioral Agency Model, Agency Theory, and Prospect Theory, we develop arguments about when equity-based compensation elements will increase or decrease executive risk propensity and, in turn, strategic risk taking. Incorporating a behavioral perspective into our models of incentive alignment provides us with new and potentially more accurate predictions about how individual elements of CEO pay will influence risk selection, as well as how equity compensation interacts with cash compensation and with other factors to influence risk preferences. In general, this study provides evidence that CEO equity-based compensation significantly influences strategic risk, but that this influence is more nuanced and complex than conventional treatments of executive compensation assume. In particular, we find that different forms of equity-based pay exhibit dissimilar influences on strategic risk and that their influence changes as their value and vesting status change. Second, we find that cash-based forms of pay moderate the incentive properties of equity-based pay, indicating that cash-based pay may affect how executives perceive risks associated with equity pay. Finally, we find that stock price volatility and board actions each also moderate the incentive effects of equity-based pay. In sum, our results argue for increased recognition of a behavioral perspective on executive compensation and greater precision in how we measure and model the incentive alignment properties of CEO compensation.

A Review of the Internal Capital Allocation Literature: Piecing Together the Capital Allocation Puzzle

Allocating internal financial capital represents a key task for managers of multidivisional corporations. This has led to a wealth of research and theorizing about capital allocation and whether or not managers allocate capital successfully. However, capital allocation research has diverged in a number of directions that reflect different and often incompatible perspectives, underlying frameworks, and outcomes. The result is a puzzle, wherein scholars have found little consistent substantive relation between capital allocation, business unit characteristics, and firm performance. Through our review, we seek to bring clarity to this puzzle by identifying problems in the literature and by offering a solution. We suggest problems in the literature stem from the disparate approaches scholars have taken when studying capital allocation, including assessments of what constitutes and prevents successful allocation. We begin by organizing these approaches into a framework that highlights key allocation strategies and the primary impediments to allocation success that scholars have used to build their models. We then suggest that managers may employ a number of allocation strategies and that scholars need to recognize that not all corporate managers employ the same strategy. We contend that a resurgence of obtrusive, qualitative, and multilevel studies may help explain why managers select one strategy over another. Ultimately, we recommend scholars delve into the black box of organizations to truly understand capital allocation.