Stephen H. Bryan

CEO Compensation in a Regulatory Environment: An Analysis of the Electric Utility Industry:

Prior studies argue that a firms investment opportunity set affects the level of information asymmetry and thereby the structure of CEO compensation. We test whether the political constraints imposed in a regulatory environment incrementally affect both the level and the structure of CEO compensation, while controlling for the effects of investment opportunity set and other firm characteristics. We hypothesize that increased political constraints reduce the need and the opportunity to pay management bonuses, stock options, and other incentive-based compensation, in addition to a base salary. We test our hypothesis using CEO compensation data from electric utility companies during 1990–1995. We develop refined measures for different levels of regulation and monitoring within the electric utility industry. Our results provide evidence that increased political constraints affect both the level and structure of CEO compensation, after controlling for investment opportunity set and other firm characteristics, such as firm size, systematic risk, and performance.

CEO Compensation after Deregulation: The Case of Electric Utilities

The 1992 National Energy Policy Act (NEPA) intensified competition in the electric utility industry by allowing nonutility generators to produce and sell power in wholesale energy markets. Congress expected NEPA to lead to improved operating efficiencies by substituting market forces for regulation. A data set that is unique to the utility industry allows us to test how and whether utility firms reallocated resources to improve efficiencies and, more important for this study, whether CEO compensation changed in accordance with agency theory predictions that CEO compensation would become more incentive-based and more equity-based in the competitive operating environment.

The Structure of Executive Compensation: International Evidence from 1996-2004

The primary objective of this study is to better understand the time-series and cross-sectional variation in the structure of executive compensation for non-U.S. firms. That is, has the globalization of labor markets for senior management led non-U.S. firms to design compensation contracts similar to those of U.S. firms or, are there country-specific factors that may cause compensation structures to differ? Using data from 36 non-U.S. countries over 1996-2004, we document significant cross-country differences in compensation structure (i.e., relative use of equity-based and cash-based compensation). The primary determinants of this cross-sectional variation are institutional factors related to the legal environment in each country. Specifically, firms use more equity-based compensation in countries that provide stronger protection of shareholders rights or have English common-law legal origins. Similarly, firms in countries providing strict enforcement of the rule of law use more equity-based compensation. In addition to these institutional determinants, we find some evidence that the relative use of equity-based compensation is also affected by the firms agency costs of debt and equity. The data indicate that non-U.S. firms with higher growth opportunities (and the resultant larger agency costs of equity) use relatively more equity-based compensation. We also find that larger firms and firms with lower free cash flow use more equity-based compensation. These findings are consistent with those documented by Yermack (1995) and Bryan et al. (2000) for U.S. firms. However, unlike in the U.S., our data indicate that the agency problems of debt have only a limited effect on compensation structure. Therefore, while the agency theory tested with U.S. compensation data is broadly portable to other markets, the explanatory power is not as significant when applied to non-U.S. firms. We also track compensation structures throughout the time period and seek to identify and explain relative differences between compensation polices of U.S. and non-U.S. firms. The data allow us to test whether compensation structure has converged (as would be suggested by the globalization of financial markets). Alternatively, cross-country institutional differences would suggest a continued divergence in compensation policies across nations. The data provide no evidence of international convergence of compensation structures. Our empirical analysis attributes these pervasive differences to institutional factors. That is, despite the substantial changes in capital market conditions throughout the sample period, institutional factors remain as significant determinants of compensation structure and appear to contribute to consistent cross-country differences in compensation structure.