Author:
Bannister James W.,Newman Harry A.
Abstract
PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to investigate whether proxy statement performance graph disclosures are influenced by the firm's governance structure and management concerns about relative performance.Design/methodology/approachLogistic regression is used to test whether the level of performance graph disclosure decreases with lower relative performance and higher insider director membership on the compensation committee of the board. Also, Z and t‐statistics test whether bias in the selected peer group benchmark is related to insider membership on the committee.FindingsThe empirical results suggest that reporting discretion was exercised for management's benefit. The amount of explicit disclosure on cumulative returns in the performance graph decreases as relative performance declines and decreases when insider directors serve on the compensation committee. Moreover, the presence of insider directors on the compensation committee is associated with a biased choice of peer group benchmark return.Research limitations/implicationsThe sample for the study consists of 141 large firms. Future research could examine a larger group of firms that vary in size or other disclosures.Practical implicationsThese findings support recent actions taken to improve corporate governance. Further public policy steps could be taken. For example, the SEC could require firms to include an explanation for appointing insiders to the compensation committee.Originality/valueThe results are consistent with managers using discretion over information disclosures and suggest that compensation committees with insider members play a less active role in providing information that is helpful to shareholders.
Subject
General Economics, Econometrics and Finance,Finance,Accounting
Reference25 articles.
1. Baker, T.A. (1999), “Options reporting and the political costs of CEO pay”, Journal of Accounting Auditing and Finance, Vol. 14 Spring, pp. 125‐45.
2. Baysinger, B. and Butler, H. (1985), “Corporate governance and the board of directors: performance effects of changes in board composition”, Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Fall, pp. 101‐24.
3. Brickley, J.A., Coles, J.L. and Terry, R.L. (1994), “Outside directors and the adoption of poison pills”, Journal of Financial Economics, June, pp. 371‐90.
4. Brickley, J. and James, C. (1987), “The takeover market, corporate board composition, and ownership structure: the case of banking”, Journal of Law and Economics, April, pp. 161‐80.
5. Byrd, J.W. and Hickman, K.A. (1992), “Do outside directors monitor managers? evidence from tender offer bids”, Journal of Financial Economics, October, pp. 195‐221.
Cited by
7 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献