CESifo Economic Studies - Advance Access

Addressing the Net Balances Problem as a Prerequisite for EU Budget Reform: A Proposal

de la Fuente, A., Domenech, R., Rant, V. — 2009-06-01

Conflict among member states regarding the distribution of net financial burdens has been allowed to contaminate the entire design of the EU budget with very negative consequences in terms of equity, efficiency and transparency. To get around this problem and pave the way for a substantive budget reform, we propose to decouple distributional negotiations from the rest of the budget process by linking member state net balances in a rigid manner to relative prosperity. This would be achieved through the introduction of a system of compensating horizontal transfers that would take to its logical conclusion the Commission's proposal for a generalized compensation mechanism. We discuss the impact of the proposed scheme on member states’ incentives and illustrate its financial implications using revenue and expenditure projections for 2013 that are based on the current financial perspectives and own resources decision. (JEL code: H87)

In Search of Reasonable Executive Compensation

Kandel, E. — 2009-06-01

This article makes several observations on the extent of executive compensation and the forms it takes, relating these to the recent literature. I argue that the magnitude of executive compensation seems excessive in light of a wide range of academic studies. I then propose specific regulatory measures that make compensation transparent and predictable for shareholders. Next, a simple taxation of executive compensation above a certain threshold is proposed; I argue that it is a much more efficient way to deal with the issue, than the current legislation in the United States. Turning to the ‘pay for performance’ paradigm, I argue that it must be applied with great care, as, along with the incentives to exert effort it also provides powerful perverse incentives, which are not immediately obvious, may vary dramatically across firms, and may not be well understood by the compensation committees and academics. I outline the design of several generic contracts appropriate for different environments. Finally, I stipulate that the downside of providing too much ‘pay for performance’ is especially evident in financial industry, which is opaque and subject to contagion, thus compensation contract should play a more important role in financial regulation. (JEL codes: G30, K22, M50)

Insider Information and Performance Pay

Gayle, G.-L., Miller, R. A. — 2009-05-27

This article provides evidence that managers have private information they exploit for financial gain at the expense of shareholders. It develops a model of optimal contracting to show that moral hazard, hidden actions taken by agents, can rationalize why a principal would optimally induce agents to benefit from their private information. Estimates from a structural model shows that moral hazard is an important economic factor. This leads to the conclusion that, in practice, shareholders and managers might optimally agree upon an arrangement where managers systematically exploit their private information about the firm. (JEL codes: J3, K2, G3 and C5).

Liquidity Stress-Tester: A Model for Stress-testing Banks' Liquidity Risk

van den End, J. W. — 2009-04-06

This article presents a stress-testing model for liquidity risks of banks. It takes into account the first- and second-round (feedback) effects of shocks, induced by reactions of heterogeneous banks, and reputation effects. The impact on liquidity buffers and the probability of a liquidity shortfall is simulated by a Monte Carlo approach. An application to Dutch banks illustrates that the second-round effects in specific scenarios could have more impact than the first-round effects and hit all types of banks, indicative of systemic risk. This lends support policy initiatives to enhance banks’ liquidity buffers and liquidity risk management, which could also contribute to prevent financial stability risks. (JEL Codes: C15, E44, G21, G32)

How Much Sunlight Does it Take to Disinfect a Boardroom? A Short History of Executive Compensation Regulation in America

Dew-Becker, I. — 2009-03-20

This article reviews the history of executive compensation regulation in America and surveys the literature on the effects of these policies. CEOs are almost exclusively in the top 1% of the pay distribution, and regulation of their pay is seen as a well-targeted way of reducing income inequality. Mandatory disclosure of executive compensation has increased nearly uniformly since 1933. A number of other regulations, including special taxes on CEO pay and rules regarding votes on some pay packages have also been introduced, particularly in the last 20 years. However, there is little solid evidence that any of these policies have had any substantial impact on pay. I also review limited evidence from overseas on ‘Say on Pay’, recently proposed in the US, which would allow nonbinding shareholder votes on CEO compensation. The experiences of other countries have been positive, with tighter linkages between pay and performance and improved communication with investors. Mandatory say on pay would be beneficial in the United States, both increasing shareholder value and making CEO pay fairer, thus reducing the likelihood of passage of other legislation to reduce income inequality, such as higher taxes on the rich. (JEL-codes: J01, J08, J33, K22)

Bonus Payments and Fund Managers' Behavior: Transatlantic Evidence

Gehrig, T. P., Lutje, T., Menkhoff, L. — 2009-01-07

This questionnaire survey of fund managers in USA, Germany, and Switzerland documents a distinctly positive influence of bonus payments on investment behavior on both sides of the Atlantic. Higher bonus payments are significantly related to higher working effort but not to risk-taking. They also seem to induce fund managers to rely more on fundamental information. Findings within regions are confirmed by Transatlantic evidence as US fund managers receive larger bonuses but also show the effects to a higher degree. The effects documented are stronger for relative than for absolute performance assessment. (JEL-Codes: G23, G14)