2006年--外文翻譯--激勵(lì)對(duì) ceo 報(bào)酬與公司業(yè)績的影響（節(jié)選）

1、<p>　　中文3740字，2336單詞，13000英文字符</p><p>　　出處：Nourayi M M, Krishnan S. The impact of incentives on CEO compensation and firm performance[J]. Rivista Internazionale di Scienze Economiche e Commerciali, 2006

2、, 53(3): 402-420.</p><p>　　畢 業(yè) 設(shè) 計(jì)（論 文）外 文 參 考</p><p><b>　　資 料 及 譯 文</b></p><p>　　譯文題目：激勵(lì)對(duì)CEO報(bào)酬與公司業(yè)績的影響 </p><p>　　學(xué)生姓名：學(xué)號(hào)： </p><p>　　專業(yè)：

3、M會(huì)計(jì)學(xué) </p><p>　　所在學(xué)院：商學(xué)院 </p><p><b>　　指導(dǎo)教師： </b></p><p><b>　　職稱： </b></p><p>　　2011 年12 月09 日</p><p>　　RISEC, Volume 53 (200

4、6), No. 3, 402-420</p><p>　　THE IMPACT OF INCENTIVES ON CEOCOMPENSATION AND FIRM PERFORMANCE</p><p>　　By MAHMOUD M. NOURAYI and SUDHA KRISHNAN</p><p>　　Abstract: A significant compo

5、nent of a management control system is the incentive mechanism and motivational underpinning of compensation contracts. Most executives are rewarded in the form of cash and company stock. Our data indicate that over 82.5

6、 percent of the observations include a bonus pay to CEOs and an even larger percentage, about 94.5 percent, have stock option grants.</p><p>　　Our analyses indicate that the means of market-based returns are

7、 significantly larger for companies with no stock option incentives. However, the accounting-based returns do not appear to be significantly influenced by stock-based rewards. (JEL: J30, G30, L21)</p><p>　　K

8、eywords: CEO compensation; agency contract; incentives; performance; accounting-based incentives; market-based incentives</p><p>　　Introduction</p><p>　　A significant component of a management

9、 control system is the incentive mechanism and motivational underpinning of compensation contracts. A well-designed incentive system can deal effectively with both adverse selection and moral hazard issues in an agency

10、contract. The degree to which compensation contracts vary in relation to the measure of performance, determines the level of self-confidence and risk-taking attributes of the applicants. The main objective of this study

11、is to identify the in</p><p>　　The relationship between executive compensation and corporate performance has been extensively studied by researchers from various perspectives. Research has confirmed the po

12、sitive relation between firm size and executive compensation as well</p><p>　　as the influence of firm performance on executive pay (Abowd, 1990; Conyon, Peck, and Sadler, 2000; Carpenter and Sanders, 2002;

13、Cordeiro and Veliyath, 2003; Indjejikian and Nanda, 2002; Jensen and Murphy, 1990; Murphy, 1985; and Yermack, 1995). For the most part, interest has converged on the implications of agency theory with a concentration on

14、the linkages between executive compensation and firm performance.</p><p>　　Murphy (2000) indicates that a majority of companies use multiple measures of performance in rewarding their executives. The most po

15、pular forms of reward seem to be cash and company stock. Majority of public companies offer stock options or restricted stock in order to assure the congruity of the manager’s welfare and the owner wealth-maximization ob

16、jectives. Cash compensation to executives has two predominant components, fixed salary and bonus. Bonuses are generally linked to some performance m</p><p>　　Stock grants and stock option grants are intended

17、 to reward the executives for choices that influence positive changes in the stock prices and as such may be considered a future-oriented reward system, as opposed to bonuses that are typically based on some accounting m

18、easure of profitability. However, it has been argued that accounting-based measures are ex-post historical measures of performance, and are thus conceptually less relevant from the shareholder’s perspective. Conversely,

19、market retu</p><p>　　Prior research, for the most part, has been limited to the examination of the cash compensation. In this study we analyze the impact of the compensation structure and performance on both

20、 cash and total compensations. Earlier studies have looked at the relationships between size, performance and executive pay, where the compensation has been defined as only cash compensation. Unlike past studies, by anal

21、yzing both cash and total compensations, we note that the cash compensation is influenced by</p><p>　　both the market and accounting measures of performance while the total compensation is significantly affe

22、cted by the market based measures of performance. Further analysis after partitioning the data on the basis of the existence of bonus and stock option plans indicates that the firm size, as measured by sales, is not as s

23、ignificant if the company has no bonus or stock option plans. Our analysis reveals larger market-based returns for firms that do not offer stock option incentives.</p><p>　　The remainder of this paper is org

24、anized as follows: Section 2 briefly reviews the literature relevant to executive incentive compensation and firm performance. This is followed by Section 3 where we present the research design and hypotheses. Section 4

25、is the results of our analyses. We present our conclusions in Section5.</p><p>　　Review of Literature</p><p>　　Many executive compensation studies have analyzed the pay-performance relationship

26、utilizing a model generally specified as follows:</p><p>　　PAY it = α + β (SIZE it) + γ (PERFORMANCEit ) + εit</p><p>　　Where Pay it is the CEO compensation of firm i, year t; SIZE it is the si

27、ze of firm i, year t; PERFORMANCE it is an observable performance measure of firm i, year t; and εit is the error term.</p><p>　　Several empirical studies support the sensitivity of executive pay to performa

28、nce (e.g., Murphy, 1985, 1986; Jensen and Murphy, 1990; Ely, 1991; Boschen and Smith, 1995). More specifically, studies have looked at the relationship between the cash compensation and performance measures of the firm s

29、uch as the return on equity, and aggregate earnings, as well as the impact of non-recurring earnings components such as discontinued operations and restructuring charges. Empirical results have shown th</p><p&

30、gt;　　For the most part, research on executive compensation has utilized the sum of salary and bonus as the proxy for the total compensation (Abowd, 1990; Jensen and Murphy 1990; Lambert and Larker, 1987; Mishra, Gobeli,

31、and May, 2000; Murphy, 1985; Sloan, 1993). Many studies have used cash compensation as the dependent variable in their efforts to explain the relationship between a firm’s performance and executive pay. Others have sugge

32、sted the importance of a stock-base in executive</p><p>　　compensation research (Core, Guay, and Verrecchia, 2003; Griner, 1999). The change over time in the composition of compensation contracts and the en

33、ormous increase in non-cash compensation, together with changes in reporting requirements (regarding stock option grants issued to executives), have resulted in increased attention to the relevance of stock-based compens

34、ation in pay-performance studies. The use of cash compensation in earlier studies, as the only dependent variable in compensation m</p><p>　　In the most basic form, our regression model incorporates either a

35、 market-based or an accounting-based measure of performance. We use the market rate of return and the accounting rate of return to proxy the CEO performance. In the next section we present our methodology and research hy

36、potheses.</p><p>　　Research Hypotheses</p><p>　　The amount of compensation realized by the CEO as the result of stock-based incentives such as stock option grants and restricted stock-grants, de

37、pends on the contractual restrictions as well as economic variables that affect restricted stock and stock option values. The stock options’ exercise price, the stock price at the time of grant and exercise, the volatili

38、ty of stock price, competitive market, the fiscal and monetary policies, as well as variables that influence the company’s stock price</p><p>　　Executive compensation research findings to date with respect t

39、o the explanatory power of accounting-based versus market-based measures of performance are not</p><p>　　conclusive. We hypothesize that various performance measures manifest themselves differently depending

40、 on the type of compensation. That is, cash components in the compensation package tend to be measured on the basis of accounting metrics, while stock-based components of compensation are likely to be influenced by stock

41、 market returns (Murphy, 2000; Hall and Murphy, 2002). In conjunction with an evaluation of the relationship between CEO pay and firm performance, we examine the impact of popula</p><p>　　Analyses and Result

42、s</p><p>　　In this section we develop specific models of CEO compensation based on the general example presented earlier. Both cash compensation (CASHCOMP) and total compensation (TOTALCOMP) are used as the

43、dependent variables in empirical examinations. Consistent with prior research, we will use net annual sales as the proxy for firm size in all of our analyses. We use both accounting-based and market-based measures of per

44、formance in our models. More specifically, we include the total one-year shareholder</p><p>　　Initially we include each performance measure in the model as a separate explanatory variable.We then include bo

45、th measures of performance in the models and the year effect was included in every regression in the form of dummy variables as shown below:</p><p>　　ln(CASHCOMP it) = α + β ln(SALES it)+ δ1 TRS it+ γ DUMYEA

46、R t + ε it</p><p>　　ln(CASHCOMP it) = α + β ln(SALES it)+ δ2 ROA it + γ DUMYEAR t + ε it</p><p>　　ln(CASHCOMP it) = α + β ln(SALES it) + δ1 TRS it + δ2 ROA it+ γ DUMYEAR</p><p><

47、b>　　t+ εit</b></p><p>　　ln(TOTALCOMP it) = α + β ln(SALES it)+ δ1 TRS it+ γ DUMYEAR t + ε it</p><p>　　ln(TOTALCOMP it) = α + β ln(SALES it)+ δ2 ROA it + γ DUMYEAR t + ε it</p>&l

48、t;p>　　ln(TOTALCOMP it) = α + β ln(SALES it) + δ1 TRS it + δ2 ROA it+ γ</p><p>　　DUMYEAR + ε</p><p>　　The results of cross-section time-series random effect regressions on each f

49、ull sample model are presented in Table 3. These results indicate the efficient for size was statistically significant in each and every model.</p><p>　　The market-based measure of performance, TRS, is signi

50、ficant as an explanatory variable for both cash compensation (CASHCOMP) and total compensation (TOTALCOMP) of CEOs. The accounting-based performance measure, ROA, was also significant as an explanatory variable for bot

51、h cash and total compensations but at only the 0.10 level in model 6. However, the coefficient of TRS is slightly larger in relation to total compensation. The ROA coefficient, on the other hand, is slightly larger in re

52、lation</p><p>　　We computed the changes in the natural logarithm of compensation (dependent variable) associated with a one percent change in the performance Measures based on our estimated coefficient(s) of

53、 independent variables in table3. We then computed the monetary change in median executive compensation.8 Our results indicate that the median CEO cash compensation (CASHCOMP) increases (decreases) by $7419 as a result o

54、f a one percent increase (decrease) in market–based return (Model 1) and the increase (de</p><p>　　Concluding Remarks</p><p>　　This study contributes to the literature on executive compensation

55、and firm performance in several ways. Unlike past studies, we included both cash compensation and total compensation in our sample and analyzed the relationship between compensation structure and measures of performance.

56、 Our full-sample results indicate cash compensation is impacted by both accounting and market measures of performance while total compensation is more closely correlated with the market-based measure. We find that</p&

57、gt;<p>　　We extend past studies by partitioning the data into sub-samples based on incentive structures such as the existence of bonus and stock-based compensation components. We find that CEO compensation contrac

58、ts with stock options are more</p><p>　　significantly influenced by the market-based performance measure than by the accounting-based measure. The results also show that for firms with no bonus or stock-base

59、d plans, size does not seem to be as significant a determinant of CEO compensation. Data indicate that firms with no bonus plans are markedly smaller than those with bonus plans. Neither the market-based measure, nor the

60、 accounting-based measure, seems to have any significance for total compensation in firms without incentive plans</p><p>　　These points deserve closer attention. Studies examining the impact of a firm’s char

61、acteristics and CEO tenure on incentives and performance over a longer time period may produce additional insights. Examinations of the relationship between CEO compensation and the performance of new economy firms, as w

62、ell as firms within regulated industries, could produce useful information.</p><p>　　激勵(lì)對(duì) CEO 報(bào)酬與公司業(yè)績的影響</p><p>　　作者：馬哈茂德·M.·努拉伊和蘇達(dá)·克里希南</p><p>　　RISEC，53 卷（2006 年），第

63、3 期</p><p>　　摘要：管理控制系統(tǒng)的重要組成部分是激勵(lì)機(jī)制和激勵(lì)支撐的補(bǔ)償合同。大部分管理人員以獲得現(xiàn)金獎(jiǎng)勵(lì)和公司股票為主要形式。我們的數(shù)據(jù)表明有超過 82.5％人的認(rèn)為 CEO 獲得現(xiàn)金獎(jiǎng)勵(lì)的比例比股票期權(quán)更大而約94.5％的人則認(rèn)為是 股票期權(quán)。我們的分析表明以市場回報(bào)為基本手段的大公司并沒有股權(quán)激勵(lì)。然而以會(huì)計(jì)為基礎(chǔ)的對(duì)股權(quán)激勵(lì)的影響也并不顯著。</p><p>　　關(guān)鍵

64、詞：CEO 報(bào)酬；代理合同；激勵(lì)；性能；以會(huì)計(jì)為基礎(chǔ)的激勵(lì)機(jī)制；以市 場為基礎(chǔ)的激勵(lì)機(jī)制</p><p><b>　　1 簡介</b></p><p>　　管理控制系統(tǒng)的一個(gè)重要的組成部分是激勵(lì)賠償合約的機(jī)制和激勵(lì)支撐。一 個(gè)精心設(shè)計(jì)的激勵(lì)制度可以有效地處理代理合同中的逆向選擇和道德風(fēng)險(xiǎn)問題。 在任何程度上賠償合同中有關(guān)性能的衡量標(biāo)準(zhǔn)不同就決定了自信和冒險(xiǎn)申請(qǐng)人 的屬

65、性水平。這項(xiàng)研究的主要目的是為了找出激勵(lì)合同和有關(guān)行政賠償?shù)男阅艽?施的影響。同時(shí)，我們也評(píng)估 CEO 現(xiàn)金獎(jiǎng)勵(lì)和股權(quán)激勵(lì)相比的敏感性。</p><p>　　行政賠償和企業(yè)績效之間的關(guān)系已被研究人員從不同的角度廣泛研究。研究</p><p>　　已經(jīng)證實(shí)企業(yè)規(guī)模和行政賠償和對(duì)公司高管薪酬之間上的影響的表現(xiàn)呈相關(guān)。在 大多數(shù)情況下，利息匯聚代理理論影響高管薪酬與公司業(yè)績之間的聯(lián)系。</

66、p><p>　　墨菲（2000）表示，多數(shù)公司使用多個(gè)性能的措施來獎(jiǎng)勵(lì)他們的高管。最流 行的獎(jiǎng)勵(lì)形式似乎是現(xiàn)金和公司股票。大部分公眾公司提供股票期權(quán)或限制性股 票是為了保證經(jīng)理人的福利的一致性和所有者財(cái)富最大化目標(biāo)。高管的現(xiàn)金補(bǔ)償 有兩個(gè)主要組成部分固定工資和獎(jiǎng)金。獎(jiǎng)金一般都和一些性能的措施聯(lián)系在一起 與特定的組織目標(biāo)的管理選擇的信號(hào)一致性。在這項(xiàng)研究中，我們專注于股票期 權(quán)和獎(jiǎng)金激勵(lì)計(jì)劃。</p>&

67、lt;p>　　股票補(bǔ)助和股票期權(quán)的目的是獎(jiǎng)勵(lì)高管有關(guān)的決策能影響股票價(jià)格的積極 變化正因?yàn)槿绱瞬拍鼙灰暈橐粋€(gè)面向未來的獎(jiǎng)勵(lì)制度，而不是通常基于一些盈利 的會(huì)計(jì)措施的獎(jiǎng)金。然而，從股東的角度來看會(huì)計(jì)基礎(chǔ)的措施是事后的歷史的表 現(xiàn)。相反，市場回報(bào)率是從股票價(jià)格的變動(dòng)中產(chǎn)生在會(huì)計(jì)術(shù)語中并沒有明確定義。</p><p>　　從理論上講，基于市場的措施是事前的具有前瞻性的，因?yàn)樗鼈兎从车墓芾頉Q策 會(huì)提高未來的盈利能力

68、。而在實(shí)踐中，股票價(jià)格是一個(gè)非常嘈雜的信號(hào)因?yàn)樗麄?經(jīng)常受到市場大幅波動(dòng)，反映商業(yè)周期的財(cái)政和貨幣政策的決定因素和條件的影 響，因此不完全反映行政效能。</p><p>　　此前的研究在大多數(shù)情況下僅限于現(xiàn)金補(bǔ)償?shù)臋z查。在這項(xiàng)研究中，我們分 析補(bǔ)償結(jié)構(gòu)和績效在現(xiàn)金和總賠償方面的影響。早先的研究被定義為只有現(xiàn)金補(bǔ) 償著眼于補(bǔ)償?shù)拇笮?、性能和高管薪酬之間的關(guān)系。我們通過分析現(xiàn)金和總的補(bǔ) 償，我們注意到現(xiàn)金補(bǔ)償是由市場

69、和會(huì)計(jì)措施的性能所影響，而賠償總額被市場 基礎(chǔ)措施所影響。進(jìn)一步分析表明在分區(qū)之后的數(shù)據(jù)、獎(jiǎng)金和股票期權(quán)計(jì)劃存在 的基礎(chǔ)上，企業(yè)規(guī)模、銷售額衡量是不顯著的公司沒有獎(jiǎng)金或股票期權(quán)計(jì)劃。我 們的分析，揭示了市場為基礎(chǔ)的公司回報(bào)不提供股票股權(quán)激勵(lì)。</p><p>　　本文的其余部分安排如下：第 2 節(jié)簡要回顧了 CEO 薪酬激勵(lì)與公司業(yè)績相 關(guān)的文獻(xiàn)。第 3 節(jié)主要講我們目前的研究設(shè)計(jì)和假設(shè)。在第 4 節(jié)是我們的分析

70、結(jié)</p><p>　　果。最后第 5 節(jié)是我們的結(jié)論。</p><p><b>　　2 文獻(xiàn)回顧</b></p><p>　　許多行政補(bǔ)償研究分析薪酬績效之間的關(guān)系都會(huì)利用指定的模型，大致如 下：</p><p>　　PAY it = α + β (SIZE it) + γ (PERFORMANCE it ) + εi

71、t</p><p>　　其中薪酬是首席執(zhí)行官補(bǔ)償；規(guī)模是公司規(guī)模；性能，它是一個(gè)可觀察的企 業(yè)績效衡量標(biāo)準(zhǔn)；ε是誤差項(xiàng)。</p><p>　　一些經(jīng)驗(yàn)性研究支持高管薪酬工作表現(xiàn)的敏感性。（例如，墨菲，1985 年， 1986 年，詹森和墨菲，1990 年，依利，1991 年; BOS 陳和史密斯，1995）更具 體地說，著眼于研究現(xiàn)金補(bǔ)償和該公司的凈資產(chǎn)收益率、總收入以及非經(jīng)常性收 益部分

72、，以此作為終止經(jīng)營業(yè)務(wù)和重組費(fèi)用的影響等性能之間的措施的關(guān)系。實(shí) 證研究結(jié)果表明，補(bǔ)償（定義為現(xiàn)金補(bǔ)償）更緊密地與會(huì)計(jì)基礎(chǔ)措施相聯(lián)系。這 樣的結(jié)果意味著會(huì)計(jì)性能的措施是公司高管用來屏蔽來自其控制之外的市場的 大幅波動(dòng)。（蘭伯特和萊科，1987 年斯隆管理學(xué)院，1993 年）。</p><p>　　在大多數(shù)情況下，對(duì)行政補(bǔ)償?shù)难芯坷?，用的工資和獎(jiǎng)金的總和作為代理的 報(bào)酬總額（艾博德，1990 年，詹森和墨菲 199

73、0 年，蘭伯特和萊科，1987;米什拉 哥白林，五月，2000;墨菲 1985 年，斯隆管理學(xué)院，1993 年）。許多研究都使用 現(xiàn)金補(bǔ)償作為因變量，用他們來解釋一個(gè)公司的業(yè)績和高管薪酬之間的關(guān)系，也 有人強(qiáng)調(diào)股票在行政賠償研究基礎(chǔ)上的重要性。（核心，格威，威萊瑞查特，2003 年; 格林萊，1999 年）</p><p>　　隨著時(shí)間變化，補(bǔ)償合同的組成和非現(xiàn)金補(bǔ)償?shù)木薮笤鲩L連同報(bào)告要求的變 化（關(guān)于高管發(fā)出的

74、股票期權(quán)），導(dǎo)致越來越多的人關(guān)注于股票的補(bǔ)償和相關(guān)付 費(fèi)性能的研究。使用現(xiàn)金補(bǔ)償在早先的研究中被視為是因變量，只有在補(bǔ)償模型 的數(shù)據(jù)可用性和現(xiàn)金補(bǔ)償合同組成部分的相對(duì)規(guī)模的基礎(chǔ)上，才被認(rèn)為是適當(dāng)?shù)?和合理的。然而，在公司提供其主管和員工股票的報(bào)酬的補(bǔ)償幅度和 SEC 披露 的要求有關(guān)高管股票期權(quán)的增加幅度，影響了總的補(bǔ)償（近期研究的選擇在伯克 蘭和米林萊銳，2000 年，2003 年科代羅先生和威林納，蓋伊和威萊瑞查特，2003; 麥克

75、，1995 年）。</p><p>　　在基本的形式下，我們的回歸模型結(jié)合市場基礎(chǔ)和會(huì)計(jì)基礎(chǔ)性能的措施。我 們使用市場回報(bào)率和代理首席執(zhí)行官性能的回報(bào)結(jié)算率來分析計(jì)算。在下一節(jié) 中，我們提出了我們的方法和研究假設(shè)。</p><p><b>　　3 研究假設(shè)</b></p><p>　　由首席執(zhí)行官補(bǔ)償金額作為基礎(chǔ)的股票激勵(lì)機(jī)制，如股票期權(quán)和限制

76、性股票 補(bǔ)助的金多少取決于合同的限制、經(jīng)濟(jì)變量的影響和股票期權(quán)的限制。股票期權(quán) 的行使價(jià)是指引起股權(quán)與股票價(jià)格波動(dòng)的一種行使價(jià)。競爭激烈的市場、財(cái)政和 貨幣政策以及公司的股票在授予日和行使日的影響是基于股票補(bǔ)償之間的價(jià)格 波動(dòng)而不是 CEO 可完全控制的。因此，基于股票的補(bǔ)償來引入一個(gè)顯著的風(fēng)險(xiǎn) 量的代理關(guān)系，并根據(jù) Aggarwal 和 Samwick（1999）補(bǔ)償變得不那么能作為衡 量影響的性能。Bertrand 和 Mullai

77、athan（2000）觀察到股東回報(bào)率和 CEO 報(bào)酬 的靈敏度較低會(huì)使股市變得更加不穩(wěn)定。</p><p>　　高管薪酬的研究成果和以會(huì)計(jì)為基礎(chǔ)的基于市場措施的性能研究迄今為止 是沒有定論的。我們推測，各種性能的措施由不同類型的補(bǔ)償來體現(xiàn)。也就是說， 補(bǔ)償方案中的現(xiàn)金部分往往是在會(huì)計(jì)指標(biāo)的基礎(chǔ)上的現(xiàn)金，而基于股票的補(bǔ)償?shù)?組件卻可能影響股市的回報(bào)（墨菲，2000 年霍爾和墨菲 2002）。</p>

78、<p>　　在 CEO 薪酬與公司業(yè)績之間的關(guān)系的評(píng)價(jià)中，我們研究受比較受歡迎的激</p><p>　　勵(lì)結(jié)構(gòu)，如獎(jiǎng)勵(lì)存在的計(jì)劃或股票期權(quán)。據(jù)預(yù)計(jì)，這種激勵(lì)措施將在 CEO 的決 策過程起到激勵(lì)作用，可以反映在該公司的結(jié)構(gòu)和特點(diǎn)。我們將公司分為高利潤 的公司和沒有股票期權(quán)和獎(jiǎng)金計(jì)劃的公司。</p><p><b>　　4 分析和結(jié)果</b></p&g

79、t;<p>　　在本節(jié)中基于前面介紹的一般例子我們制定了 CEO 報(bào)酬的特定的模型。無 論是現(xiàn)金補(bǔ)償（CASHCOMP）還是總額補(bǔ)償（TOTALCOMP）都作為實(shí)證檢驗(yàn) 的依賴變量。與以前的研究相一致，我們將利用每年的凈銷售額分析我們所有的</p><p>　　公司。我們?cè)谖覀兊哪Ｐ椭胁粌H使用的會(huì)計(jì)基礎(chǔ)還使用以市場為基礎(chǔ)的措施。更 具體地說，我們將普通股總額的一年股東回報(bào)率（TRS）作為我們衡量資產(chǎn)

80、收益 率（ROA）的會(huì)計(jì)基礎(chǔ)的措施。我們使用對(duì)數(shù)轉(zhuǎn)換補(bǔ)償和一般模型中的銷售數(shù) 據(jù)來減少誤差項(xiàng)的異方差性問題。</p><p>　　最初，我們將每個(gè)績效衡量標(biāo)準(zhǔn)作為一個(gè)單獨(dú)的模型解釋。然后，我們既運(yùn) 用模型性能的措施又運(yùn)用列入全年效果的虛擬變量，每一個(gè)回歸分析如下所示：</p><p>　　ln(CASHCOMP it) = α + β ln(SALES it)+ δ1 TRS it+ γ

81、DUMYEAR t + εit</p><p>　　ln(CASHCOMP it) = α + β ln(SALES it)+ δ2 ROA it + γ DUMYEAR t + εit</p><p>　　ln(CASHCOMP it) = α + β ln(SALES it) + δ1 TRS it + δ2 ROA it+ γ</p><p>　　DUMYEA

82、R t+ εit</p><p>　　ln(TOTALCOMP it) = α + β ln(SALES it)+ δ1 TRS it+ γ DUMYEAR t + εit</p><p>　　ln(TOTALCOMP it) = α + β ln(SALES it)+ δ2 ROA it + γ DUMYEAR t +</p><p><b>　　εit

83、</b></p><p>　　ln(TOTALCOMP it) = α + β ln(SALES it) + δ1 TRS it + δ2 ROA it+ γ</p><p>　　DUMYEAR t +εit</p><p>　　按橫截面時(shí)間序列排列每一個(gè)本模型的隨機(jī)效應(yīng)回歸分析。這些結(jié)果表明， 在每個(gè)模型的大小系數(shù)都具有統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義。</p>

84、<p>　　性能的基于市場的措施 TRS 是作為一個(gè)為現(xiàn)金補(bǔ)償（CASHCOMP）和 CEO 的報(bào)酬總額（TOTALCOMP）的重要解釋變量。會(huì)計(jì)基礎(chǔ)的表現(xiàn)衡量 ROA 也可 作為現(xiàn)金和總額賠償?shù)慕忉屪兞?，但只有模?6 水平顯著。然而，TRS 系數(shù)與之 相比報(bào)酬總額會(huì)稍大。在另一方面，居留權(quán)系數(shù)稍大。這些結(jié)果與以前的研究結(jié) 果是一致的。</p><p>　　我們計(jì)算賠償?shù)淖匀粚?duì)數(shù)的變化（因變量）是

85、基于我們的獨(dú)立變量的估計(jì)系 數(shù)（S）的表現(xiàn)的一個(gè)百分比的變化。然后，我們計(jì)算高管薪酬中位數(shù)的變化。 我們的研究結(jié)果表明 CEO 現(xiàn)金補(bǔ)償?shù)闹形粩?shù)（CASHCOMP）增加（或減少）$7419 相當(dāng)于一個(gè)以市場為基礎(chǔ)的回報(bào)率（型號(hào) 1）增加（減少）1％或會(huì)計(jì)基礎(chǔ)的回 報(bào)率（2 型）增加（減少）1％增加（減少）16935 元?；谀Ｐ?3 的計(jì)算產(chǎn)生的 結(jié)果非常接近模型 2。</p><p><b>　　5

86、 結(jié)束語</b></p><p>　　這項(xiàng)研究對(duì)行政賠償和公司業(yè)績的提高有很大的幫助。與過去的研究不同， 我們的樣本包括現(xiàn)金補(bǔ)償和總補(bǔ)償，分析補(bǔ)償結(jié)構(gòu)和性能之間的關(guān)系。我們所有 的樣本的結(jié)果表明，現(xiàn)金補(bǔ)償是由會(huì)計(jì)和市場措施的表現(xiàn)所影響的，而總補(bǔ)償與 以市場為基礎(chǔ)措施密切相關(guān)。我們發(fā)現(xiàn)，在確定的現(xiàn)金和總額補(bǔ)償下企業(yè)規(guī)模是</p><p>　　一個(gè)重要的變量。然而，這些結(jié)果似乎會(huì)加

87、強(qiáng)公司的獎(jiǎng)金或股票期權(quán)計(jì)劃。我們 過去的研究為激勵(lì)結(jié)構(gòu)，如獎(jiǎng)金和基于股票的補(bǔ)償。結(jié)果還顯示如果公司沒有獎(jiǎng) 金或基于股票的計(jì)劃，規(guī)模就不是作為影響 CEO 報(bào)酬的決定因素。數(shù)據(jù)表明， 沒有獎(jiǎng)金計(jì)劃的公司規(guī)模明顯小于有獎(jiǎng)金計(jì)劃的。無論是基于市場的措施，還是 基于會(huì)計(jì)基礎(chǔ)的措施，似乎都沒總額補(bǔ)償?shù)募?lì)計(jì)劃。具體而言，我們發(fā)現(xiàn)那些 以大市場為基礎(chǔ)回報(bào)的企業(yè)是不太可能提供市場基礎(chǔ)激勵(lì)的。</p><p>　　以上這幾點(diǎn)都值