Executive Compensation and Financial Performance Measures: Evidence from Significant Financial Institutions

IF 3.1 3区 管理学 Q2 BUSINESS, FINANCE Australian Accounting Review Pub Date : 2020-07-27 DOI:10.1111/auar.12315
Cao Hoang Anh Le, Yaowen Shan, Stephen Taylor
{"title":"Executive Compensation and Financial Performance Measures: Evidence from Significant Financial Institutions","authors":"Cao Hoang Anh Le,&nbsp;Yaowen Shan,&nbsp;Stephen Taylor","doi":"10.1111/auar.12315","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>We survey the use of financial performance measures in determining executive pay among significant Australian financial institutions. We document evidence of the pervasiveness with which externally disclosed non-GAAP (non-Generally Accepted Accounting Principles) financial measures are also used internally to determine variable remuneration, with the apparent popularity of cash profit after tax in short-term incentives plans. Our evidence also highlights the increasing use of peer group-adjusted measures (e.g., relative cash earnings per share and return on equity ranking against a peer group) in determining longer-run incentives, despite the fact that members of the peer group do not measure financial performance in a directly comparable manner. Detailed analysis of the four major trading banks (Australia and New Zealand Banking Group, Commonwealth Bank, National Australia Bank and Westpac) reveals differences in the way non-GAAP earnings measures are calculated across the major banks, as well as some variation over time in the way individual banks measure performance. We also document evidence of non-GAAP earnings restatements, with around 25% of non-GAAP results subsequently being restated. These restatements are more likely to result in a downward revision of the initially reported non-GAAP result than an upward revision. We therefore conclude that existing measures of financial performance used to determine senior executive compensation are not as ‘objective’, as might be assumed.</p>","PeriodicalId":51552,"journal":{"name":"Australian Accounting Review","volume":"30 3","pages":"159-177"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2020-07-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/auar.12315","citationCount":"12","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian Accounting Review","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/auar.12315","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BUSINESS, FINANCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 12

Abstract

We survey the use of financial performance measures in determining executive pay among significant Australian financial institutions. We document evidence of the pervasiveness with which externally disclosed non-GAAP (non-Generally Accepted Accounting Principles) financial measures are also used internally to determine variable remuneration, with the apparent popularity of cash profit after tax in short-term incentives plans. Our evidence also highlights the increasing use of peer group-adjusted measures (e.g., relative cash earnings per share and return on equity ranking against a peer group) in determining longer-run incentives, despite the fact that members of the peer group do not measure financial performance in a directly comparable manner. Detailed analysis of the four major trading banks (Australia and New Zealand Banking Group, Commonwealth Bank, National Australia Bank and Westpac) reveals differences in the way non-GAAP earnings measures are calculated across the major banks, as well as some variation over time in the way individual banks measure performance. We also document evidence of non-GAAP earnings restatements, with around 25% of non-GAAP results subsequently being restated. These restatements are more likely to result in a downward revision of the initially reported non-GAAP result than an upward revision. We therefore conclude that existing measures of financial performance used to determine senior executive compensation are not as ‘objective’, as might be assumed.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
高管薪酬与财务绩效衡量:来自重要金融机构的证据
我们调查使用财务绩效指标在确定高管薪酬显著澳大利亚金融机构。我们记录的证据表明,外部披露的非公认会计原则(non-GAAP)财务指标也普遍用于内部确定可变薪酬,在短期激励计划中,税后现金利润显然很受欢迎。我们的证据还强调,在确定长期激励措施时,越来越多地使用同行群体调整措施(例如,相对每股现金收益和相对于同行群体的股本回报率排名),尽管同行群体的成员并不以直接可比的方式衡量财务绩效。对四大贸易银行(澳大利亚和新西兰银行集团、联邦银行、澳大利亚国民银行和西太平洋银行)的详细分析揭示了各大银行计算非公认会计准则收益的方式的差异,以及各银行衡量业绩的方式随时间的变化。我们还记录了非gaap收益重述的证据,其中约25%的非gaap业绩随后被重述。这些重述更有可能导致最初报告的非公认会计准则结果的向下修订,而不是向上修订。因此,我们得出结论,用于确定高管薪酬的现有财务绩效指标并不像人们可能认为的那样“客观”。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Australian Accounting Review
Australian Accounting Review BUSINESS, FINANCE-
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
17.60%
发文量
31
期刊最新文献
Issue Information The Boundaries of Accounting The Shifting and Permeable Boundaries of Auditing: Evidence from Early Australian Examination Papers CEO Benevolence and Corporate Social Performance Integrated Reporting Impact on Core Organisational Practices: A Practice-Based Perspective
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1