Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorDuong, Lien
dc.contributor.authorEvans, John
dc.date.accessioned2017-01-30T15:18:36Z
dc.date.available2017-01-30T15:18:36Z
dc.date.created2015-10-07T04:04:46Z
dc.date.issued2015
dc.identifier.citationDuong, L. and Evans, J. 2015. CFO Compensation: Evidence from Australia. Pacific-Basin Finance Journal. 35 pt.A: pp. 425-443.
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/45116
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.pacfin.2015.03.006
dc.description.abstract

We investigate the extent to which the incentive alignment theory and the managerial power theory explain the variability of CFO compensation in Australia. We find a positive relationship between the level of CFO compensation and measures of job complexity and firm stock market performance. However, we do not find the pay-for-performance link when performance is measured at the CFO-specific level. CFOs actually receive higher non-cash compensation when reporting quality is lower, suggesting a sharp contrast to predictions of the incentive alignment approach. Conversely, we find that CFOs who have more managerial power (the CFO is on the board of directors, or holds a higher level of stock ownership, or stays longer in their position) receive significantly higher compensation. For example, a CFO who has board membership receives on average $323,590 more than the total compensation of a CFO who is not a board insider. Overall both theories are important in determining Australian CFO compensation but the managerial power hypothesis explains a larger fraction of variation in CFO pay than the incentive alignment view.

dc.publisherElsevier
dc.titleCFO Compensation: Evidence from Australia
dc.typeJournal Article
dcterms.source.volume-
dcterms.source.startPage---
dcterms.source.issn0927-538X
dcterms.source.titlePacific-Basin Finance Journal
curtin.departmentSchool of Accounting
curtin.accessStatusOpen access


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record