Skip to main content

Table 6 Change in governance & post spinoff pay-performance elasticity regressions

From: Corporate spinoffs and executive compensation

 

Dependent Variable: Log Difference in Total Compensation

Component 1

Board Structure

Component 2

Committee Independence

Component 3

Board and Committee Meetings

Component 4

Institutional Ownership

Component Total

Intercept (b1)

0.866***

1.080***

0.454**

0.662***

1.046***

(3.45)

(6.45)

(2.28)

(5.65)

(3.23)

Rtn t (b2)

0.227

−0.349

− 0.587

0.122

− 0.608

(0.41)

(−1.34)

(− 1.57)

(0.59)

(− 1.88)

Rtn t-1 (b3)

0.318

−0.075

0.398

0.305**

−0.086

(0.57)

(−0.32)

(1.24)

(2.01)

(−0.22)

∆RCG (b4)

−0.002

− 0.006***

0.003

−0.002

− 0.001

(−1.08)

(−2.57)

(1.35)

(−0.55)

(−1.12)

Rtn t × ∆RCG (b5)

0.000

0.007*

0.008*

0.002

0.002**

(−0.09)

(1.88)

(1.85)

(0.46)

(2.34)

Rtn t-1 × ∆RCG (b6)

0.002

0.006

−0.002

0.001

0.001

(0.31)

(1.63)

(−0.44)

(0.25)

(0.93)

N

178

169

162

196

151

R 2

0.102

0.089

0.089

0.041

0.052

  1. This table reports the coefficients on the post-spinoff pay-performance elasticity regression interacted with the change in composite corporate governance score, ∆RCG, for the post-spinoff parent firms from Year + 1 to Year + 3. The dependent variable for all regressions is the first difference in the log of total CEO compensation. Shareholder wealth is measured by stock return. ∆RCG is a score based on the rank of change in the average corporate governance variables of parent firms for two years before spinoff and three years after spinoff in the 4 corporate governance components as previously defined in Table 5. Component Total is a composite score which denotes the sum of all ∆RCG scores for the 4 corporate governance components. A higher value ∆RCG denotes stronger governance improvement. Other variables are previously defined. The t-statistics, which are based on White standard errors robust to within firms’ cluster correlation, are reported in parenthesis. ***, ** and * denote significance at the 1%, 5%, and 10% level respectively. Variation in sample size is due to data availability