Search

Excessive executive compensation is tantamount to a breach of agency contract. There are two main problems with excessive executive compensation: excessive compensation is stealing from a shareholder’s standpoint; excessive executive compensation is demoralizing to the other workers in the organization. Purpose. This paper aims to provide a conceptual framework of the antecedent and postcedent of excessive executive compensation. Approach. The paper inclines on agency theory and the attendant principal-agent contract. The paper follows a critical deconstruction approach, culminating in the development of an original conceptual framework. Finding. Through a critical deconstruction of agency theory postulation of optimal agent’s response to corporate compensation structure, it emerges that this postulation may not hold in all instances given that gargantuan compensation structure has a high propensity to nurture irresistible executive financial misdemeanours to inflate profit or share price, which are the performance index of reaping the excessive compensation. This incubates ancillary agency costs to the detriment of the principal and corporate survival. Theoretical and practical value. The paper offers insight into corporate governance strategy for accounting and business law theory and practice in university business schools and for further research. In addition, corporate boards may draw insights from the theory developed in this paper, which portrays the antecedents and postcedents of executive excessive compensation. This theory will catalyse debate and rethinking of corporate compensation policies within the boards of directors. The paper offers an original contribution to the contentious agency cost issues by developing a conceptual framework of the antecedent and postcedent of excessive executive compensation – depicting obscured additional agency costs.

Copyright of Accounting & Finance / Oblìk ì Fìnansi is the property of Institute of Accounting & Finance and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

In this study, it addresses the agency theory, the steward theory and corporate governance for positive commercial performance. Although agency theory and steward theory are widely studied, the fiduciary duties of directors and managers are overlooked. This study intends to fill the literature gap of fiduciary duties of a director or manger playing an important role in commercial performance. Agency theory is liabilities for the corporate owner whereas stewardship provides for a good corporate governance. This is because directors and managers work for the interest of the corporation. Corporate governance which ensures the good governance of a company ensures accountability, which is essential for commercial gain. This study is qualitative with interviews with managers of the corporations. Findings revealed that directors and manager work for the best interest of the corporation. The agency cost that are needed to monitor the managers are not needed because managers are keen to ensure the growth of their corporations. In decision making of directors, they must keep aside any ulterior motives and serve in the best interest of the corporation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Prior research is not conclusive whether information asymmetries or managerial discretion are the cause of observed investment-cash flow sensitivity. This paper examines the effect of family firms' governance heterogeneity on firm's investment-cash flow sensitivity in Brazil. The Brazilian economic and corporate governance context present several idiosyncratic features, including weak minority shareholder protection, an underdeveloped capital market, macro-economic uncertainties, the presence of controlling shareholders (especially families), and the excessive use of control-enhancing mechanisms, allowing us to explore in greater detail the drivers of investment-cash flow sensitivity. We find that investment is more sensitive to cash flow for firms with a highly entrenched family presence (divergence between corporate control and voting rights coupled with family management) than in less entrenched family firms. This result emerges primarily due to financial constraints from asymmetric information, rather than agency problems of free cash flow from abuse of managerial discretion. Our findings shed new light on the role of excessive control rights in investment decisions, allowing family managers to reallocate capital to cope with financial constraints in times of economic uncertainties. • Family entrenched firms reduce the investment-cash flow sensitivity. • Entrenched owners are stewards in times of economic uncertainty. • Underinvestment due to information asymmetries seems to prevail. • There is no evidence of private benefits of control in family entrenched firms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]