This paper explores the relationship between directors' pay and performance within Australian banking, using panel data for the 1992-2005 period. The relationship between CEO pay and performance is investigated also. Several earnings models are estimated, using different dependent variables, alternate measures of performance and different estimation techniques. The results indicate an absence of a contemporaneous relationship between directors' pay and bank performance, and no association with prior year performance. However, there is a more distant pay-performance relationship, with total directors' pay having a robust positive association with earnings per share lagged two years, as well as with ROE lagged two years. The other key determinants of directors' pay in Australian banking are bank specific managerial policies, lags in the administration of pay, bank size, directors' age and directors' stock ownership. In contrast to total directors' pay, the evidence confirms a strong positive and direct association between CEO remuneration and prior year bank performance. The pay-performance association is stronger and more direct for CEO remuneration than it is for total directors' remuneration. The responsiveness of CEO pay with respect to bank performance appears to have increased over time. Copyright (c) 2007 The Authors; Journal compilation (c) 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine the association between firm performance and product market competition (PMC), and then examine the mitigation effect of corporate governance and/or state-ownership (SOEs) in the association between PMC and firm performance using Chinese listed firms. Design/methodology/approach The authors consider three determinants of the PMC that affect the nature of competition, and use market concentration, product substitutability and market size as proxies for PMC. The authors construct a corporate governance index which measures the extent of board independence, monitoring strength of supervisory board over board of directors, and monitoring strength of board of directors over CEO. The authors use Tobin’s Q as a proxy for firm performance. The authors use a sample of 20,706 firm-year observations listed on the Chinese stock market between 2001 and 2016 to empirically investigate the research questions proposed in the paper. Findings The authors find that higher PMC is associated with lower firm performance. The authors find that good corporate governance practices moderate the negative effect of higher PMC on firm performance. The association between higher PMC and lower performance is weaker for firms controlled by SOEs compared to non-SOEs. Further, the moderation effect of SOEs on the association between higher PMC and lower performance is more pronounced for firms with good corporate governance practices compared to firms with weak corporate governance practices. Originality/value Extant studies investigating the relationship between PMC and corporate governance suggest an either complementary or substitution relationship in developed economies. Our study highlights the interactive role played by SOEs and good corporate governance practices in firm performance in highly competitive product markets in an emerging economy. The findings provide insightful information to regulators of other emerging countries that SOEs with good corporate governance practices can play an important role in the economy by mitigating the negative effect of higher PMC on firm performance.

No abstract

No abstract

Directors’ pay and corporate governance continue to generate public outrage and calls for reform. Our meta‐regression analysis of all comparable UK pay‐for‐performance estimates finds little, if any, meaningful association between directors’ pay and corporate performance. However, there is evidence of the effectiveness of past “comply‐or‐explain” rules, especially the Cadbury Report. Unfortunately, the effects of past reform efforts tend to erode over time. This study also explores differences between pay–performance estimates, finding that these are largely explained by how pay and performance are measured by a given study.