Executive Stock Options as Mixed Gambles: Revisiting the Behavioral Agency Model

2013 ◽  
Vol 56 (2) ◽  
pp. 451-472 ◽  
Author(s):  
Geoffrey P. Martin ◽  
Luis R. Gomez-Mejia ◽  
Robert M. Wiseman
Keyword(s):  
Stock Options ◽  
Executive Stock Options ◽  
Agency Model ◽  
Behavioral Agency

Does Greater Risk-Bearing in Stock Option Compensation Reduce the Influence of Problem Framing On Managerial Risk-Taking Behavior?

2011 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 185-201 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kimberly Sawers ◽  
Arnold Wright ◽  
Valentina Zamora
Keyword(s):  
Risk Taking ◽  
Stock Options ◽  
Stock Option ◽  
Money Stock ◽  
Agency Model ◽  
Problem Framing ◽  
Managerial Risk ◽  
Option Compensation ◽  
Behavioral Agency ◽  
Stock Option Compensation

ABSTRACT: We examine the extent to which the behavioral agency model reflects the relation between greater risk-bearing in stock option compensation and managerial risk-taking. The behavioral agency model predicts that managers with greater wealth at stake will avoid risky projects that threaten their wealth. This greater risk-bearing effect moderates the problem-framing effect, which predicts that loss-averse managers will be more (less) risk-taking when choosing among loss (gain) projects. Using a 2 × 2 between-subjects experiment with 108 M.B.A. students acting as managers, we find that managers are more risk-taking in the loss context than in the gain context when they have at-the-money stock options but not when they have wealth at stake through in-the-money stock options. Further, we find that managers with in-the-money stock options are less risk-taking than managers with at-the-money stock options in the loss context. These findings support the behavioral agency model prediction that greater risk-bearing in stock option compensation (moving from at-the-money stock options to in-the-money stock options) reduces the problem framing effect on risk-taking behavior, particularly when the firm faces a loss decision context. Our results point to the importance of considering the implications of risk-bearing in stock option compensation for managers choosing risky projects that affect firm value.

CEO stock options and gender from the behavioral agency model perspective

2019 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 68-88
Author(s):  
Luis Gomez-Mejia ◽  
J. Samuel Baixauli-Soler ◽  
Maria Belda-Ruiz ◽  
Gregorio Sanchez-Marin
Keyword(s):  
Stock Options ◽  
Agency Model ◽  
And Gender ◽  
Behavioral Agency

Alternatives to Traditional Repricing of Executive Stock Options

2011 ◽  
Vol 14 (01) ◽  
pp. 35-80 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jerry T. Yang
Keyword(s):  
Stock Options ◽  
Executive Stock Options ◽  
Agency Model ◽  
Subjective Value ◽  
Dynamic Agency ◽  
Accounting Rules ◽  
Incentive Measure ◽  
Reported Earnings ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Associated Variable

The main purpose of this paper is to examine two commonly used alternatives to traditional repricing (TR) of executive stock options (ESOs) in a dynamic agency model. TR practices have become obsolete since new accounting rules took effect in July 2000. To avoid associated variable accounting charges that cause uncertainty in future reported earnings, companies have tried several TR alternatives as solutions to rescuing underwater options. We justify the occurrence of TR alternatives and quantify the impact of the marking-to-market feature imbedded in the new accounting rules. We also propose an incentive measure which is comparable to the subjective value of ESOs claimed by Ingersoll, J (2006) to rank TR alternatives in terms of agent's incentive.

The Behavioral Agency Model and Innovation Investment: Examining the Combined Effects of CEO and Board Ownership

2021 ◽  
pp. 105960112110582
Author(s):  
Fabio Zona ◽  
Marco Zamarian
Keyword(s):  
Stock Options ◽  
Risk Preferences ◽  
Stock Ownership ◽  
Agency Model ◽  
Executive Incentives ◽  
Scant Attention ◽  
Italian Manufacturing Firms ◽  
Behavioral Agency ◽  
Board Ownership

The Behavioral Agency Model (BAM) offers a behavioral account of executive incentives, according to which the perceived threats to CEO wealth, that is, CEO risk bearing, influence a CEO’s propensity to undertake innovation investments. While examining stock options extensively, the extant BAM research devotes relatively scant attention to other forms of incentives, such as stock ownership, that are conducive to one source of risk bearing, that is, employment risk. Furthermore, with an emphasis placed on the CEO, much BAM research neglects the interactive risk preferences of the CEO and the board. This study refines the BAM and empirically explores the countervailing forces exerted by the CEO and board ownership. It elucidates that while CEO ownership exhibits an inverted U-shaped relationship with innovation investment, board ownership weakens that relationship. An exploratory test on a sample of 108 Italian manufacturing firms provides support for the hypothesized effects. The refined BAM sheds further light on executive incentives through a behavioral lens, by elucidating the role of stock ownership and the interactive risk preferences of the CEO and the board.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document