This is an outdated version published on 2022-08-08 05:24:22 UTC. Read the most recent version.
Preprint / Version 1

Do Japanese Firms Use Relative Performance Evaluation?

An Explicit Approach

##article.authors##

  • Sho Hayakawa Faculty of Commerce, University of Marketing and Distribution Sciences
  • Kento Inoue Faculty of Business Administration, Kindai University
  • Jumpei Hamamura Faculty of Business Administration, Momoyama Gakuin University https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6796-8903

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.51094/jxiv.135

Keywords:

Relative performance evaluation, peer group, contract theory, executive compensation, financial statement

Abstract

This study explores the use of relative performance evaluations in compensation contracts for managers in Japan. While previous studies of relative performance evaluations in Japan take an implicit approach based on statistical analysis, this study adopts an explicit approach to analyze the actual use of relative performance evaluation. As a result of our survey, this study obtained the following results. First, in Japan, 32 of the listed firms used relative performance evaluations, of which 5 use relative performance evaluations in cash compensation and 27 use relative performance evaluations in determining stock compensation. Second, seven of the 32 firms that used relative performance evaluations disclosed detailed information on peer groups. Finally, several firms did not use relative performance evaluations but information from other firms' compensation contracts to determine their compensation contracts. This study has the following three contributions. First, only a small number of Japanese firms used relative performance evaluation in executive compensation. Second, we find that a certain number of Japanese firms use the information on compensation contracts of other firms to determine compensation contracts. Finally, we suggest the possibility of using the information on the policy for executive compensation in the financial reports.

Downloads *Displays the aggregated results up to the previous day.

Download data is not yet available.

References

Aggarwal, R., and A. A. Samwick. 1999. Executive Compensation, Strategic Competition, and Relative Performance Evaluation: Theory and Evidence. Journal of Finance 54 (6): 1999-2043.

Albuquerque, A. 2009. Peer Firms in Relative Performance Evaluation. Journal of Accounting and Economics 48 (1): 69-89.

阿萬弘之. 2002.「株式市場と経営者インセンティブ：株価と役員賞与の経済分析」『日本経済研究』 45: 68-85.

Antle, R., and A. Smith. 1986. An Empirical Investigation of the Relative Performance Evaluation of Corporate Executives. Journal of Accounting Research 24 (1): 1-39.

Bakke, T. E., H. Mahmudi, and A. Newton. 2020. Performance Peer Groups in CEO Compensation Contracts. Financial Management 49 (1): 997-1027.

Bannister, J. W., and H. A. Newman. 2003. Analysis of Corporate Disclosures on Relative Performance Evaluation. Accounting Horizons 17 (3): 235-246.

Bizjak, J., M. Lemmon, and T. Nguyen. 2011. Are All CEOs above Average? An Empirical Analysis of Compensation Peer Groups and Pay Design. Journal of Financial Economics 100 (3): 538-555.

Casas-Arce, P., and F. A. Martinez-Jerez. 2009. Relative Performance Compensation, Contests, and Dynamic Incentives. Management Science 55 (8): 1306-1320.

Eyring, H., and V. G. Narayanan. 2018. Performance Effects of Setting a High Reference Point for Peer‐Performance Comparison. Journal of Accounting Research 56 (2): 581-615.

Gibbons, R., and K. J. Murphy. 1990. Relative Performance Evaluation for Chief Executive Officers. Industrial & Labor Relations Review 43 (3): 30-51.

Gong, G., L. Y. Li, and J. Y. Shin. 2011. Relative Performance Evaluation and Related Peer Groups in Executive Compensation Contracts. The Accounting Review 86 (3): 1007-1043.

濵村純平. 2022.「寡占競争を仮定した経営者の相対的業績評価研究に関するレビュー」『経済経営論集』63 (3): 129-154.

Holmström, B. 1982. Moral Hazard in Teams. Bell Journal of Economics 13 (2): 324-340.

井上謙仁，尾関規正，濵村純平. 2021.「財務報告の比較可能性と相対的業績評価: Nam (2020) の追試」『会計科学』 e2021 (2): 1-5.

Janakiraman, S. N., R. A. Lambert, and D. F. Larcker. 1992. An Empirical Investigation of the Relative Performance Evaluation Hypothesis. Journal of Accounting Research 30 (1): 53-69.

Joh, S. W. 1999. Strategic Managerial Incentive Compensation in Japan: Relative Performance Evaluation and Product Market Collusion. Review of Economics and Statistics 81 (2): 303-313.

Lazear, E. P., and S. Rosen. 1981. Rank-order Tournaments as Optimum Labor Contracts. Journal of Political Economy 89 (5): 841-864.

Matsumura, E. M., and J. Y. Shin. 2006. An Empirical Analysis of An Incentive Plan with Relative Performance Measures: Evidence from A Postal Service. The Accounting Review 81 (3):533-566.

Matsumura, E. M., and J. Y. Shin. 2013. Relative Performance Evaluation: A Review of Managerial Accounting Research. Journal of Management Accounting, Japan (Supplement 2): 3-12.

宮川正康. 2021.「役員の報酬（特集 決算開示のトレンド2021）」『企業会計』73 (12): 1628-1639.

Nam, J. 2020. Financial Reporting Comparability and Accounting-Based Relative Performance Evaluation in the Design of CEO Cash Compensation Contracts. The Accounting Review 95 (3): 343-370.

小笠原亨，早川翔，三矢裕. 2015.「管理会計研究と相対的業績評価」『国民経済雑誌』212 (3): 35-61.

乙政正太. (1996). 「わが国における経営者の相対業績評価」『阪南論集社会科学編』 31 (4): 157-165.

乙政正太. 2004.『利害調整メカニズムと会計情報』森山書店.

首藤昭信. 2002.「経営者報酬制度における相対業績評価に関する実証分析」『専修大学会計学研究所報』(6): 1-28.

首藤昭信. 2021.「経営者報酬に関する開示規制の経済的帰結」『會計』200 (5): 490-504.

Downloads

Posted


Submitted: 2022-08-04 07:21:12 UTC

Published: 2022-08-08 05:24:22 UTC

Versions

Reason(s) for revision

Section
Economics, Business & Management

License

Copyright (c) 2022 Sho Hayakawa
Kento Inoue
Jumpei Hamamura

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.