Costello Research Corporate Governance

Accounting - Costello

Costello Research Competitive Strategy

Strategy - Costello

Costello Research Internal Audit

Costello Research Market Efficiency

Research

Why it doesn’t—and shouldn’t—always pay to be a super-successful CEO

Jennifer Anzaldi — Wed, 07 May 2025 12:46:40 +0000

Why it doesn’t—and shouldn’t—always pay to be a super-successful CEO Jennifer Anzaldi Wed, 05/07/2025 - 08:46

In This Story

JK Aier

Are corporate boards acting as stabilizing forces for their firms, or enablers of extreme greed? That’s one of the questions implied by current debates about so-called “runaway CEO pay.” It’s not entirely clear how the CEO incentives set by the board can be squared with its fiduciary duty to safeguard long-term shareholder value. That’s largely due to the mystery surrounding how CEO compensation is determined in the first place.

“It’s a black box,” says JK Aier, senior associate dean for academic affairs and global engagement and associate professor of accounting at the Donald G. Costello College of Business at �鶹��Ƶ. “We don’t know why boards give bonuses, why CEOs get a raise—in other words, what goes on behind the scenes.”

JK Aier

Aier’s academic paper, forthcoming in Accounting and Business Research, circumvents this problem by focusing on cases posing stark contrasts between short- and long-term value. (Jian Cao of Florida Atlantic University, Zhanel DeVides of Penn State Abington and Ki Kyung Song of West Chester University co-authored.) When a company reports increased earnings year after year, a short-sighted board would raise CEO compensation in line with that performance, incentivizing the CEO to keep up the good work. To cooler heads, however, such a long “earnings string” would raise red flags, prompting a more cautious stance toward compensation.

“Continuous growth or expectations of continuous growth create adverse incentives and challenges because it’s not possible, given how business cycles work,” says Aier. “It may create undue pressure on CEOs to maintain growth somehow if it is strongly tied to compensation.” A strict pay-for-performance approach could induce CEOs to take risks that endanger long-term firm value, such as engaging in managerial manipulation. But how religiously do boards adhere to pay-for-performance?

The researchers examined earnings patterns and CEO compensation for thousands of firms during the period 1999-2018 (11,197 firm-year observations in all). �鶹��Ƶ two-thirds of the firm-years saw an increase in earnings; of those, fewer than 20 percent were in their sixth year or later in an unbroken earnings string.

Across the sample, CEO compensation over time was responsive to earnings patterns. For the first few years of the string, boards lavished their outperforming CEOs with expanding pay packets. But rewards tapered off in subsequent years, indicating that boards may be aware of the risks of over-incentivizing long patterns of increased earnings.

A similar relationship existed for firms with negative earnings strings. After sharply reducing compensation in the first two years of losses, boards stopped penalizing struggling CEOs and kept compensation fairly flat.

“If a company continues to have losses, will directors keep penalizing the CEO? If they do, no one will want to work for that company,” Aier says. “Instead, giving CEOs a runway during a string of continuous losses provides them the opportunity to turn things around.”

The researchers also looked at the probability of CEO turnover as it related to earnings patterns. Surprisingly, CEOs who presided over uncommonly long upward strings faced increased odds of turnover, which Aier attributes in part to board suspicions. “On the profit side, there seems to be a loss of trust that this is even possible,” he says. “Boards are willing to look at changing the CEO because they believe these strings may be unsustainable. In other words, something smells fishy to them.”

The opposite dynamic held true for poorly performing firms. CEO turnover risk declined over the longer downward strings, presumably reflecting broader concerns about retaining talent during prolonged periods of financial difficulty.

In sum, board compensation committees seem highly attentive to earnings patterns, monitoring them for long-term risks and adjusting CEO pay packets accordingly. This cuts against the idea that directors may be complicit in a CEO money grab that imperils firms’ long-term standing.

Moreover, the researchers found that the above-mentioned relationship between earnings patterns and CEO compensation was much stronger for firms experiencing lower competition and higher earnings persistence. This suggests that where market discipline is lacking, directors will pay even closer attention to earnings strings in order to keep CEOs honest.

“Our research suggests that boards pay attention to their monitoring role,” Aier concludes. “Boards are proactive; they care not only about whether the company is doing well, but also how performance is achieved.”

Hedging long-term risks by changing CEO compensation is one way directors can prevent misaligned incentives from forming. “The board’s role goes beyond making sure things go smoothly. It is also looking into the future in terms of what’s needed for the company and its stakeholders, and making sure the operations and the management of the company are also looking at performance from that perspective,” Aier says.

Topics

Accounting - Costello

Strategy - Costello

Costello Research Risk Management

Accounting Faculty Research

Research

Risky investment choices, not COVID, put U.S. hospitals in the red

Marianne Klinker — Thu, 02 Mar 2023 15:49:57 +0000

Risky investment choices, not COVID, put U.S. hospitals in the red Marianne Klinker Thu, 03/02/2023 - 10:49

Financially troubled U.S. hospitals are petitioning for more support from the federal government, but handouts won’t fix the underlying problem.

As the United States takes steps to move past the pandemic, its health care system is in a fragile financial state. At the end of 2022, about half of U.S. hospitals were in the red—making it the worst year for the industry since the start of the pandemic. No wonder, then, that hospitals are petitioning Congress for help and protesting the pending cessation of COVID funding from the federal government.

At first glance, the industry’s pleas appear justified. After all, COVID hit hospitals like a tidal wave, filling beds with patients requiring arduous, expensive care. At the same time, hospitals suffered from the same supply chain and workforce issues as virtually every other public-facing facility. And since the vaccine rollout, COVID’s waning lethality has produced an influx of patients who had delayed seeking treatment during the height of the pandemic—and whose health problems may have worsened in the interim.

Seb Demirkan

However, Sebahattin Demirkan, an associate professor of accounting at �鶹��Ƶ, says that the true source of the industry’s financial woes may lie beyond COVID. For Health Affairs Forefront, Demirkan and co-authors Ge Bai of Johns Hopkins University and Christopher M. Whaley of RAND Corporation took a deep dive into the most recent financial reports issued by ten of the U.S.’s largest nonprofit health care systems.

Contrary to the COVID-caused-it narrative, they found that, on average, revenue from patient care actually increased (albeit by less than 1 percent) between 2021 and 2022. Investment revenue, on the other hand, declined by a disastrous 185 percent over the same period. These are heavy but not totally surprising losses, seeing as how 2022 was the worst year for financial markets since the Great Recession. However, they cast doubt on the contention that hospitals’ financial struggles are primarily due to operational challenges brought on by the pandemic.

Without understanding the primary driver of hospitals’ financial strain, policymakers cannot make evidence-based decisions that benefit hospitals and patients in the long run.

For Demirkan, getting the origin story right is critical for policymakers weighing the current situation. As the article states, “Without understanding the primary driver of hospitals’ financial strain, policymakers cannot make evidence-based decisions that benefit hospitals and patients in the long run.” Clearly, if the health care system’s exposure to downside risk is to blame, more federal funding alone wouldn’t resolve the issue. Even if federal bailout money were restored to 2020 levels, hospitals would be in danger of yet further losses via their investment portfolio.

Demarkan’s main concern is for the taxpayers who may be stuck with the bill, through increased taxes and/or rising patient fees and insurance premiums. “While hospitals are critical for patients and communities, resources used to pay for hospital care come from those same patients and communities,” the article states.

He points to a possible contradiction between the non-profit status of these institutions and their investment strategy, which he says resembles that of a hedge fund. Such an approach is likely to reap outsized gains in bull markets—in bear markets (as in 2022), above-average losses. “If they behave like any other for-profit company or financial company, then it is not going to serve the entire nation, the taxpayers or people. All stakeholders will be hurt, basically,” Demirkan says.

As one possible remedy, he suggests regulators could insist that non-profit hospitals limit risk exposure across their portfolio as a precondition for public assistance. “They may say, ‘if you want to invest extra cash, invest in ETFs or mutual funds. FedEx, Amazon etc.—less volatile and less risky financial instruments and stocks.” Still, Demirkan acknowledges that attempts to ratchet up oversight or accountability would run afoul of the influential health care lobby.

At the very least, therefore, he advises the government not to “with blind eyes, give away money to these hospitals, and just look at how they use that money if they are nonprofit hospitals. And basically, use your judgment accordingly.”

Topics

Accounting - Costello

Costello Research Health & Well-being at Work

Costello Research Financial Crises

Costello Research Risk Management

Costello Research Corporate Finance

Accounting Faculty Research

Research

More School of Business Faculty Research

Are there upsides to “overboarding”?
July 14, 2025
“Doing well by doing good”? There’s a framework for that
July 2, 2025
In the workplace, relationships equal reality
May 28, 2025
Why it doesn’t—and shouldn’t—always pay to be a super-successful CEO
May 7, 2025
Study: Left-handed CEOs are more innovative
April 29, 2025

In This Story

Sebahattin Demirkan

Envisioning a sustainability-oriented future for corporate governance

Jennifer Anzaldi — Thu, 01 Dec 2022 14:19:59 +0000

Envisioning a sustainability-oriented future for corporate governance Jennifer Anzaldi Thu, 12/01/2022 - 09:19

The “G” in “ESG”, which stands for governance, comes last, but not least. In fact, corporate governance may become the most important member of the trio, as mounting ESG awareness continues to enlarge the current conception of risk management. Soon, directors of publicly traded companies may be held increasingly responsible for heading off business risks related to the “E” and the “S”, such as the societal ramifications of carbon emissions and human capital flight due to less-than-living wages.

Cases in point: Boards of directors of Facebook and other high-profile companies have been sued by shareholders for breach of DEI pledges. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has broadened its regulatory agenda to include climate change, cyber risk governance, board diversity and human capital.

Given this context of change, it was an appropriate moment for the Business for a Better World Center (B4BW) to convene an in-person Stakeholder Roundtable on the subject of Corporate Governance. The half-day event took place at Point of View International Retreat & Research Center at �鶹��Ƶ Neck in Lorton, VA on October 21.

Previous Stakeholder Roundtable events were held virtually with the stated mission of “engag[ing] tri-sector leadership, our faculty and students to ensure forward progress is made on business meeting the values and expectations of society as well as its various stakeholders and to drive stakeholder capitalism further into the mainstream.”

After encouraging opening remarks from Dean Ajay Vinzé, a keynote speech was given by Michael Sion, a partner at Bain & Company who also sits on B4BW’s Advisory Board. In his talk, Sion laid out four main stumbling blocks preventing corporate boards from pivoting from the doctrine of shareholder primacy to a more stakeholder-oriented view. Lack of information means that directors are often ill-equipped to understand trade-offs between stakeholder and business outcomes. Lack of representation results in board composition that is misaligned with the demographics – and thus the concerns – of the broader society. Lack of incentives lessens the motivation for directors to rethink how they make decisions, unless they are pressured to do so for core business reasons. Lack of transparency hinders corporate accountability for decisions incurring environmental and/or social risks.

B4BW Executive-in-Residence Rashed Hasan then described a solution that would address the aforementioned challenges. Currently in development, the Stakeholder Value Index uses a wealth of corporate data to quantify the value firms bring to their employees, communities, customer and suppliers as well as the planet, shareholders and the company itself.

Narrowing the focus to one key stakeholder – employees – Tannia Talento, regional director from the office of U.S. Senator Mark Warner (D-VA), spoke of the Senator’s efforts to advance legislation that would incentivize corporations to invest in worker training by offering a business-related tax credit. Warner also co-authored a letter to the SEC urging the agency to require labour-related corporate disclosures, including the percentage of workers classified as “independent contractors” and thus exempted from many protections.

The following speaker was Cambria Allen-Ratzlaff, managing director and head of investor strategies for JUST Capital, an independent non-profit whose rankings and indices are designed to “drive capital toward good corporate citizens.” Allen-Ratzlaff explained that JUST Capital derives its priorities by polling the American public on their priorities. Consistently, paying a fair and living wage and job creation in the U.S. come in first and second in the polls. In addition, she presented a data-driven case that fair and equitable human capital management was completely in line with business objectives. Better corporate citizens, she argued, are also better managers and can deliver higher shareholder returns on average.

Usman Ahmed, head of global public affairs and strategic research for PayPal, described how the digital-payments giant launched the Worker Financial Wellness Initiative. The purpose of the initiative was to increase workers’ Net Disposable Income (i.e. the amount left over after taxes and necessary expenses) from as low as four percent in some regions to 20 percent across the board. To achieve this, PayPal extended equity eligibility to all employees, reduced healthcare costs, reviewed and raised wages, and provided financial consulting services. Consequently, the minimum global NDI for PayPal employees reached an estimated 16 percent in 2021.

However, corporations must balance the feel-good factor and social mission of stakeholder capitalism against potential legal limitations, especially in our age of rising shareholder activism. Donald Kochan, a professor at �鶹��Ƶ’s Scalia School of Law and deputy executive director of the Law & Economics Center, cautioned the group that shareholder value maximization has been enshrined in the U.S. legal framework for corporate oversight. He zeroed in on the distinction between a “corporation”, which is owned by shareholders and holds a unique legal status, and a “business”, an entity with no prescribed ownership structure that has wider decision-making latitude. For corporations, shareholder value is the sole legally acknowledged criterion for measuring managerial performance. Adding other decision-making criteria – beneficial as they may be for society – would give shareholders actionable cause for complaint. Therefore, Kochan argued, boards of directors need to develop ways of driving business growth (and, by extension, shareholder returns) that also, as a secondary effect, benefit other stakeholders.

Other than the above-named speakers, attendees at the Roundtable included B4BW staff, �鶹��Ƶ School of Business faculty, MBA students and law students. Rounding out the proceedings, participants engaged in breakout sessions on corporate information transparency and how boards can advocate on behalf of employees.

Rashed Hasan, who leads the Stakeholder Roundtable Series, observed at the end of the day, “This is very exciting to see everyone is opening up to meet in person and now we are able to convene a small group of tri-sector leaders, our faculty and our students to engage in open and frank discussion on some of the challenging issues facing business and society.” The next Roundtable is being planned for the later part of spring 2023.

Topics

ESG - Costello

Costello Research Managing Change

entrepreneurship

Management Faculty Research

Costello College of Business

Community Partners

Business for a Better World Center

Point of View

Campus News

Business for a Better World Center News

Using Process Management to Examine Unintended Consequences of Health Care Regulation

Marianne Klinker — Fri, 12 Nov 2021 18:53:13 +0000

Using Process Management to Examine Unintended Consequences of Health Care Regulation Marianne Klinker Fri, 11/12/2021 - 13:53

In This Story

Hang Ren

In his research, Hang Ren, an assistant professor of information systems and operations management, is investigating whether a 2012 federal regulation called the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP)—intended to improve patient care in hospitals by targeting readmissions for six targeted diagnoses or treatments—is fundamentally flawed in reducing readmissions or improving patient care.

Hang Ren

Ren’s research, which he is conducting with colleagues Tolga Tezcan from the London Business School and Kenan Arifoglu from University College London, is under review at the prestigious peer-reviewed journal Management Science.

HRRP reduces overall Medicare reimbursement to hospitals by up to 3 percent if a hospital’s readmissions rates for six targeted diseases and treatments—acute myocardial infarction, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, heart failure, pneumonia, coronary artery bypass surgery, and hip and knee replacement—are above the national average.

The research, “Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program Does Not Provide the Right Incentives: Issues and Remedies,” uses analytical modeling developed in process-management scholarship to project the potential for HRRP to achieve the goals government regulators intended.

“It’s not unusual for government to use a very blunt instrument to try to influence a complex issue,” says Ren. “We are concluding that the financial penalties HRRP creates don’t provide a meaningful disincentive for correcting high readmission rates and fail to provide meaningful incentives for improved performance.”

Topics

Costello Research Health & Well-being at Work

Costello Research Managing Change