You are not currently logged in.
Access JSTOR through your library or other institution:
If You Use a Screen ReaderThis content is available through Read Online (Free) program, which relies on page scans. Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Reciprocally Interlocking Boards of Directors and Executive Compensation
Kevin F. Hallock
The Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis
Vol. 32, No. 3 (Sep., 1997), pp. 331-344
Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the University of Washington School of Business Administration
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2331203
Page Count: 14
You can always find the topics here!Topics: Chief executive officers, Business structures, Market value, Boards of directors, Seniority, Mathematical dependent variables, Quantitative analysis, Retirement, Proxy statements, Regression coefficients
Were these topics helpful?See something inaccurate? Let us know!
Select the topics that are inaccurate.
Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Preview not available
Is executive compensation influenced by the composition of the board of directors? About 8% of chief executive officers (CEOs) are reciprocally interlocked with another CEO--the current CEO of firm A serves as a director of firm B and the current CEO of firm B serves as a director of firm A. Roughly 20% of firms have at least one current or retired employee sitting on the board of another firm and vice versa. I investigate how these and other features of board composition affect CEO pay by using a sample of 9,804 director positions in America's largest companies. CEOs who lead interlocked firms earn significantly higher compensation. Also, interlocked CEOs tend to head larger firms. After controlling for firm and CEO characteristics, the pay gap is reduced dramatically. However, when firms that are interlocked due to documented business relationships are considered not interlocked, the measured return to interlock is as high as 17%. There also is evidence that the return to interlock was higher in the 1970s than in the early 1990s.
The Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis © 1997 University of Washington School of Business Administration