El otro blog para cosas más serias

El otro blog para cosas más serias
El otro blog para cosas más serias

miércoles, 8 de diciembre de 2010

¿Quién debe decidir cuánto cobra el Consejo de Administración? ¿Y cuánto cobran los consejeros-delegados?

El profesor Paz-Ares se ha ocupado extensivamente de este tema entre nosotros no hace mucho. Ahora hemos encontrado este paper de Shivendu y Vithayathil
…, the past few decades have witnessed a decline in the effectiveness of governance partly due to weak regulatory oversight and to a great part due to the weakening of governance institutions, of which the most significant are the presence of a large owner on the board and the disciplinary force of takeovers. Both of these institutions appear to have weakened. Indeed, an unfettered market for corporate control appears all but nonexistent due to the effects of staggered boards and poison pills. Significant owners who have risked capital have been replaced by large institutional shareholders with their own agency issues as they primarily invest other people’s money. The net result has been a significant weakening of governance.
Esto es verdad, probablemente, en los mercados anglosajones con predominio del capital disperso.
En relación con los administradores no ejecutivos (que no cobran cantidades enormes y cuyo salario se determina, en España, por los accionistas a través de los estatutos y acuerdos de la Junta General) dicen que hay dos problemas
              “a major form of inferior or poor governance is that the board becomes an agent of the management and therefore essentially cannot govern. A second problem is that there is very little incentive to learn about the firm’s business, operations, markets, environment, capability and performance of the management and then provide suitable guidance on strategy and make changes in management as necessary”.
Y luego dicen
There has been no serious discussion of removing the right to set management compensation from the board and handing it to the shareholders as such a structure was traditionally inefficient and impractical
Lo que, para un español, suena increíble si uno lee el trabajo de Paz-Ares citado más arriba. Su conclusión
we analyze shareholder payoffs under the traditional delegated- governance structure wherein shareholders set the compensation of the board, but delegate the management compensation decision to the board, and contrast such delegated- governance with an alternate owner-governance structure wherein shareholders determine the compensation contracts for both the board and management. Under unobservable effort, we consider both deterministic and stochastic firm performance, jointly determined by the effort of the board and management.
We find that shareholders are never worse off under owner-governance, though management wages as well as effort are higher under certain conditions. Within a deterministic setting, board wages as well as effort are equal or higher with centralized governance. Under extreme stochastic effects, which might describe boom or bust environments, it does not pay to incentivize the board or management to expend effort. In a stochastic environment where output is determined primarily by board effort, it does not pay to incentivize management for effort
Me gusta esta frase
Under boom or bust environments, there is no need for incentives.
Es como un paraíso medioambiental (boom): sobreviven todas las especies incluso las menos adaptadas al medio, porque el medio es muy “amigable”. O un desierto/zona polar (bust) sólo sobreviven los más adaptados. En condiciones extremas, la selección natural (los mercados) es tan brutal que los incentivos no tienen importancia.

No hay comentarios:

Archivo del blog