This website uses cookies to help us give you the best experience when you visit our website. By continuing to use this website, you consent to our use of these cookies.
Read more
This paper clarifies why optimal corporate governance generally excludes monetary liability for breach of directors? and managers? fiduciary duty of care. In principle, payments predicated on judicial evaluations of directors? and managers? business decisions could usefully supplement payments predicated on stock prices or accounting figures in the provision of performance incentives.
In particular, the optimally adjusted combination of standard performance pay and tailored partial liability could impose less risk on directors and managers, and provide better risk-taking incentives, than standard performance pay alone. This paper shows this in a formal model summarizing well-known results. Consequently, the reason not to use liability incentives is not absolute but a cost-benefit trade-off. Litigation is expensive, while the benefits from refining incentives are limited, at least in public firms. Equity pay already provides fairly good incentives, courts have difficulties evaluating business decisions, and the agency conflict in standard business decisions is limited. The analysis rationalizes many existing exceptions from non-liability but also leads to novel recommendations, particularly for entities other than public corporations.
Alibaba, the e-commerce giant that completed a record-breaking IPO in the United States in 2014 and in mid-2020 was valued at over $500 billion, is one of...
This article examines the economic underpinnings of the concept of corporate purpose, which has gained increasing attention from business academics,...