Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/10419/104349
Authors: 
Lefebvre, Mathieu
Vieider, Ferdinand M.
Year of Publication: 
2011
Series/Report no.: 
Munich Discussion Paper 2011-7
Abstract: 
Classic financial agency theory recommends compensation through stock options rather than shares to induce risk neutrality in otherwise risk averse agents. In an experiment, we find that subjects acting as executives do also take risks that are excessive from the perspective of shareholders if compensated through options. Compensation through restricted company stock reduces the uptake of excessive risks. Even under stock-ownership, however, experimental executives continue to take excessive risks—a result that cannot be accounted for by classic incentive theory. We develop a basic model in which such risk-taking behavior is explained based on a richer array of risk attitudes derived from Prospect Theory. We use the model to derive hypotheses on what may be driving excessive risk taking in the experiment. Testing those hypotheses, we find that most of them are indeed borne out by the data. We thus conclude that a prospect-theory-based model is more apt at explaining risk attitudes under different compensation regimes than traditional principal-agent models grounded in expected utility theory.
Subjects: 
prospect theory
expected utility theory
risk attitude
executive compensation
reference dependence
experimental finance
JEL: 
D03
G28
G32
J33
L22
Persistent Identifier of the first edition: 
Document Type: 
Working Paper

Files in This Item:
File
Size





Items in EconStor are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.