HOME JOURNALS CONTACT

Journal of Applied Sciences

Year: 2004 | Volume: 4 | Issue: 4 | Page No.: 547-553
DOI: 10.3923/jas.2004.547.553
Corporate Performance and Directors’ Remuneration: An Empirical Study in Malaysia
Solucis Santhapparaj and Lin Yong Tong

Abstract: The relationship between directors’ compensation and the corporate performance of the public listed companies in Malaysia has been studied with the help of secondary data available in the reports of Kuala Lumpur Stock Exchange. The regression analysis indicates that, out of the three explanatory variables, the assets and turnover of companies were consistent with expectations but the shareholders’ funds differed from expectation. The regression analysis indicates that the changes in shareholders fund and turnover significantly differ in their influence on directors’ compensation of companies with focused business and diversified business group of companies.

Fulltext PDF

How to cite this article
Solucis Santhapparaj and Lin Yong Tong, 2004. Corporate Performance and Directors’ Remuneration: An Empirical Study in Malaysia. Journal of Applied Sciences, 4: 547-553.

Keywords: firm performance and excutive compensationm

REFERENCES
  • Analouri, F., 2000. What motivates senior managers?. J. Managerial Psychol., 15: 324-340.

  • Pass, C., A. Robison and D. Ward, 2000. Performance criteria of corporate option and long term incentive plans: A survey of 150 UK companies 1994-1998. Manage. Decis., 38: 130-137.

  • Laing, D. and M.C. Weir, 1999. Governance structures, size and corporate performance in UK firms. Manage. Decis., 37: 457-464.

  • Laing, D. and C. Weir, 1999. Corporate performance and the influence of human capital charactistics on executive compensation in the UK. Personnel Rev., 28: 28-40.

  • Conyon, M.J., S.I. Peck and G. Sadler, 2000. Econometric modelling of UK executive compensation. Managerial Finance, 26: 3-20.
    CrossRef    Direct Link    

  • Hogan, S. and K. Sigler, 1998. The CEO pay-performance relationship: Pooled vs. industry models. Managerial Finance, 2: 59-77.

  • Sigler, K.K. and T. Cornwell, 1998. How to pay the bank CEO. Manage. Res. News, 4: 41-44.

  • Ueng, C.J., W.D. Wells and D.J. Lilly, 2000. CEO influence and executive compensation: Large firms vs. small firms. Managerial Finance, 8: 2-13.

  • Mishra, C.S. and F.J. Nielsen, 1999. The association between bank performance, board independence and CEO pay-performance sensitivity. Managerial Finance, 13: 22-33.

  • Martocchio, J.J., 2001. Strategic Compensation. Prentice-Hall, USA

  • Jensen, M.C. and W.C. Jr. Smith, 2000. Stockholder Managers and Creditor Interest Application of Agency Theory. SSEP, New York
    Direct Link    

  • Szymanski, S., S. Michin and P. Gregg, 1993. The Disappearing Relationship Between Directors Pay and Corporate Performance. Blackwell Publishers Ltd., UK

  • Hans Van, E. and E. Sterken, 2003. Board characteristics and corporate performance in the Netherlands. Eastern Econ. J., 29: 41-58.
    Direct Link    

    • © Science Alert. All Rights Reserved