English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

We test the option incentive models of Hall and Murphy (2000, 2002) and Choe (2003). Hall and Murphy (2000, 2002) posit optimal grant size and exercise price contingent on the executive’s levels of risk aversion and private diversification. Choe (2003) relates these choices to firm characteristics, principally the target risk level and financial leverage. A unique hand-collected data set of Australian grants is employed, wherein exercises prices and grant sizes are unconstrained by taxation and accounting practices. The Hall and Murphy (2000, 2002) model is found to explain observed exercise prices while neither model satisfactorily explains grant sizes. However, there is some evidence that CEO influence is associated with larger grants than posited by these optimal incentive models, but does not impact on exercise prices.

Australian evidence on CEO option grants