Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Professor of Accounting Faculty of Commerce and Finance University of Tehran,Tehran,Iran

2 Department of Accounting, KAR Higher Education Institute, Qazvin, Iran.

10.22054/qjma.2025.84732.2661

Abstract

Efficiency is one of the most important criteria that investors consider when evaluating influencing factors to identify suitable investment opportunities. Since managers play an effective role in company decisions, they may deviate from optimal investment choices. Therefore, the purpose of this research is to investigate the relationship between CEO power and overinvestment. In this regard, 123 companies listed on the Tehran Stock Exchange were examined between 2016 and 2022. The results show that there is a negative and significant relationship between CEO power and investment inefficiency (overinvestment). Furthermore, this relationship is not nonlinear. The findings indicate that powerful CEOs do not engage in excessive investments that could create more personal benefits for them. Indeed, because of risk aversion and ability effects, the private benefits of powerful CEOs are aligned with shareholders’ interests, making them less likely to overinvest
Introduction
Efficiency is one of the most important criteria that investors consider when evaluating influencing factors to identify suitable investment opportunities. Since managers play an effective role in company decisions, they may deviate from optimal investment choices. Therefore, the purpose of this research is to investigate the relationship between CEO power and overinvestment. To explain this relationship, three different effects are discussed: the discretion effect, the risk aversion effect, and the ability effect.
Under the discretion effect, CEO power is positively related to overinvestment, because powerful CEOs have more freedom of action and may use overinvestment decisions to create personal benefits. Through empire building and expropriation, they pursue self-interest that can increase their rewards, wealth associated with stock ownership, and job security because they control capital allocation. Furthermore, CEOs can create personal bonuses through overinvestment because they influence the choice of performance measures associated with their bonuses. Under the risk aversion effect, CEO power has a negative relationship with overinvestment, because powerful CEOs are more risk-averse than shareholders who can reduce their risk through diversified portfolios. Overinvestment may increase the risk of the company. Since most of the CEO's rewards and human capital depend on their company, it is difficult for them to diversify work and wealth risks. Therefore, powerful CEOs who do not diversify and are often considered the main planners of the company's long-term strategy are more likely to make investments based on risk aversion. As a result, they are less likely to overinvest. Under the ability effect, powerful CEOs with greater management ability can make investment decisions more effectively and efficiently, and therefore are less likely to overinvest. CEOs with stronger expertise can better manage the company's external uncertainties through their experience and knowledge. Hence, powerful CEOs make more efficient investment decisions. Accordingly, the main goal of this research is to investigate the effect of CEO power on overinvestment. From the perspective of economic studies, weak supervision over CEOs, in the shadow of weak management structures and opportunities to secure personal benefits, can encourage powerful managers to choose projects with a negative net present value (NPV), thereby reducing company value. On the other hand, greater CEO power leads to more appropriate investment in valuable projects and greater investment efficiency. Factors such as risk aversion, motivation to maintain reputation and credibility, and stronger management abilities make powerful managers perform better in evaluating investment opportunities and increase investment efficiency, which aligns with organizational research.

Research Question

According to the research objective, this study seeks to answer the question of whether CEOs with higher decision-making power overinvest.

Methods

The current research is of an applied type; in terms of its goal, it is analytical, quasi-experimental, and correlational. From the time dimension of the data, it is retrospective and post-event. In line with the purpose of the research, 123 companies listed on the Tehran Stock Exchange were examined between 2016 and 2022. The residuals of Richardson's (2006) model were used to measure overinvestment. CEO power was measured using the principal component analysis method and the criteria of CEO duality, the percentage of independent directors on the board of directors, CEO tenure, and CEO ownership percentage. The information required to measure the variables and test the research hypotheses was extracted from the Rahavard Novin database, audited financial statements, and other reports published on company websites, Codal, and the Stock Exchange Organization. After data collection, Excel software was used for summarizing and calculations. Since the dependent variable, overinvestment, is not continuous and has only one of the two values (zero and one), the logistic regression (logit) model was used to test the research hypothesis with this variable. In addition, a multiple regression model was used to test the research hypothesis with the investment inefficiency variable. Finally, the analysis was performed using EViews software.

Results

The results show that as CEO power increases, investment inefficiency (overinvestment) decreases. In addition, there is no significant nonlinear relationship between CEO power and investment inefficiency (overinvestment).

Discussion and Conclusion

The findings of the research show that powerful CEOs, who have more authority than shareholders in making company decisions, do not engage in excessive investments that could create personal benefits for them. Indeed, because of the risk aversion and ability effects, the private benefits of powerful CEOs are naturally aligned with shareholders’ interests, making them less likely to overinvest. Under the risk aversion effect, since most of a CEO's rewards and human capital depend on their company, it is difficult for them to diversify work and wealth risks. Therefore, powerful CEOs who do not diversify and are often considered the main planners of the company's long-term strategy are more likely to make investments based on risk aversion. As a result, they are less likely to overinvest. Under the ability effect, powerful CEOs have higher management abilities and therefore make more efficient investment decisions. Because strong CEOs with greater managerial ability possess better knowledge and judgment than their peers, making them more capable of predicting future changes, they do not waste capital on negative NPV projects. Therefore, more powerful CEOs are less likely to overinvest. These results are in line with Lo and Shiah‑Hou's (2022) research and are also consistent with organizational theory. According to this theory, the greater the power of the CEO, the more appropriate the investment in valuable projects and the greater the investment efficiency. Factors such as managers' risk aversion, motivation to maintain reputation, and stronger management abilities lead powerful managers to use better strategies for the optimal use of company resources, thereby increasing transparency and securing the interests of all stakeholder groups. Therefore, powerful CEOs make more efficient investment decisions.
 
 

Keywords

Main Subjects

  1. Adams, R. B., Almeida, H., & Ferreira, D. (2005). Powerful CEOs and their impact on corporate performance. Review of Financial Studies, 18(4), 1403-1432. https:/‌/‌doi.org/‌10.1093/‌rfs/‌hhi030
  2. Aggarwal, R., & Samwick, A. (2006). Empire-builders and shirkers: Investment, firm performance, and managerial incentive. Journal of Corporate Finance, 12(3), 489–515. https:/‌/‌doi.org/‌10.1016/‌j.jcorpfin.2006.01.001
  3. Amihud, Y., & Lev, B. (1981). Risk reduction as a managerial motive for conglomerate mergers. The Bell Journal of Economics, 12(2), 605–617. https:/‌/‌doi.org/‌10.2307/‌3003575
  4. Anderson, RW., Bustamante, MC., Guibaud, S., & Zervos, M. (2018). Agency, firm growth, and managerial turnover. The Journal of Finance, 73(1), 419–464. https:/‌/‌doi.org/‌10.1111/‌jofi.12583
  5. Baldenius, T., Melumad, N., & Meng, X. (2014). Board composition and CEO power. Journal of Financial Economics, 112(1), 53–68. https:/‌/‌doi.org/‌10.1016/‌j.jfineco.2013.10.004
  6. Bebchuk, L., & Grinstein, Y. (2006). Firm expansion and CEO pay. Working paper, Cornell University. https:/‌/‌www.nber.org/‌papers/‌w11886
  7. Beck, M.J., & Mauldin, E.G. (2014). Who’s really in charge? Audit committee versus CFO power and audit fees. The Accounting Review, 89(6), 2057–2085. http:/‌/‌dx.doi.org/‌10.2308/‌accr-50834
  8. Berger, PG., & Hann, R. (2003). The impact of SFAS 131 on information and monitoring. Journal of Accounting Research, 41(2), 163–223. https:/‌/‌doi.org/‌10.1111/‌1475-679X.00100
  9. Berger, R., Dutta, S., Raffel, T., & Samuels, G. (2008). Innovating at the Top: How Global CEOs Drive Innovation for Growth and Profit. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. https:/‌/‌doi.org/‌10.1111/‌j.1540-5885.2010.00727_1.x
  10. Biddle, G., & Hilary, G. (2006). Accounting quality and firm-level capital investment. The Accounting Review, 81(5), 963–982. http:/‌/‌dx.doi.org/‌10.2308/‌accr.2006.81.5.963
  11. Biddle, G., Hilary, G., & Verdi, R. (2009). How does financial reporting quality relate to investment efficiency? Journal of Accounting and Economics, 48(2-3), 112–131. https:/‌/‌doi.org/‌10.1016/‌j.jacceco.2009.09.001
  12. Broussard, J.P., Buchenroth, S.A., & Pilotte, E.A. (2004). CEO incentives, cash flow, and investment. Financial Management, 33(2), 51–70. https:/‌/‌www.jstor.org/‌stable/‌3666158
  13. Chen, H. J., & Chen, S. J. (2012). Investment–cash flow sensitivity cannot be a good measure of financial constraints: evidence from the time series. Journal of Financial Economics, 103(2), 393–410. https:/‌/‌doi.org/‌10.1016/‌j.jfineco.2011.08.009
  14. Chen, L., Liu, C., & Wang, G. (2013). Financial constraints, investment efficiency and corporate governance: Empirical evidence from China. Service Systems and Service Management (ICSSSM). 10th International conference. https:/‌/‌doi.org/‌10.1109/‌ICSSSM.2013.6602546
  15. Chowdhury, M.R.U., Xie, F., & Hasan, M.M. (2023). Powerful CEOs and investment efficiency. Global Finance Journal, 58, 100886. https:/‌/‌doi.org/‌10.1016/‌j.gfj.2023.100886
  16. Chung, K.H., & Pruitt, S.W. (1996). Executive ownership, corporate value, and executive compensation: a unifying framework. Journal of Banking & Finance, 20(7), 1135–1159. https:/‌/‌doi.org/‌10.1016/‌0378-4266(95)00039-9
  17. Degryse, H., & DeJong, A. (2001). Investment spending in the Netherlands: Asymmetric information or managerial discretion? working paper, Erasmus University Rotterdam. https:/‌/‌ideas.repec.org/‌p/‌ete/‌ceswps/‌ces0114.html
  18. Demerjian, P., Lev, B., & McVay, S. (2012). Quantifying managerial ability: a new measure and validity tests. Management Science, 58(7), 1229–1248. https:/‌/‌doi.org/‌10.1287/‌mnsc.1110.1487
  19. Fama, E., & Jensen, M. (1983). Separation of ownership and control. Journal of Law and Economics, 26(2), 301–326. https:/‌/‌dx.doi.org/‌10.2139/‌ssrn.94034
  20. Finkelstein, S. (1992). Power in top management teams: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 35(3), 505-538. https:/‌/‌doi.org/‌10.2307/‌256485
  21. Gan, H. (2019). Does CEO managerial ability matter? Evidence from corporate investment efficiency. Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, 52(4), 1085–1118. https:/‌/‌doi.org/‌10.1007/‌s11156-018-0737-2
  22. Glaser, M., Lopen-De-Silanes, F., & Sautner, Z. (2013). Opening the black box: Internal capital markets and managerial power. The Journal of Finance, 68(4), 1577–1631. https:/‌/‌doi.org/‌10.1111/‌jofi.12046
  23. Goel, A.M., & Thakor, A.V. (2008). Overconfidence, CEO selection, and corporate governance. Journal of Finance, 63(6), 2737–2784. https:/‌/‌doi.org/‌10.1111/‌j.1540-6261.2008.01412.x
  24. Gormley, T.A., & Matsa, D.A. (2016). Playing it safe? Managerial preferences, risk and agency conflicts. Journal of Financial Economics, 122(3), 431–455. https:/‌/‌doi.org/‌10.1016/‌j.jfineco.2016.08.002
  25. Hamori, M., & Kakarika, M. (2009). External labor market strategy and career success: CEO careers in Europe and the United States. Human Resource Management, 48(3), 355–378. https:/‌/‌doi.org/‌10.1002/‌hrm.20285
  26. Hamori, M., & Koyuncu, B. (2015). Experience matters? The impact of prior CEO experience on firm performance. Human Resource Management, 54(1), 23–44. https:/‌/‌doi.org/‌10.1002/‌hrm.21617
  27. Harford, J. (1999). Corporate cash reserves and acquisitions. The Journal of Finance, 54(6), 1969–1997. https:/‌/‌doi.org/‌10.1111/‌0022-1082.00179
  28. He, Y., Chen, C., & Hu, Y. (2019). Managerial overconfidence, internal financing, and investment efficiency: Evidence from China. Research in International Business and Finance, 16(8), 110-132. https:/‌/‌doi.org/‌10.1016/‌j.ribaf.2018.09.010
  29. Holmstrom, B. (1999). Managerial incentives problems: a dynamic perspective. The Review of Economic Studies, 66(1), 169–182. https:/‌/‌doi.org/‌10.1111/‌1467-937X.00083
  30. Jensen, M. C. (1986). Agency costs of free cash flow, corporate finance and takeovers. American Economic Review, 76(2), 323-329. https:/‌/‌dx.doi.org/‌10.2139/‌ssrn.99580
  31. Jensen, M.C, & Murphy, KJ. (1990). Performance pay and top-management incentives. Journal of Political Economy, 98(2), 225–264. https:/‌/‌dx.doi.org/‌10.2139/‌ssrn.94009
  32. Kaiser, H. F. (1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 141-151. https:/‌/‌psycnet.apa.org/‌doi/‌10.1177/‌001316446002000116
  33. Kim, S., Lee, K., & Ho, K. (2018). The moderating role of CEO narcissism on the relationship between uncertainty avoidance and CSR. Tourism Management, 67, 203-213. https:/‌/‌doi.org/‌10.1016/‌j.tourman.2018.01.018
  34. Koga, M., & Kato, H. (2017). Behavioral Biases in Firms Growth Expectations. Bank of Japan Working Paper Series, Nihonbashi-Hongokucho, Chuo-ku, Tokyo 103-0021, Japan. https:/‌/‌ideas.repec.org/‌p/‌boj/‌bojwps/‌wp17e09.html
  35. Lehn, K., & Poulsen, A. (1989). Free cash flow and stockholders gains in going private transactions. The Journal of Finance, 44(3), 771-787. https:/‌/‌doi.org/‌10.2307/‌2328782
  36. Li, T., Munir, Q., & Karim, M.R.A. (2017). Nonlinear Relationship between CEO Power and Capital Structure: Evidence from China's Listed SMEs. International Review of Economics and Finance, 47, 1-21. https:/‌/‌doi.org/‌10.1016/‌j.iref.2016.09.005
  37. Liu, Y., & Jiraporn, P. (2010). The effect of CEO power on bond ratings and yields. Journal of Empirical Finance, 17(4), 744-762. https:/‌/‌doi.org/‌10.1016/‌j.jempfin.2010.03.003
  38. Liu, Y., Gan, H., & Karim, K. (2021). The effectiveness of chief financial officer board membership in improving corporate investment efficiency. Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, 57(2), 487–521. https:/‌/‌link.springer.com/‌article/‌10.1007/‌s11156-020-00953-2
  39. Lo, H-C., & Shiah‑Hou, S-R. (2022). The effect of CEO power on overinvestment. Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, 59(1), 23-63. DOI: 10.1007/‌s11156-022-01060-0
  40. Malmendier, U., & Tate, G. (2005). Does overconfidence affect corporate investment? CEO overconfidence measures revisited. European financial management, 11(5), 649-659. https:/‌/‌doi.org/‌10.1111/‌j.1354-7798.2005.00302.x
  41. May, D. O. (1995). Do managerial motives influence firm risk reduction strategies? The Journal of Finance, 50(4), 1291–1308. https:/‌/‌doi.org/‌10.1111/‌j.1540-6261.1995.tb04059.x
  42. McNichols, M.F., & Stubben, S.R. (2008). Does earnings management affect firms’ investment decisions? The Accounting Review, 83(6), 1571–1603. http:/‌/‌dx.doi.org/‌10.2308/‌accr.2008.83.6.1571
  43. Pathan, S. (2009). Strong boards, CEO power and bank risk-taking. Journal of Banking and Finance, 33(7), 1340-1350. https:/‌/‌doi.org/‌10.1016/‌j.jbankfin.2009.02.001
  44. Pikulina, E., Renneboog, L., & Tobler, P.N. (2017). Overconfidence and investment: An experimental approach. Journal of Corporate Finance, 43, 175-192. https:/‌/‌doi.org/‌10.1016/‌j.jcorpfin.2017.01.002
  45. Richardson, SA. (2006). Over-investment of free cash flow. Review of Accounting Studies, 11, 159–189. https:/‌/‌ssrn.com/‌abstract=884229
  46. Sheikh, S. (2019). CEO power and corporate risk: the impact of market competition and corporate governance. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 27(5), 358–377. https:/‌/‌doi.org/‌10.1111/‌corg.12285
  47. Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R.W. (1989). Management entrenchment: The case of manager-specific investments. Journal of Financial Economics, 25(1), 123-139. https:/‌/‌doi.org/‌10.1016/‌0304-405X(89)90099-8
  48. Smith, C. W., & Stulz, R. M. (1985). The determinants of firms’ hedging policies. The Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 20(4), 391–405. https:/‌/‌doi.org/‌10.2307/‌2330757
  49. Veprauskaitė, E., & Adams, M. (2013). Do powerful chief executives influence the financial performance of UK firms? British Accounting Review, 45(3), 229-241. https:/‌/‌doi.org/‌10.1016/‌j.bar.2013.06.004
  50. Victoravich, L. M., Buslepp, W. L., Xu, T., & Grove, H. (2011). CEO power, equity incentives, and bank risk-taking. Working paper, University of Denver. https:/‌/‌dx.doi.org/‌10.2139/‌ssrn.1909547
  51. Wan, H., Zhu, K., & Chen, X. (2015). Career concerns, shareholder monitoring and investment efficiency: From the perspective of compensation contract rigidity in Chinese SOEs. China Journal of Accounting Research, 8, 59-73. https:/‌/‌doi.org/‌10.1016/‌j.cjar.2015.01.003
  52. Wang, Y., Chen, C. R., Chen, L., & Huang, Y. S. (2016). Overinvestment, inflation uncertainty, and managerial overconfidence: Firm level analysis of Chinese corporations. North American Journal of Economics and Finance, 38, 54–69. https:/‌/‌doi.org/‌10.1016/‌j.najef.2016.07.001
  53. Wang, Y., Zhou, W., & Chang, K. C. (2013). Effect of decision makers' education level on their corporate risk taking. Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal, 41(7), 1225-1229. https:/‌/‌doi.org/‌10.2224/‌sbp.2013.41.7.1225
  54. Ebrahimi, A., Solgi, M., Vojoudi Nobakht, A., & Mosavi, S. M. (2022). Managements overconfidence and efficiency of investment decisions and financing. Scientific Journal of Budget and Finance Strategic Research, 3(3), 103-135. https:/‌/‌dor.isc.ac/‌dor/‌20.1001.1.27171809.1401.3.3.5.2 [In Persian]
  55. Akhgar, M. O., & Zaheddoust, H. (2019). The effect of CEO influence on the relationship between firm performance and CEO turnover. Financial Accounting, 10(39), 60-81. http:/‌/‌qfaj.mobarakeh.iau.ir/‌article-1-1493-fa.html [In Persian]
  56. Badavar Nahandi, Y., & Taghizadeh Khanqa, V. (2014). The Relationship between Some Corporate Governance Mechanisms and Investment Efficiency in Life Cycle Stages. Journal of Accounting Knowledge, 5(18), 113-140. https:/‌/‌dor.isc.ac/‌dor/‌20.1001.1.20088914.1393.5.18.6.2 [In Persian]
  57. Baradaran Hassanzadeh, R., Badavar Nahandi, Y., & Negahban, L. (2014). The Impact of Financial Constraints and Agency Costs of Investment Efficiency. Financial Accounting Research, 6(1), 89-106. https:/‌/‌dor.isc.ac/‌dor/‌20.1001.1.23223405.1393.6.1.8.8 [In Persian]
  58. Barzegari Khanagha, J., & Qaedi, S. (2018). The Effect of Rewards and Structure of Board on Investment in Research and Development. Financial Accounting Knowledge, 5(3), 99-116. https:/‌/‌doi.org/‌10.30479/‌jfak.2018.1514 [In Persian]
  59. Bonabi Ghadim, R., & Majidi, H. (2022). The Effect of Narcissism and CEO Power on the Investment Efficiency and Consistent Earnings Growth. Financial Management Strategy, 10(3), 203-224. https:/‌/‌doi.org/‌10.22051/‌jfm.2020.30811.2354 [In Persian]
  60. Pourheidari, O., & Forughi, A. (2019). Effect of management influence on disclosure quality of accounting information. Empirical Studies in Financial Accounting, 16(61), 27-53. https:/‌/‌doi.org/‌10.22054/‌qjma.2019.38013.1928 [In Persian]
  61. Pourheidari, O., Rahmani, A., & Gholami, R. (2013). The Impact of Real Earnings Management on Investment Behavior of Companies Listed on Tehran Stock Exchange. Journal of Accounting Advances, 5(1), 55-85. https:/‌/‌doi.org/‌10.22099/‌jaa.2013.1653 [In Persian]
  62. Taghizadeh Khanqah, V., Badavar Nahandi, Y., Mottagi, A., & Taghizadeh, H. (2019). Presentation of Firm's Investment Efficiency Measurement Model in Tehran Stock Exchange. Financial Research Journal, 21(2), 237-264. https:/‌/‌doi.org/‌10.22059/‌frj.2019.273838.1006806 [In Persian]
  63. Sagafi, A., Blue, G., & Mohamadian, M. (2012). The Association between Accounting Information Quality, Overinvestment and Free Cash Flow. Journal of Accounting Advances, 3(2), 37-63. https:/‌/‌doi.org/‌10.22099/‌jaa.2012.505 [In Persian]
  64. Khajavi, S., & Weysihesar, S. (2023). The CEO Authority Effect on Dividend Payout Probability: The Role of Profitability and Cash Flow Volatility. Empirical Studies in Financial Accounting, 20(79), 1-44. https:/‌/‌doi.org/‌10.22054/‌qjma.2023.75096.2484 [In Persian]
  65. Khajavi, S., Jahandoust Marghoub, M., & Weysihesar, S. (2021). Investigating the Relationship between CEO Power and Capital Structure: Emphasizing the Role of Firms Size. Financial Research Journal, 23(1), 40-63. https:/‌/‌doi.org/‌10.22059/‌frj.2020.301393.1007015 [In Persian]
  66. Didar, H., Heydari, M., & Pourasad, S. (2018). Impact of Myopic Management on Efficiency of Companies with Moderating Role of Corporate Governance Quality in Companies in Tehran Stock Exchange. Journal of Accounting Knowledge, 9(1), 147-169. https:/‌/‌doi.org/‌10.22103/‌jak.2018.9750.2306 [In Persian]
  67. Rashidi, M., Mardani, M., & Amiri, M. (2020). The Role of Managerial Compensation in Changing the Relationship between Business Strategies and Over (under) Investment. Empirical Studies in Financial Accounting, 17(67), 177-201. https:/‌/‌doi.org/‌10.22054/‌qjma.2020.44534.2030 [In Persian]
  68. Fallah, H., Hamidiyan, M., & Noroolahzadeh, N. (2021). Improve Investment Efficiency Based on Cognitive Behavioral Biases CEO by Gray Vikor & Rough Theory Analysis. Journal of Securities Exchange, 14(53), 5-40. https:/‌/‌doi.org/‌10.22034/‌jse.2021.11209 [In Persian]
  69. Mohamadi, Y., Mohamadi, A., & Esmaeli Kia, G. (2020). Managerial Overconfidence, Financing Policies and Investment Efficiency. Journal of Iranian Economic Issues, 6(2), 195-231. https:/‌/‌doi.org/‌10.30465/‌ce.2020.5422 [In Persian]
  70. Marani, F., Salehi, A., Jorjorzadeh, A., & Kaab Omeir, A. (2021). Investigating the Impact of CEO Power, Political Communication and Social Responsibility on Cash Investment Sensitivity in Companies Listed on Tehran Stock Exchange. Financial Economics, 15(4), 285-308. https:/‌/‌doi.org/‌10.30495/‌fed.2021.687931 [In Persian]
  71. Nikbakht, M., Jahandoust Marghoub, M., & Weysihesar, S. (2021). CEO power, audit quality and corporate financial performance evaluation criteria. Audit Science, 21(85), 454-486. http:/‌/‌danesh.dmk.ir/‌article-1-2492-fa.html [In Persian]