This paper challenges the results of the “classical” managerial delegation literature, where it is assumed that the weight of the managerial bonus only depends on the owner’s will to maximise his own profits. By considering sales (S) (resp. relative profit (RP)) contracts, the received literature has found that (S,S) (resp. (RP,RP)) is the unique pure-strategy sub-game perfect Nash equilibrium in a game that contrasts S (resp. RP) with pure profit maximisation (PM). This paper shows that none of the previous results may not hold when the owner negotiates about managerial compensation with his manager
We consider a two-stage market share delegation game with two competing firms. Each owner delegates ...
We consider a two-stage market share delegation game with two competing firms. Each owner delegates ...
We consider a two-stage market share delegation game with two competing firms. Each owner delegates ...
This paper challenges the results of the “classical” managerial delegation literature, where it is a...
This article challenges the results of the \u2018classical\u2019 managerial delegation literature, w...
This paper challenges the results of the “classical” managerial delegation literature, where it is a...
This article revisits the managerial delegation literature led by Vickers (1985), Fershtman and Jud...
This article revisits the managerial delegation literature led by Vickers (1985), Fershtman and Jud...
This article revisits the managerial delegation literature led by Vickers (1985), Fershtman and Judd...
This article revisits the managerial delegation literature led by Vickers (1985), Fershtman and Jud...
This article revisits the managerial delegation literature led by Vickers (1985), Fershtman and Jud...
We consider a two-stage market share delegation game with two competing firms. Each owner delegates ...
We consider a two-stage market share delegation game with two competing firms. Each owner delegates ...
We consider a two-stage market share delegation game with two competing firms. Each owner delegates ...
We consider a two-stage market share delegation game with two competing firms. Each owner delegates ...
We consider a two-stage market share delegation game with two competing firms. Each owner delegates ...
We consider a two-stage market share delegation game with two competing firms. Each owner delegates ...
We consider a two-stage market share delegation game with two competing firms. Each owner delegates ...
This paper challenges the results of the “classical” managerial delegation literature, where it is a...
This article challenges the results of the \u2018classical\u2019 managerial delegation literature, w...
This paper challenges the results of the “classical” managerial delegation literature, where it is a...
This article revisits the managerial delegation literature led by Vickers (1985), Fershtman and Jud...
This article revisits the managerial delegation literature led by Vickers (1985), Fershtman and Jud...
This article revisits the managerial delegation literature led by Vickers (1985), Fershtman and Judd...
This article revisits the managerial delegation literature led by Vickers (1985), Fershtman and Jud...
This article revisits the managerial delegation literature led by Vickers (1985), Fershtman and Jud...
We consider a two-stage market share delegation game with two competing firms. Each owner delegates ...
We consider a two-stage market share delegation game with two competing firms. Each owner delegates ...
We consider a two-stage market share delegation game with two competing firms. Each owner delegates ...
We consider a two-stage market share delegation game with two competing firms. Each owner delegates ...
We consider a two-stage market share delegation game with two competing firms. Each owner delegates ...
We consider a two-stage market share delegation game with two competing firms. Each owner delegates ...
We consider a two-stage market share delegation game with two competing firms. Each owner delegates ...