Academic literature on the topic 'CEO Pay-performance Sensitivity'
Create a spot-on reference in APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard, and other styles
Consult the lists of relevant articles, books, theses, conference reports, and other scholarly sources on the topic 'CEO Pay-performance Sensitivity.'
Next to every source in the list of references, there is an 'Add to bibliography' button. Press on it, and we will generate automatically the bibliographic reference to the chosen work in the citation style you need: APA, MLA, Harvard, Chicago, Vancouver, etc.
You can also download the full text of the academic publication as pdf and read online its abstract whenever available in the metadata.
Journal articles on the topic "CEO Pay-performance Sensitivity"
1
Cho, MyoJung, and Salma Ibrahim. "Non-financial performance measures and pay-performance sensitivity." Journal of Financial Reporting and Accounting 20, no. 2 (October 11, 2021): 185–214. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/jfra-01-2021-0018.
Full textAbstract:
Purpose This study aims to examine whether chief executive officer (CEO) pay-performance sensitivity to shareholder wealth is related to the use of non-financial performance measures in incentive contracts. Design/methodology/approach Using hand-collected performance measure data in a sample of S&P 500 firms across the period 1994–2010, this study investigates the sensitivity of CEO bonus and cash pay to shareholder wealth of firms that use non-financial performance (NFPM) measures of varying types and contractual weights in their bonus contracts along with financial measures (NFPM firms) in comparison to that of firms using financial measures only (FPM firms). Findings This study finds evidence that the pay-performance sensitivity is stronger in NFPM firms than in FPM firms. These results are driven by the use of CEO individual goals and operational efficiency. Furthermore, when using environmental, social and governance factors, the pay-performance sensitivity is stronger in terms of accounting performance only. This study also finds that using NFPM enhances pay-performance sensitivity more as their contractual weights increase and as financial risk increases. Practical implications These findings are important to stakeholders, and especially regulators in understanding incentive effects of alternative performance measures. This study also sheds light on what types of non-financial measures are better in helping firms align CEOs’ incentives to shareholders’ interests. Originality/value This study contributes to prior research on benefits of non-financial information within the context of executive compensation. This study presents original results about the effects of contractual weights of non-financial measures and financial risk on CEO pay-performance sensitivity. This study also presents new insights regarding how different types of non-financial measures affect CEO pay-performance sensitivity.
2
Amzaleg, Yaron, Ofer H. Azar, Uri Ben-Zion, and Ahron Rosenfeld. "CEO control, corporate performance and pay-performance sensitivity." Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 106 (October 2014): 166–74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2014.07.004.
Full text
3
Gong, James Jianxin. "Examining Shareholder Value Creation over CEO Tenure: A New Approach to Testing Effectiveness of Executive Compensation." Journal of Management Accounting Research 23, no. 1 (December 1, 2011): 1–28. http://dx.doi.org/10.2308/jmar-10105.
Full textAbstract:
ABSTRACT This paper examines the relationship between CEO compensation and shareholder value added over CEO tenure. The research design exploits two fundamental attributes of CEO compensation and shareholder value added: (1) both CEO compensation and shareholder value added aggregate naturally over CEO tenure, and (2) extending the time interval over which the two variables are measured is likely to result in a better match between CEO compensation and shareholder value created by the CEO. I measure CEO compensation with nominal value of CEO pay, ex post realized pay, and ex ante pay-for-performance sensitivity. I find that CEOs receiving higher nominal or realized pay create more shareholder value. Further, higher median pay-for-performance sensitivity during CEO tenure is associated with higher aggregate market value changes and cumulative abnormal stock returns. Finally, CEO pay efficiency (calculated as the ratio of shareholder value added to CEO pay, both aggregated over CEO tenure) is higher if median pay-for-performance sensitivity during CEO tenure is higher. Data Availability: The data are available from public sources identified in this study.
4
Abraham, Rebecca, Judith Harris, and Joel Auerbach. "CEO Pay-Performance Sensitivity: A Multi-Equation Model." Technology and Investment 05, no. 03 (2014): 125–36. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ti.2014.53013.
Full text
5
Aaen, Thomas, and Rainer Lueg. "Performance pay sensitivity: Do top management incentives align with shareholder value creation?" Corporate Ownership and Control 19, no. 3 (2022): 168–81. http://dx.doi.org/10.22495/cocv19i3art13.
Full textAbstract:
Arising from the principal-agent consideration, Jensen and Murphy (1990b) studied the pay-performance sensitivity (including pay, options, stockholdings, and dismissal) for chief executive officers (CEOs) in the 1980s. They found that CEO wealth changes $3.25 for every $1,000 change in shareholder wealth. In this study, we revisit the issue of the linkage between CEO pay and performance but with the difference that we only include observable measures in the pay-performance sensitivity estimate. Our data on executive compensation stems from the ExecuComp database on S&P 1500 firms, and the performance data from the Center for Research in Security Prices (CRSP) database (total: 23,737 firm-year observations). We find that CEO wealth changes $5.34 for every $1,000 change in shareholder wealth. Almost all of this sensitivity is attributed to compensation through stock options and the CEO’s inside stockholdings. Today, the incentives generated by stock options have increased thirteen times, and the total pay-performance sensitivity has almost doubled in value, compared to when Jensen and Murphy (1990b) estimated the pay-performance sensitivity in the 1980s for the first time. Despite the increased pay performance sensitivity, we hypothesize that internal and external political forces negatively affect the CEO’s performance incentives. Compensation constraints reduce the pay performance sensitivity and hereby the incentives for the CEO to maximize shareholder wealth. Further research on how CEO wealth varies with absolute and relative corporate performance is required to determine if the CEO’s incentives are consistent with shareholder wealth maximization.
6
Kim, Taekyu, and Injoong Kim. "CEO Pay-performance Sensitivity in KOSPI and KOSDAQ Firms." Korean Data Analysis Society 22, no. 4 (August 30, 2020): 1291–301. http://dx.doi.org/10.37727/jkdas.2020.22.4.1291.
Full text
7
Abraham, Rebecca, Judith Harris, and Joel Auerbach. "Disruptive Technology as Antecedent to CEO Pay-Performance Sensitivity." Technology and Investment 06, no. 02 (2015): 83–92. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ti.2015.62009.
Full text
8
Bussin, Mark. "CEO pay-performance sensitivity in the South African context." South African Journal of Economic and Management Sciences 18, no. 2 (May 28, 2015): 232–44. http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/sajems.v18i2.838.
Full textAbstract:
The topic of executive pay-performance sensitivity has resulted in mixed research findings. Literature related to executive remuneration constructs, company performance measures and the underlying theories is critically reviewed in this article. The literature is compared to research findings within the South African context pre, during and post the Global Financial Crisis of 2008. The researcher found similar results in the South African context compared to research in other countries and industries. The research challenges the notion that there is one dominant theory driving CEO compensation. The principal-agent theory, supported by the optimal contract theory, are foremost during periods of strong economic performance, while the influence of managerial power and other behavioural theories appear to prevail during periods of weak economic performance. This article proposes some critical considerations in order to manage this tension.
9
Shin, Jae Yong, and Jeongil Seo. "Less Pay and More Sensitivity? Institutional Investor Heterogeneity and CEO Pay." Journal of Management 37, no. 6 (June 11, 2010): 1719–46. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206310372412.
Full textAbstract:
In this article, the authors develop and test a theory on the effect of institutional investor heterogeneity on CEO pay. Their theory predicts that institutional investors’ incentives and capabilities to monitor CEO pay are determined by the fiduciary responsibilities, conflicts of interest, and information asymmetry that institutional investors face. Their theory suggests, in contrast to previous literature, that public pension funds and mutual funds exert different effects on CEO pay at their portfolio firms because they do not have the same monitoring incentives and capabilities. Using a longitudinal sample of S&P 1500 firms for the years 1998 to 2002, the authors find that public pension fund ownership is more negatively—indeed, oppositely—associated with both the level of CEO pay and CEO pay-for-performance sensitivity than mutual fund ownership. Their findings suggest that (a) researchers’ use of institutional investor classifications that do not distinguish public pension fund ownership and mutual fund ownership can be misleading and (b) while CEO pay critics have called for pay plans that are in line with the “less pay and more sensitivity” principle, this may be an ineffective goal to pursue.
10
Tinaikar, Surjit, and Kun Yu. "Pay performance sensitivity and earnings restatements." Corporate Ownership and Control 11, no. 3 (2014): 273–93. http://dx.doi.org/10.22495/cocv11i3c2p5.
Full textAbstract:
We examine whether the board of directors adjusts the sensitivity of CEO compensation to earnings following an earnings restatement. Using a sample of 598 restating firms and 2,065 non-restating firms during the period of 1995-2011, we find that firms decrease the sensitivity of cash compensation to accounting earnings after restatements and that this decrease is more pronounced for firms that appoint new CEOs after restatements than those whose CEOs continue to remain in office after restatements. Furthermore, the results suggest that the decrease in the sensitivity of cash compensation to earnings for restating firms with new CEOs is more pronounced for firms with a higher level of institutional ownership. This highlights the monitoring role of institutional investors in the redesign of compensation contracts following restatements. Overall, our results are consistent with the argument that the board adjusts the sensitivity of cash compensation to earnings downwards following restatements to constrain earnings management and recover public confidence in the firm.
Dissertations / Theses on the topic "CEO Pay-performance Sensitivity"
1
Koskelo, E. (Eerik). "CEO compensation and pay-for-performance sensitivity." Master's thesis, University of Oulu, 2014. http://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi:oulu-201403131171.
Full textAbstract:
This thesis determines the state of recent developments in CEO compensation in the spirit of corresponding literature. Besides the literature review, empirical study provides further evidence on CEO pay-for-performance sensitivities in the US listed companies during 2007–2011 and containing Compustat Execucomp data of more than 33,000 CEOs from more than 3,000 companies. I build the regression similar to methods in a groundbreaking paper from Jensen and Murphy (1990a) and expecting positive and significant relationship between the change in CEO total compensation and shareholder wealth. My estimate of the pay-for-performance relation for chief executive officers indicates CEO wealth changes by $4.93 per $1,000 change in shareholder wealth. Role of the value of CEO stock holdings plays the most important role determining pay-for-performance sensitivity a $4.7 change in CEO wealth per 1,000 change in shareholder wealth. I also report CEO total mean compensation during 2007–2011 is $5,968,000 a year. The mean value of option awards have declined by 18% and median stockholdings have increased during the same period by 130%. Relatively high value of pay-for-performance sensitivity and CEO stockholdings may help other shareholders to solve the differing interests of their and CEOs. Besides stock rewards, other compensation methods are needed to minimize the effect of systematic risk. Relative performance evaluation RPE, could be used together with equity-based incentives but they are not widely used in US listed companies. However, further research is needed to determine how equity-based compensation affects on CEOs excessive risk taking.
2
Shaw, Paul Anthony. "CEO pay-performance sensitivity in South African financial services companies." Diss., University of Pretoria, 2012. http://hdl.handle.net/2263/27027.
Full textAbstract:
Orientation: CEO remuneration has attracted attention over the past two decades, with significant renewed interest in light of the role it is said to have played in contributing to the global financial crisis. At the heart of the issue is the perceived weak relationship between corporate performance and CEO remuneration.Research purpose: The purpose of this study was to describe the relationship between corporate performance and CEO remuneration within the South African financial services industry.Motivation for the study: The motivation for the study was to develop a deeper understanding of the relationship within the South African context, as South African banks have remained stable and profitable through the financial crisis.Research design approach and method: The research was a quantitative, archival study, conducted over a six year time period. The primary statistical techniques used in the study included: bivariate regression analysis, multiple regression analysis, and analysis of variance.Main findings/results: The primary finding was that the relationship between corporate performance and CEO remuneration is favourable (moderate to strong), but has experienced a decline. This finding emphasises the impact that macroeconomic trends have on the relationship and the role of managerial power during periods of economic uncertainty.The research further describes the structural changes in CEO remuneration with a shift away from variable pay.Practical managerial implications: The results suggest that the use of discretion and the growing impact of managerial power will be key challenges that iii remuneration committees will face in maintaining a favourable relationship between the two constructs in the future.Contribution/value add: The study provides context to CEO remuneration within a South African framework. It further provides provides a key insight that the relationship between corporate performance and CEO pay is highly dependent on the macroeconomic environment, and that CEO pay in the South African financial services is experiencing structural changes.Dissertation (MBA)--University of Pretoria, 2012.
Gordon Institute of Business Science (GIBS)
unrestricted
3
Nellkrans, Gabriel, and Seyfi Dogan. "Pay-performance sensitivity during financial distress : Did the financial crisis change payperformance sensitivity?" Thesis, Uppsala universitet, Företagsekonomiska institutionen, 2015. http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-255729.
Full textAbstract:
This study examines the existence of pay-performance sensitivity in total compensation and bonus during the financial crisis, using data between 2007-2010 from Swedish 196 listed firms. We perform panel data regression analysis of CEO compensation on financial performance measured as stock returns. Our results indicate that there is, although not significant, a weak positive relationship between CEO compensation and firm performance during 2007-2010. However during 2009-2010 in a market state defined as post-crisis we find weak negative pay-performance sensitivity at a significance level of 10 %. Nevertheless, as regards to the bonus paid to executives there was a significantly positive relationship relative bonus % and firm performance. These results contribute to our understanding of the pay-performance sensitivity in times of financial disturbance, highly relevant to the existing debate considering CEO compensation.
4
Steyn, Gideon Francois. "The relationship between CEO compensation and future share returns in South Africa." Thesis, University of the Western Cape, 2015. http://hdl.handle.net/11394/5272.
Full textAbstract:
Magister Commercii - MComAs a result of high economic inequality, widespread discontent with excessive chief executive officer (CEO) compensation levels is acute in South Africa (SA). Some commentators argue that instead of high levels of CEO pay causing inequality, it may be part of the solution if higher levels of CEO compensation translate into better company performance, so reducing unemployment. International studies investigating the relationship between CEO short-term cash compensation and current company performance generally report a weak or no relationship where accounting based measures of performance are used. Developments in the international literature reflect a stronger relationship when long-term incentive compensation (LIC) is included and total shareholder return (TSR) used to measure company performance. However, a concerning negative association between the highest paid CEOs in terms of excess LIC and future abnormal TSR is reported. In contrast, SA pay-performance research is largely not reflective of the developments in the international literature, with local studies mostly finding no pay-performance relationship, except where size-related accounting measures are used. As a result of the strong correlation between CEO pay and company size reported in the international literature, and local studies not adequately controlling for company size, the accuracy of the conclusions drawn in prior studies on the pay-performance sensitivity relationship in SA are brought into question. This study addresses the gaps in the SA literature by investigating the relationship between the size-adjusted excess CEO compensation and future abnormal TSR for the top 100 SA companies listed on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange for the period 2011 to 2013. A positive relationship is found between future abnormal TSR and short-term cash compensation, but not LIC. The levels and structure of CEO compensation in SA is also described.
5
Forst, Arno. "Insider Entrenchment and CEO Compensation in Entrepreneurial Firms: An Empirical Investigation." VCU Scholars Compass, 2009. http://scholarscompass.vcu.edu/etd/1714.
Full textAbstract:
This study investigates the effects of insider entrenchment on Chief Executive Officer (CEO) compensation in firms conducting an initial public offering (IPO). The sample comprises 220 US firms that went public between 1996 and 2002. Corporate governance choices regarding entrenchment are captured by six provisions in the corporate charter and bylaws, as well as five anti-takeover statutes, which may or may not be in effect in the state of incorporation. Firm-level items are supermajority requirements for charter amendments, bylaws amendments, and merger approvals, along with the presence or absence of a staggered board of directors, poison pills, and golden parachute agreements. The anti-takeover laws examined are Business Combination, Control Share Acquisition, Fair Price, Poison Pill Endorsement, and Constituencies Statutes. A factor analysis reveals three distinct components of entrenchment: firm- and state-level external entrenchment and firm-level internal entrenchment. External entrenchment is related to market control over management by means of corporate takeovers; internal entrenchment relates to shareholder control over management by means of their voting power. Evidence is found for a positive association between entrenchment at IPO and subsequent CEO cash and total compensation. These relationships are driven by firm-level external entrenchment. Firm-level external entrenchment is also significantly and positively associated with CEO stock-based compensation. The positive effects of entrenchment at IPO on CEO compensation appear not to be transitory and remain constant for at least five years post-IPO. Furthermore, entrenchment at IPO is shown to affect CEO pay-for-performance sensitivity. On balance, entrenchment reduces the sensitivity of CEO compensation to stock returns and returns on assets. The results of this study underscore the crucial importance of insiders' governance decisions made at the time of the IPO. Little support is found for a re-balancing of components of the CEO's compensation contract in response to entrenchment as predicted under the optimal contracting theory of compensation contracts. The findings of this study are almost entirely consistent with the managerial power theory, according to which entrenchment at IPO causes a permanent shift in bargaining power, which enables CEOs to influence compensation contracts in their favor.
6
JIN, Man. "An analysis of the effects of the probability of informed trading (pin) on corporate diversification discount and CEO pay-performance sensitivity : evidence from China." Digital Commons @ Lingnan University, 2011. https://commons.ln.edu.hk/fin_etd/2.
Full textAbstract:
This thesis includes estimating the probability of informed trading, PIN, developed by Easley, Kiefer and O’Hara (1996, 1997a, 1997b), for a large sample of listed firms in China from 2002 to 2008, and I use PIN to explore two independent research questions in corporate finance.
First, the probability of informed trading is applied to explain the discount in value for firms with diversified business operations. Although aiming to increase firm value, the corporate diversification decision usually results in a firm value discount, for a variety of reasons, one of which is the transparency problem. My study directly tests the relation between the information asymmetry revealed from the stock market and the firm value discount due to diversification decision. The results show that the corporate diversification decisions result in a lower firm value in China, mainly because the diversified firms suffer from a higher level of information asymmetry or a lower level of transparency. After controlling for the measure of information asymmetry, the strategy of diversification itself does not reduce firm value.
Second, the probability of informed trading is applied to explain the payperformance sensitivity of CEO compensation in Chinese listed firms. The payperformance sensitivity measures the change in managerial compensation based on the change in shareholder wealth. A higher information asymmetry helps and encourages shareholders to spend more on incentivizing the management team. My results show that higher level information asymmetry is associated with higher payperformance sensitivity of CEOs in China. The result also holds if information asymmetry is approximated by analysts’ forecast errors.
According to the estimates of PIN in this thesis, Chinese firms are shown to exhibit a higher level of information asymmetry than what has been found in the U.S. market. The thesis ends with a brief discussion of the results and what future research could follow.
7
Singal, Manisha. "Corporate Governance and Strategic Behavior: A Study of Acquisitions and CEO Compensation Practices of Publicly-Owned and Family-Controlled Firms in S&P 500." Diss., Virginia Tech, 2008. http://hdl.handle.net/10919/77369.
Full textAbstract:
Recent research has suggested that interest alignment, i.e., the degree to which members of an organization are motivated to behave in line with organizational goals, is a source of competitive advantage that can generate rents for the firm (Gottschlag and Zollo, 2007). Drawing on agency theory, this dissertation tests whether the interest alignment premise manifests itself differently in the strategic behavior of family-controlled firms when compared to their nonfamily peers. In particular, for firms in the S&P 500, I evaluate the results of two important strategic policies; mergers and acquisitions, as well as CEO compensation practices.
In studying acquisitions made by family and nonfamily firms in the S&P 500 index from 1992-2006, I find that family firms are more careful when embarking on actions leading to mergers than non-family firms, as evidenced by their selection of smaller targets and targets who are in related businesses. I also find that there is a preponderance of cash purchases by family firms that does not vary with market movements and that completion times for merger transactions are shorter than for non family firms. The care and concern with which family-controlled firms choose their "mates" translates into higher stock returns when compared with non-family firms. Overall, I believe that family-controlled firms derive value from their merger and acquisition strategy.
With regard to CEO compensation practices, I find that family firms provide strong incentives to the CEO for superior performance but pay significantly lower than nonfamily firms in terms of both salary and stock-based pay. The pay-for-performance sensitivity between annual stock returns and total compensation is significantly greater for family firms in general, and for family CEOs when compared with compensation of CEOs in nonfamily firms. The pay-for-performance sensitivity is in turn positively related to firm performance, suggesting that firms with greater pay-for-performance sensitivity (family controlled firms) also perform better.
The analyses in my thesis thus illustrate that family-controlled firms and non-family firms in the S&P 500 differ in their strategic decision-making. It would be fair to say that family firms have longer investment horizons and give deliberate thought to expending resources whether for acquisitions or for CEO pay, and may suffer lower agency costs than nonfamily firms due to family governance (and public monitoring) which may lead to their relative superior performance. This dissertation finds that each acquisition made by a family controlled firm generates an extra return of 0.50% when compared with a nonfamily firm, and family controlled firms earn 0.50% every year directly attributable to pay-for-performance sensitivity.
The study thus underlines and reiterates the importance of instilling the long-term view in the management of all firms, lowering agency costs, and aligning the interests of managers with those of stockholders for superior financial performancePh. D.
8
Liu, Lichi, and 劉力綺. "Corporate Governance and CEO Pay-Performance Sensitivity." Thesis, 2011. http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/49966797804158597635.
Full textAbstract:
碩士中國文化大學
會計學系
99
The Board is responsible for determining CEO compensation, board oversight on the ability of the past studies have shown that the company performance and CEO compensation have an effect. Therefore, the study of ownership structure and board of directors as the research variables, and the performance sensitivity of CEO compensation as the dependent variable, investigate how the ownership structure and board of directors affect the performance sensitivity of CEO compensation to reduce conflicts of interest between shareholders and managers.
9
Shang-MingHuang and 黃上銘. "Stock Repurchase, Pay-Performance Sensitivity and CEO Ownership." Thesis, 2014. http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/32596416859476354376.
Full textAbstract:
碩士國立成功大學
會計學系
102
The purpose of this study is to examine the relationship of stock repurchase, pay-performance sensitivity and CEO ownership. We try to answer three important repurchase questions: First, whether firms with greater pay-for-performance sensitivity tend to repurchase more. Second, whether firms with higher CEO ownership tend to buy back more. Finally, how pay-performance sensitivity and ownership together affect repurchase. We test sample comprising all TSE and over-the-counter (OTC) firms in Taiwan from 1998 to 2011 with empirical research. I find that pay-performance sensitivity does not significantly affect the stock repurchase. However, I do find a strong positive association between CEO ownership and stock repurchase. In addition, if we consider the effect of pay-performance sensitivity and CEO ownership simultaneously, the findings reveal a positive effect for pay-performance sensitivity, but a negative effect for CEO holding, suggesting a substitution effect.
10
Liu, Chia-Wei, and 劉嘉惟. "CEO Pay-Performance Sensitivity, Inside Debt, and Firm Innovation." Thesis, 2017. http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/92qjz9.
Full textAbstract:
碩士國立彰化師範大學
會計學系
105
This paper is to examine whether CEO pay-performance sensitivities and inside debt affect firm innovation. According to agency theory, managers may damage shareholders’ wealth for maximizing their self-interest. Previous literatures have document that CEO compensation scheme is the way for fixing this agency problem. However, different CEO compensation schemes would lead CEOs to have different risk preferences. We try to argue that high CEO pay-performance sensitivity to option would motive CEO to take high risky projects, saying in-house R&D. In other way, granting CEO more inside-debt would motive CEO to avoid risky projects, in terms of in-house R&D. By investigating S&P 500 firms from 2006-2015, we find that that if firms have high CEO pay-performance sensitivity to option, they are willing to take downside risk from the innovation activities. Furthermore, firms with high CEOs’ inside debt have less risky projects, in terms of external patent acquisition. This paper tries to contribute the literatures to provide competent evidences for the influences of debt-like and equity-like compensations on innovation activities.
Conference papers on the topic "CEO Pay-performance Sensitivity"
1
Zhang, Changzheng, and Jie Xie. "Empirical Study on Effect of Managerial Discretion on CEO Pay-Performance Sensitivity." In 2008 International Conference on Risk Management & Engineering Management. IEEE, 2008. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/icrmem.2008.23.
Full text
2
Zhang, Changzheng, and Zhuoqin Gao. "Effect of CEO Power on Executive Pay-Performance Sensitivity: A literature Review." In 2015 International Conference on Education, Management, Information and Medicine. Paris, France: Atlantis Press, 2015. http://dx.doi.org/10.2991/emim-15.2015.93.
Full text