<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!DOCTYPE article  PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing DTD v3.0 20080202//EN" "http://dtd.nlm.nih.gov/publishing/3.0/journalpublishing3.dtd"><article xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" dtd-version="3.0" xml:lang="en" article-type="research article"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">JSS</journal-id><journal-title-group><journal-title>Open Journal of Social Sciences</journal-title></journal-title-group><issn pub-type="epub">2327-5952</issn><publisher><publisher-name>Scientific Research Publishing</publisher-name></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.4236/jss.2016.45025</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">JSS-66796</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="heading"><subject>Articles</subject></subj-group><subj-group subj-group-type="Discipline-v2"><subject>Business&amp;Economics</subject><subject> Social Sciences&amp;Humanities</subject></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title>
 
 
  The Impact of Tunneling Behavior on Equity Incentive Plan&lt;br/&gt;—Empirical Evidence of China’s Main Board from 2006 to 2013
 
</article-title></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>ianglong</surname><given-names>Zheng</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref><xref ref-type="corresp" rid="cor1"><sup>*</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Cunzhi</surname><given-names>Tian</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib></contrib-group><aff id="aff1"><addr-line>College of Economics, Jinan University, Guangzhou, China</addr-line></aff><author-notes><corresp id="cor1">* E-mail:<email>18825062378@163.com(IZ)</email>;</corresp></author-notes><pub-date pub-type="epub"><day>16</day><month>05</month><year>2016</year></pub-date><volume>04</volume><issue>05</issue><fpage>217</fpage><lpage>224</lpage><history><date date-type="received"><day>19</day>	<month>April</month>	<year>2016</year></date><date date-type="rev-recd"><day>accepted</day>	<month>23</month>	<year>May</year>	</date><date date-type="accepted"><day>26</day>	<month>May</month>	<year>2016</year></date></history><permissions><copyright-statement>&#169; Copyright  2014 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc. </copyright-statement><copyright-year>2014</copyright-year><license><license-p>This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY). http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</license-p></license></permissions><abstract><p>
 
 
  Though the equity incentive plan was introduced into China just for a short time, the number of listed companies that implemented equity incentive plan was growing fast. In order to improve the effect of equity incentive plan on alleviating agent problem between the owners and managers, China Securities Regulatory Commission supports it by the developing the legislation and prefer-ential tax policies. In China, it is a general phenomenon of major shareholders’ tunneling behavior. However, there is little research focusing on the relationship between tunneling behavior and equity incentive plan. This paper mainly researched the effect of major shareholders’ tunneling behavior on the preference of equity incentive plan, using cross-sectional data of A-share listed companies in China security market from 2006 to 2013. Actually, the empirical result showed that, the major shareholders’ tunneling behavior has a negative effect on equity incentive plan. The major shareholders’ tunneling behavior affects the welfare tendency of equity incentive plan, and the companies with serious major shareholders’ tunneling behavior are more likely to choose the welfare-tendency equity incentive plan.
 
</p></abstract><kwd-group><kwd>Tunneling Behavior</kwd><kwd> Equity Incentive Plan</kwd><kwd> Cross-Sectional Data</kwd></kwd-group></article-meta></front><body><sec id="s1"><title>1. Introduction</title><p>The issue of “The Equity Incentive Regulation of listed company” published in December of 2005 has set a standard for regulating the equity incentive plan of listed companies. Since then, government has promulgated many policies, and the number of companies who have implemented equity-based incentives plan increases rapidly. By 2013, the number of listed company implemented equity incentive plan has increased more than 13 times, and the equity incentive plan plays a significant role in corporation governance.</p><p>The main feature of modern enterprise plan is the separation of ownership and operation power, and this may cause information asymmetry and the agency problem between the owner and the manager of the company. The original intention of equity incentive plan is to encourage the manager to perform in accordance with the principle of maximizing the interests of shareholders, reduce or eliminate the manager’ short-term behavior and alleviate the interest conflicts. Equity incentive plan has important meaning on reducing the agency cost, building the firms’ long-term development mechanism, elevating the firms’ competitive ability plan. In order to obtain these benefits that the equity incentive plan brings, the owners of companies are willing to implement this meaningful policy. However, the equity incentive plan cannot achieve these aims by establishing the profit and risk sharing mechanisms between the owner and the manager. What is worse, the equity incentive plan is undermining the corporate governance structure. In real world, the equity incentive plan has gradually become a welfare plan for executives. It is a serious phenomenon that the executives make use of internal control force to lower down the exercise condition of equity incentive plan, so that the executives can get the interest of the equity incentive without any effort to raise the profits of the corporation. For example, in 2012 Jiayu Shares (300117) launched the first equity incentive plan with an exercise condition on the base of the net profit of previous year, and before the announcement of formal periodical financial reports. But two weeks later, Jiayu Shares published financial reports with a sharp drop in net profits. It is impossible not to doubt the reasonableness of the exercise condition of this equity incentive plan.</p><p>In recent years, more and more researchers have drawn their attention to the study of studies about equity incentive plan design, but fewer about the reason of welfare-tendency equity incentive plan design in China. Based on the China’s A-share market, we studied the relationship between the large shareholder’ tunneling behavior and the equity incentive strategy. Firstly we constituted an index to evaluate the welfare tendency of the equity incentive plan and severity of the large shareholders’ tunneling. Secondly, we explored how the large shareholders’ tunneling affected the welfare tendency of the equity incentive plan by building an order-probit model. Finally, we studied the consequence of welfare-tendency equity incentive plan on the corporation governance and put forward some feasible improvement suggestion of equity incentive plan.</p></sec><sec id="s2"><title>2. The Literature Review and Research Hypothesis</title><p>Up until now the equity incentive plan has been introduced into China just for a short period of time, and the foundation of the equity incentive system is weak. Moreover, there is a big performance gap between companies published equity incentive plan. The current researches about equity incentive system are mainly focus on the effects on promoting the performance and reduce the agency cost. Recently, some studies draw their attention to the equity incentive plan design and indicate the welfare tendency of equity incentive plan in China. Yuhui Wu [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.66796-ref1">1</xref>] thought the evaluation target of equity incentive is too easy for the incentive object, and thus increase the exercise probability of the equity incentive plan. The management group can get their interest from the stock option easily even if they do not work hard, so the incentive effects will be greatly reduced. Shufang Xiao [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.66796-ref2">2</xref>] found that the evaluation target of equity incentive plan is on the low side, and the evaluation target design is too simple, providing convenience for the manager manipulating the business performance of the company. When the manager manipulates the business performance of base period, the incentive effects will be influenced for the whole incentives period of validity. Changjiang Lv [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.66796-ref3">3</xref>] thought the equity incentive plan design is lack of positive incentive, and resulted in a performance manipulation of listed companies. These researches indicate the phenomenon of welfare tendency of equity incentive plan, but do not explain what is contributed to this result.</p><p>It is a popular phenomenon that the listed companies have a concentrated ownership structure. Large shareholders play a controlling role in cooperating governance, involving the whole process of the operation and the developing strategy. Liping Xu et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.66796-ref4">4</xref>] found that the ownership concentration in China Security Market is higher than other market, and the mean and the median of the shareholding ratio of the top five shareholders is as high as 54% and 56%. The large shareholder is in the absolute active control position of the company, and the agency problem between major shareholders and minor shareholders has become the main object of governance in modern company. As the actual controller of the company, the large shareholders have a strong motivation to tunneling the company in order to maximize their own interests. There are a number of ways for major shareholders to occupy the interest of the minor shareholders, for example, the connected transaction and capital invasion. And recent researches pointed out that it is very commonly some large shareholders expropriating the listed companies by connected transaction and capital invasion.</p><p>In order to explore the consequences of tunneling, some studies begin to focus on the ways of large shareholders how to get their interests. Renjun Zhou et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.66796-ref5">5</xref>] thought that, there are two ways for the large shareholders to gain their profits, one is get the capital appreciation or the dividend, and the other is tunneling. Large shareholders can enhance the supervision to management, so reduce agency cost, incents and restrict the self- interested behavior of executive. And large shareholders can also get involved in every detail of the company’s operations, providing some useful suggestions, raising the company’ performance. Moreover, large shareholders can conspire with the executive, so that they can tunnel the company without any obstacles coming from the company inside. Dongwei Su [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.66796-ref6">6</xref>] found that major shareholders’ tunneling will weaken the negative relationship between executives departures and declining performance. Besides, there is some interest swap between major shareholders and executives. Executives can have higher perk consumption in the company with higher severity of tunneling. Further studies conclusively showed that the large shareholders hollowed the company mainly by conspiring with the executive and constructing some interest exchange tunnel. Pan Yiqing [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.66796-ref7">7</xref>] constructed a model to analyze the coordinated behavior between managers and large shareholders, when the tunneling happened and found out that some executive assist to disguise the tunneling. Weimin Xie [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.66796-ref8">8</xref>] used 2005-2011 mainboard listed companies as the research sample，and found that share proportion held by social security fund had a positive effect on company performance after controlling other variables’ influences. Jianxin Tang et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.66796-ref9">9</xref>] employed non-financial companies from 2003 to 2010 in China as the sample and analyzed whether equity ownership structure and the characteristics of board were conducive to tunneling. Xing Liu and Xianchong Wu [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.66796-ref10">10</xref>] found that the nature of state-owned had a negative impact on the fund’s effective of improving the company performance.</p><p>On the base of these studies, we can find that, large shareholders exert great influence on corporate governance, not only on the operation of the company, but the design of incentive plan. In order to alleviate the interest conflict caused by tunneling, executive can usually get some convenience provided by large shareholders in earning management or get some direct perk consumption. Even more, large shareholders can reduce the difficulty of exercise equity incentive stock option to compensate the executive. So it is also possible to assume large shareholders exert great influence on the plan design of equity incentive strategy. From the perspective of conspiracy, we look forward to make a study about the relationship between tunneling and equity incentive strategy, and raised the proposed hypothesis as follows:</p><p>Hypothesis 1: severity of tunneling has a significantly positive correlation with welfare tendency of the equity incentive plan. That is to say it is more possible to make a welfare-tendency equity incentive plan for the company with higher tunneling.</p></sec><sec id="s3"><title>3. Research Design</title><sec id="s3_1"><title>3.1. Sample Treatment</title><p>The study sample in this paper is sorted from listed company in A-security market in China from year 2006 to 2013. And the data for dependent variables, independent variables and control variables is selected from CSMAR Financial Analysis Index Database, some valuation variables is sorted from the announcement of listed companies. In this paper, in order to get a more reliable result, we processed the sample by following procedures: 1) Excluding financial and insurance companies; 2) Excluding ST, PT companies; 3) Excluding insolvency companies or related data incomplete companies. After the above dispositions, a total of 327 samples obtained.</p></sec><sec id="s3_2"><title>3.2. Variable Description</title><p><xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref> shows the type, name, symbol and measure method of variables.</p></sec><sec id="s3_3"><title>3.3. Model Specification</title><p>In order to test the relationship between severity of tunneling and welfare-tendency of equity incentive plan, we set welfare-tendency of equity incentive plan as the explained variable, the severity of large shareholders’ tunneling as the main explanatory variables. At the same time, for more reliable result, we also added some appropriate Corporation governance variables and financial characteristic variables as control variables and built an order- probit regression model to verify the hypothesis. When the Orect regression coefficient is significantly negative,</p><table-wrap id="table1" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref></label><caption><title> Variable description table</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Variable Type</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Variable Name</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Variable Symbol</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Variable Measure Method</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Explained Variable</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Welfare-tendency of Equity incentive plan</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Scores</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >The number of stock option evaluation indicator</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Explanatory variable</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >The severity of large shareholders’ tunneling</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Orect</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Other receivables/company total asset</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="7"  >Corporation governance variable</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >The proportion of the independent board member</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ind</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >The number of independent board member/the total member of the board</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Duality of chairman and CEO</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Dual</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >If chairman and CEO is the same person, recorded as 1, otherwise to 0.</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >The total number of the first largest shareholder equity ratio</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Top1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >The first largest shareholder’s stock holding amount/company total capital stock</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >The proportion of managerial ownership</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Manho</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >The managers’ stock holding amout/company total capital stock</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Degree of ownership constraints</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Countb</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >the proportion of the first major stockholder and the second major stockholder</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >The number of the board</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Board</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >The number of the board</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >The number of the supervisory board</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Supv</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >The number of the supervisory board</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="6"  >Financial characteristic variable</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >The sales income growth rate</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Incom</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >(sales income of this year- sales income of last year)/sales income of last year</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Operational cash flow</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Acf</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Total operational cash flow/company total capital stock</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >State-owned share-holding rate</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >State</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >State-owned share-holding/company total capital stock</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Company size</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Size</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >natural logarithm of total assets</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >leverage ratio</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Lev</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >total debt/total assets</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Total return on assets</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Roa</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Total profits/total assets</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>indicating that the higher the tunneling of large shareholders, the low ever difficulty for executive to exercise the stock option. And there is a higher potential for the equity incentive plan tend to be a welfare plan. We can also test the effects of corporate governance on restricting the conspiracy action between manager and large shareholders. When the Ind regression coefficient is significantly positive, indicating that the independent board member can prevent the conspiracy action in some way.</p><p>Regression model (1) is as follow:</p><disp-formula id="scirp.66796-formula512"><label>(1)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/14-1760922x7.png"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>Score<sub>i</sub> represents the welfare tendency of equity incentive plan of company i that implemented the equity incentive plan. Variable Orect<sub>i</sub> represents the severity of large shareholder’ tunneling. And CorporateG<sub>i</sub> represents Corporation governance variables including variables Ind, Dual, Top1, Manho, Countb, Board and Supv. FinancialV<sub>i</sub> represents the Financial characteristic variables of the company, including variables Incom, Acf, State, Size, Lev and Roa.</p></sec></sec><sec id="s4"><title>4. Hypothesis Test and the Regression Result Analysis</title><sec id="s4_1"><title>4.1. Descriptive Statistics</title><p>To better understand the characteristic of the sample, we listed the results of Descriptive Statistics analysis of whole samples. From 2006 to 2013, there were 371 listed companies implemented the equity incentive plan and we can get 325 effective sample by excluding the incomplete sample. In <xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref> we can find that valuation variable of the welfare tendency of the equity incentive fluctuates between 5 to 12, indicating great disparities between samples. The measure of large shareholders’ tunneling vary greatly, and the maximum and maximum value are 0.181 and 0.009. As to the Corporation governance variables, the median of Ind is 0.315, showing that 31.5% of</p><table-wrap id="table2" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref></label><caption><title> The result of descriptive statistics</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Variable</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >The number of sample</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Min</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Max</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Median</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Mean</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >SD</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Scores</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >325</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.000</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12.000</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8.000</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8.062</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.177</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Orect</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >325</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.181</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.009</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.017</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.022</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ind</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >325</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.222</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.541</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.300</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.315</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.048</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Dual</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >325</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.000</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.353</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.478</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Top1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >325</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.48</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >80.6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >34.09</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >35.399</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >14.68</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Manho</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >325</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.000</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.000</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.82</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.38</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Countb</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >325</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.631</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.117</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.305</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.991</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Board</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >325</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.000</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >17.000</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10.000</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10.365</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.808</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Supv</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >325</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.000</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.000</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.000</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.426</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.019</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Roa</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >325</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.081</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.324</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.067</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.075</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.048</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Lev</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >325</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.008</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.917</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.328</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.357</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.211</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Incom</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >325</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.365</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.911</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.273</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.308</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.324</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Acf</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >325</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.394</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.377</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.039</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.038</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.089</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Size</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >325</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >19.723</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >26.097</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >21.281</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >21.536</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.156</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >State</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >325</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.000</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.134</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.341</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>board member are independent directors; the mean of Dual is 0.353, showing that 35.3% companies chairman and CEO is one of two staff and concentration of power is high. From the point of Financial characteristic variable, we could find that the company implemented equity incentive plan have a good finicial condition, most of the companies get strong profitability.</p></sec><sec id="s4_2"><title>4.2. The Correlation Test</title><p>In order to test the reasonableness of introducing in these variables, we did a Spearman correlation test, which can judge whether there is a serious multicollinearity problem between variables. From <xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref>, we could find that the severity of large shareholders is significantly negative correlation with the welfare tendency of equity incentive system, so the hypothesis is preliminarily verified. We also can check the correlation between the corporation goverance variables and the welfare-tendency of equity incentive plan, finding out whether the Mechanism of Internal Corporate Governance is working. The coefficient of Ind is not significant, which means the independent directors have no influence on company’ equity incentive strategy. The coefficient of Dual is significantly positive, showing that the concentration of intern power can breeds self-interested behavior of executives. The coefficient of Manho is also significantly positive, which means the executive have a strong motivation to make some decision selfishly. However the financial condition of companies seem to have no correlation with equity incentive strategy.</p></sec>
<sec id="s4_3"><title>4.3. The Empirical Result Analysis</title>
<p>Through using the Cross-section Data from 2006 to 2013, <xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref> shows regression result by using order- probit model. In order to eliminate the effect of multicollinearity among variables, we did a stepwise regression analysis. It can be found from <xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref>, the coefficients of Orect (large shareholders’ tunneling) is significant negative from model test, which means the tunneling of large shareholders can have a deeply influence on equity incentive strategy. If the company has a higher tunneling of large shareholders, it will prefer the more welfare-tendency equity incentive plan. The further detail of conclusion is as follows:</p>
<p>From the perspective of institutional background, we could find that coefficient of State is significantly positive, which means the state-owned company prefer the incentive-tendency equity incentive plan comparing with private Internet companies. It is more difficult for manager and large shareholders to conspire in state-owned company. Because the stated-owned receive more and stricter government supervision and public monitoring. If</p></sec></sec></body>
<back><ref-list><title>References</title><ref id="scirp.66796-ref1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Wu, Y.H. and Wu, S.N. (2010) The Selfish Behavior of Executives. Management World, 3, 11-16.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.66796-ref2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Xiao, S.F., Liu, Y. and Liu, Y. (2013) Executives’ Earnings Management Behaviours in the Implementation of Equity Incentive—From Perspective of Performance Evaluation for Option Exercise. Journal of Accounting Research, 12, 32-43.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.66796-ref3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Lv, C.J., Yan, M.Z. and Xu, J.J. (2010) The Design for Listed Companies’ Plan of Stimulation by Stock Option and Purchase: Is It an Incentive or Welfare? Management World, 7, 24-31.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.66796-ref4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Xu, L.P., Xin, Y. and Chen, G.Y. (2006) Ownership Concentration, Outside Blockholders, and OperatingPerformance: Evidence from China’s Listed Companies. Economic Research Journal, 1, 13-24.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.66796-ref5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Zhou, R.J. and Gao, K.J. (2012) The Effect of Large Shareholder’s Control on Managers’ Ownership Incentive. Journal of Accounting Research, 5, 18-24.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.66796-ref6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Su, D.W. and Xiong, J.C. (2013) Tunneling and CEO Incentive Contract. Economic Research Journal, 12, 34-41.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.66796-ref7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Pan, Z.Q. and Zhang, W. (2004) The Collusion of Large Shareholder with Manager and Legal Shareholder Protection. Chinese Journal of Management Science, 6, 27-46.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.66796-ref8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation publication-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Xie</surname><given-names> W.M. </given-names></name>,<etal>et al</etal>. (<year>2013</year>)<article-title>The Study of the Influence of the Social Insurance Fund Ownership on Corporate Performance</article-title><source> Price: Theory &amp; Practice</source><volume> 2</volume>,<fpage> 36</fpage>-<lpage>42</lpage>.<pub-id pub-id-type="doi"></pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.66796-ref9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Tang, J.X., et al. (2013) Equity Ownership Structure, the Characteristics of Board and Tunneling: Empirical Evidence from China’s Listed Companies. Economic Review, 1, 86-94.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.66796-ref10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Liu, X. and Wu, X.C. (2011) The heterogeneity of Institutional Investors, Enterprise Property Rights and Company Performance—Based on the Comparative Analysis of before and after the Reform of Non-Tradable Shares. Chinese Journal of Management Science, 5, 183-190.</mixed-citation></ref></ref-list></back></article>