Subordinate board structures

The board of directors is a flat governance structure where each director has an equal vote in determining the collective actions taken by the group. Yet, some boards choose to delegate authority for specific tasks to numerous committees, while others choose to create relatively few subcommittees of the board. We investigate the determinants of subordinate board structures, exploring both their benefits and costs. Using a sample of the S&P 1500 we find that subordinate board structures are positively related to board size and the proportion of outside directors, even after controlling firm characteristics such as complexity and ownership structure. Further tests indicate that these board structures can offset the negative associations that board size and the proportion of outsiders can have with firm performance. Yet, in firms with relatively small or insider oriented boards, where co-ordination problems among directors or social loafing may be less pronounced, we find that subordinate board structures are negatively related to firm performance. Categorizing committees as either monitoring or advisory, we find that both types of committees appear related to firm performance. Taken as whole, these results are consistent with the idea that subordinate board structures can be a costly remedy to alleviate problems that arise with larger, more outsider dominated boards.     

Executive compensation in less regulated markets: the impact of debt monitoring

This paper shows that in the lightly regulated Alternative Investment Market (AIM) voluntary corporate board structures might not reduce agency costs between shareholder and executive directors. In this less regulated market, we find that the extent of debt affects executive pay. In addition, the theoretical determinants of executive pay affect CEO and other executives’ pay and incentives differently in this market. We find no evidence that debt levels affect CEO pay in a matched sample of Main Market firms. Our results suggest that debtholders could be better monitors of executive directors’ actions, in comparison to voluntary governance committees in less regulated markets.     

Social Concentration on Boards,Corporate Information Environment and Cost of Capital

Prior evidence on the relationship between demographic diversity in corporate boards and firm performance is mixed. Some studies have found that the relationship between board attributes and firm performance is driven by a firm's information environment. This study examines whether corporate transparency also impacts the relationship between gender and ethnic diversity of directors and firm performance. To test this hypothesis, I use a Herfindahl Index based on directors’ gender and ethnicity to measure board diversity, and an opacity index based on analyst following, analyst forecast error, bid‐ask spread, and share turnover to measure corporate transparency. I find that the cost of capital is positively associated with social concentration on corporate boards and that this premium is larger for highly opaque firms. In further analysis, I find that the interaction of corporate information environment and social concentration on boards is more important for operationally complex firms. Compared with simple firms, operationally complex firms pay a greater premium on their capital if they have a socially concentrated board and an opaque information environment.     

Corporate Governance, Board Diversity, and Firm Value

This study examines the relationship between board diversity and firm value for Fortune 1000 firms. Board diversity is defined as the percentage of women, African Americans, Asians, and Hispanics on the board of directors. This research is important because it presents the first empirical evidence examining whether board diversity is associated with improved financial value. After controlling for size, industry, and other corporate governance measures, we find significant positive relationships between the fraction of women or minorities on the board and firm value. We also find that the proportion of women and minorities on boards increases with firm size and board size, but decreases as the number of insiders increases.     

Competition For Board Seats Following Stock‐For‐Stock Mergers

We examine the board structure of firms following stock‐for‐stock mergers. We find that former target inside (outside) directors are more likely to join the combined firm board when target insiders (outsiders) have a relatively strong position on the pre‐merger target board. The relative size of the target firm, target firm profitability, and target blockholder ownership also influence whether target directors join the combined board. We conclude that competition for board seats on the combined board is won by target directors with greater bargaining positions.     

Independent director incentives: Where do talented directors spend their limited time and energy?

We study reputation incentives in the director labor market and find that directors with multiple directorships distribute their effort unequally based on the directorship's relative prestige. When directors experience an exogenous increase in a directorship's relative ranking, their board attendance rate increases and subsequent firm performance improves. Also, directors are less willing to relinquish their relatively more prestigious directorships, even when firm performance declines. Finally, forced Chief Executive Officer departure sensitivity to poor performance rises when a larger fraction of independent directors view the board as relatively more prestigious. We conclude that director reputation is a powerful incentive for independent directors.     

商业银行董事会治理：特征与绩效——基于美国银行业的实证研究

本文以1996—2005年间美国43家商业银行为样本,实证分析了商业银行董事会治理的特征及其对绩效的影响。研究表明:平均而言,商业银行董事会的规模略大于非金融性企业的这一指标,且外部董事的比例较高;董事会规模与银行绩效之间存在非线性的倒U型曲线关系,但外部董事的比例对银行绩效的影响不显著;董事长与总经理两职合一、董事会次级委员会的数量、外部董事拥有的董事席位数均与银行绩效显著负相关;董事会会议频率对当年度银行绩效的影响不显著,但与前一会计年度的绩效之间存在显著的负相关关系;董事持股比例与银行绩效之间存在非线性的关系,而总经理任职年限对银行绩效的影响不显著。     

Factors influencing corporate governance disclosures: evidence from Alternative Investment Market (AIM) companies in the UK

This study examines the relationship between company and ownership characteristics and the disclosure level of compliance with Quoted Companies Alliance (QCA) recommendations on corporate governance in Alternative Investment Market (AIM) companies. We report clear evidence that compliance increases with company size, board size, the proportion of independent non-executive directors, the presence of turnover revenue, and being formerly listed on the Main Market. However, we find that shell and highly geared AIM companies disclose relatively lower levels of corporate governance than recommended under QCA guidelines. Our findings suggest that market regulators should review the potential impact of the quality of corporate governance in these companies on the future vibrancy of AIM. We find no evidence that ownership structure or the type of Nominated Advisor is related to disclosure of compliance with QCA guidelines. Overall, in a lightly regulated environment such as the AIM market, it seems that companies will ultimately pursue a cost–benefit strategy in voluntarily complying with good corporate governance practice.     

Does independent directors’’ monitoring affect reputation? Evidence from the stock and labor markets

Using novel data on independent directors’ opinions in China, we investigate the stock and labor market effects prompted by independent directors publicly saying “no” to major board decisions. We find that the market reacts negatively to modified director opinions, but positively to firms interlocked with the directors who said “no.” We further find substantial turnover and decline in board seats after independent directors issue modified opinions. Overall, we identify a dilemma in China whereby the labor market does not reward vigilant directors for standing up to firm insiders, although investors add a premium to effective board monitoring.     

Takeover bids and target directors’ incentives: the impact of a bid on directors’ wealth and board seats

I investigate the nature of the incentives that lead outside directors to serve stockholders’ interests. Specifically, I document the effect of a takeover bid on target directors, both in terms of its immediate financial impact and its effect on the number of future board seats held by those target directors. Directors are rarely retained following a completed offer. All target directors hold fewer directorships in the future than a control group, suggesting that the target board seat is difficult to replace. For outside directors, the direct financial impact of a completed merger is predominately negative. This documents a cost to outside directors should they fail as monitors, forcing the external control market to act for them. Future seats are related to pre-bid performance. Among outside directors of poorly performing firms, those who rebuff an offer face partial settling-up in the directorial labor market, while those who complete the merger do not.     

董事会断裂带与企业薪酬差距

高管与普通员工之间的薪酬差距不仅影响着企业的激励效率与企业价值,还关系到社会的公平与稳定。断裂带是Lau and Murnighan(1998)提出的假想的分割线概念,即可以将团队划分为多个小团体。以2005—2019年中国A股上市公司为样本,本文从董事会断裂带这一视角探索董事会中小团体的差异性对于薪酬差距的影响和后果。本文研究发现:(1)董事会断裂带的存在加剧了企业高管与普通员工之间的薪酬差距;(2)分解董事会断裂带的类型后,由深层特征形成的断裂带对于薪酬差距的影响高于由表层特征形成的断裂带;(3)区分行业竞争的程度后,公司所在行业的激烈竞争有助于缓解董事会断裂带造成的薪酬差距扩大;(4)从经济后果来看,董事会断裂带造成的薪酬差距对企业绩效具有显著的负向影响。本文的研究有助于深入理解企业薪酬差距形成的机制及其后果,同时对于完善我国董事会的监督机制也有一定的现实启发。     

The impact of board size on firm performance: evidence from the UK

We examine the impact of board size on firm performance for a large sample of 2746 UK listed firms over 1981–2002. The UK provides an interesting institutional setting, because UK boards play a weak monitoring role and therefore any negative effect of large board size is likely to reflect the malfunction of the board's advisory rather than monitoring role. We find that board size has a strong negative impact on profitability, Tobin's Q and share returns. This result is robust across econometric models that control for different types of endogeneity. We find no evidence that firm characteristics that determine board size in the UK lead to a more positive board size–firm performance relation. In contrast, we find that the negative relation is strongest for large firms, which tend to have larger boards. Overall, our evidence supports the argument that problems of poor communication and decision-making undermine the effectiveness of large boards.     

Corporate board and board committee independence,firm performance,and family ownership concentration: An analysis based on Hong Kong firms

This study examines whether the relationship between corporate board and board committee independence and firm performance is moderated by the concentration of family ownership. Based on a sample of Hong Kong firms, we find no significant association between the independence of corporate boards or board committees and firm performance in family firms, whereas board independence is positively associated with firm performance in non-family firms. Additionally, our findings show that the proportion of independent directors on the corporate boards of family firms is lower than that of non-family firms, but we find no significant difference in the representation of independent directors on the key committees of corporate boards between family and non-family firms. Overall, these results suggest that the “one size fits all” approach required by the regulatory authorities for appointing independent directors on corporate boards may not necessarily enhance firm performance, especially for family firms. Thus, the requirement to appoint independent directors to the corporate boards of family firms needs to be reconsidered.     

Corporate Governance and Firm Performance in Iran

This study uses data from companies listed in the Tehran Stock Exchange (TSE) for the years 2005–2006 to investigate the role of corporate governance indices on firm performance. We use board size, board independence, board leadership and institutional investors on the board as corporate governance indices and EPS, ROA and ROE as firm performance surrogates. Our regression results show that board size is negatively associated with firm performance. Moreover, the presence of outside directors strengthens the firms' performance. We find, however, no relationship between leadership structure and firm performance. Likewise, the presence of institutional investors on the board of directors is not positively associated with firm performance.     

Bank power,block ownership,boards and financial distress likelihood: An investigation of Spanish listed firms

We investigate the effects of bank power, block ownership and board independence on the likelihood of financial distress. Using a matched sample design, we find that firms in which banks have power are more likely than their counterparts to enter financial distress. However, the bank power effects are moderated by block ownership and board independence. Specifically, on the one hand, financial distress due to bank power is lower for firms with greater ownership by pressure resistant blockholders and such blockholders appear to be the largest blockholder in the firm. The bank power effects are also lower in firms with greater outside directors and this appears to be primarily driven by proprietary directors than independent directors. On the other, we document evidence suggesting that the bank power effects are magnified for firms in which the board chair is a proprietary director aligned to non-financial blockholders or CEO/Chair, suggesting that banks might partly influence decisions via board chairs. Overall, the findings are consistent with bank power actions being detrimental to the firm, but the extent to which such actions harm the firm depends on the monitoring intentions of blockholders and/or board of directors. These findings have important implications for policymakers.     

Independent director compensation,corruption, and monitoring

We find that independent directors in more corrupt countries receive greater pay. This relation could reflect outside directors in corrupt countries expropriating firm value, or it could reflect higher compensation for the additional effort required to lessen the negative effects of corruption. Acquirer acquisition announcement returns are lower in more corrupt countries, and this relation is mitigated by higher director pay. Higher director pay is also associated with greater sensitivity of CEO turnover to firm performance and moderates the negative effects of country‐level corruption on firm value. This evidence is consistent with higher director pay in corrupt countries incentivizing effort.     

The effect of ownership and control on market valuation: Evidence from initial public offerings in The Netherlands

This study examines whether ownership and control variables influence market valuation at the time of the initial public offering (IPO). Using a sample of 118 IPOs on Euronext Amsterdam during the period 1984-2001, we find support for this conjecture. Management stock ownership, the proportion of independent supervisory directors, and board monitoring by large nonmanagement hareholders are positively related to IPO firm value. These factors are successful in reducing agency costs. We also find that supermajority management stock ownership and takeover defenses lower IPO firm value. Therefore, these mechanisms increase agency costs, resulting in a lower price that investors are willing to pay for IPO shares.     

Who's Monitoring the Monitor? Do Outside Directors Protect Shareholders' Interests?

The corporate governance literature is rich with empirical tests of the relation between board composition and firm performance. We consider the effect of board composition on a different measure of performance, the probability a firm will be sued by shareholders. We find firms that are defendants in securities litigation have higher proportions of insiders and of gray directors and have smaller boards than a matched group of firms that are not sued, even when controlling for firm value and industry. The results suggest that boards with higher proportions of outside directors do a better job of monitoring management.     

Bankers in the Boardroom and Firm Performance in China

We use a dataset comprising the appointments of commercial bankers as board of directors at Chinese listed firms and find that financially distressed firms are more likely to recruit a commercial banker as a director of the board. The presence of a banker on the board increases access to bank loans, yet many investors react negatively to announcements of such appointments. We also find that such appointments are typically followed by a drop in the appointing firm’s operating performance, and an increase in rent-seeking activities. This suggests that bank directors cannot strengthen corporate governance. Most financial resources are expropriated by corporate insiders.     

Do corporate governance mechanisms influence CEO compensation? An empirical investigation of UK companies

The aim of this paper is to empirically examine the influence of corporate governance mechanisms, that is, ownership and board structure of companies, on the level of CEO compensation for a sample of 414 large UK companies for the fiscal year 2003/2004. The results show that measures of board and ownership structures explain a significant amount of cross-sectional variation in the total CEO compensation, which is the sum of cash and equity-based compensation, after controlling other firm characteristics. We find that firms with larger board size and a higher proportion of non-executive directors on their boards pay their CEOs higher compensation, suggesting that non-executive directors are not more efficient in monitoring than executive directors. We also find that institutional ownership and block-holder ownership have a significant and negative impact on CEO compensation. Our results are consistent with the existence of active monitoring by block-holders and institutional shareholders. Finally, the results show that CEO compensation is lower when the directors’ ownership is higher.