Board governance and bank performance: A meta- analysis

Using a database of 56 studies on corporate governance in the banking industry that were published between 2007 and 2019, this study performs a meta-analytic review to examine the impact of board governance on bank performance. We investigate how board size, CEO duality, outside directors, and female directors on board play a role in determining bank performance. Variations in the relationship between board governance and bank performance that attribute to moderating effects of potential moderators, including the system of corporate governance, bank performance measures, the definitions of governance variables, publication quality, and endogeneity concerns, are also encapsulated. Our study shows that bank performance is positively associated with larger boards and a high proportion of outside and female directors, supporting the resource dependence theory. We find that the moderating variables considerably alter the link between board governance and bank performance. The study offers ways to enhance board effectiveness by enforcing governance practices in the banking systems based on each countries’ legal and institutional framework and suggests reconsidering mandates for smaller boards and duality on boards of banking firms.     

Bank holding company performance,risk, and “busy” board of directors

We examine the association between “busyness” of the board of directors (serving on multiple boards) and bank holding company (BHC) performance and risk. We estimate several simultaneous-equations models employing the 3SLS technique and instrumental variables to account for endogeneity. We obtain four main results. First, BHC performance measures (return on equity, Tobin’s Q and EBIT over total assets) are positively associated with busyness of directors. Second, BHC risk measures (total, market, idiosyncratic, credit and default risks) are inversely related to busyness of directors. Third, performance (risk) benefits of having busy directors strengthened (weakened) during the financial crisis of 2007–2009. Fourth, busy directors are not more likely to become problem directors (fail the 75% attendance standard), and if sitting on boards of both BHC and non-financial firms, they attend more of the BHC board meetings, than those of the non-financials. Our findings partially alleviate concerns that over-boarded directors shirk their responsibilities.     

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。     

Board characteristics and Chinese bank performance

Using a sample of 50 largest Chinese banks during the period of 2003–2010, we explore a comprehensive set of board characteristics (size, composition and functioning of the board) and analyze their impacts on bank performance and bank asset quality in China. We find that the number of board meetings and the proportion of independent directors have significantly positive impacts on both bank performance and asset quality while board size has a significantly negative impact on bank performance. We find new evidence that the degree of bank boards’ political connection is negatively correlated with bank performance and asset quality. The findings suggest that the board of directors plays a significant role in bank governance in China.     

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.     

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.     

Do women directors improve firm performance in China?

This paper examines the effect of board gender diversity on firm performance in China's listed firms from 1999 to 2011. We document a positive and significant relation between board gender diversity and firm performance. Female executive directors have a stronger positive effect on firm performance than female independent directors, indicating that the executive effect outweighs the monitoring effect. Moreover, boards with three or more female directors have a stronger impact on firm performance than boards with two or fewer female directors, consistent with the critical mass theory. Finally, we find that the impact of female directors on firm performance is significant in legal person-controlled firms but insignificant in state-controlled firms. This paper sheds new light on China's boardroom dynamics. As governments increasingly contemplate board gender diversity policies, our study offers useful empirical guidance to Chinese regulators on the issue.     

Endogenously structured boards of directors in banks

This paper examines the trends and endogenous determinants of boards of directors (board size, composition, and CEO duality) for a sample of 212 US bank holding companies, from 1997 to 2004. Overall, the results show that the costs and benefits of boards’ monitoring and advising roles could explain bank board structures with caveats. For example, due to the regulatory nature and comparatively intensive scrutiny of bank officers and directors, it is argued that bank managers have less control over the directors’ selection processes. Thus, bank board independence should not be the outcome of negotiation with CEOs. Consistent with this view, bank CEOs are found not to affect bank board independence. The trend analysis also provides some important results. In contrast to non-bank evidence, for instance, board size was discovered to decrease over the sample period for large and medium-sized banks, while board size remained relatively stable for small banks. These results are robust with respect to different estimation specifications. Furthermore, the study’s findings have important policy implications for bank regulators and investors.     

Top Management Compensation and the Structure of the Board of Directors in Commercial Banks

We examine the relationship between top management compensationand the structure of the board of directors for a sample ofcommercial banks. We find that boards with more reputable outsidedirectors compensate managers more heavily with long-term incentives(stock and stock options) than with cash (salary and bonus).We also find a significant positive correlation between thefuture performance of our sample banks and the proportion oftheir managers’ compensation in the form of long-termincentives. Taken together, these results suggest that boardswith highly reputed outside directors are more effective inproviding managers with the appropriate incentives and thusensuring better future firm performance. Another indicationof the effectiveness of these boards is our finding that theycompensate managers more heavily with long-term incentives (insteadof cash) when these managers are more entrenched. We also findvery little evidence of mutually beneficial back-scratchingor collusion between outside directors and senior managers whensetting management compensation. But boards with long-servingoutside directors are less effective in creating appropriatemanagement incentives.     

Board structure and corporate risk taking in the UK financial sector

This paper examines the relationship between board structure and corporate risk taking in the UK financial sector. We show how the board size, board independence and combining the role of CEO and chairperson in boards may affect corporate risk taking in financial firms. Our sample is based on a panel dataset of all publicly listed firms in the UK financial sector, which includes banks, insurance, real estate and financial services companies over a ten year period (2003 − 2012). After controlling for the effects of endogeneity through the application of the dynamic panel generalized method of moments estimator, the findings of this study suggest that the presence of non-executive directors and powerful CEOs in corporate boards reduces corporate risk taking practices in financial firms. The negative relationship can be explained within the agency theory context, where managers are regarded as more risk averse because of the reputational and employment risk. An increased power concentration is therefore expected to enhance the risk aversion behaviour of directors. The findings however, do not show any significant effect of board size on corporate risk taking in financial firms. As this study covers recommendations of the UK Corporate Governance Code on the role of corporate boards in managing firms' risk, the empirical evidence could be useful for corporate governance regulation and policy making.     

The impact of cultural diversity in corporate boards on firm performance

We examine the impact of cultural diversity in boards of directors on firm performance. We construct a measure of national cultural diversity by calculating the average of cultural distances between board members using Hofstede's culture framework. Our findings indicate that national cultural diversity in boards negatively affects firm performance measured by Tobin's Q and ROA. These results hold after controlling for potential endogeneity using firm fixed effects and instrumental variables regressions. Further, the results are robust to controlling for a wide range of board and firm characteristics, including various measures of “foreignness” of the firm, alternative culture frameworks, and other measures of culture. The negative impact of cultural diversity on performance is mitigated by the complexity of the firm and the size of foreign sales and operations. In addition, we find that the negative effects of cultural diversity are concentrated among the independent directors. Finally, we find that not all aspects of cultural differences are equally important and that it is mainly the diversity in individualism and masculinity that affects the effectiveness of boards of directors.     

Shari’ah supervision,corporate governance and performance: Conventional vs. Islamic banks

The performance and accountability of boards of directors and effectiveness of governance mechanisms continue to be a matter of concern. Focusing on differences between conventional banks and Islamic banks, we examine the effect of (i) Shari’ah supervision boards, (ii) board structure and (iii) CEO-power on performance during the period 2005–2011. We find Shari’ah supervision boards positively impact on Islamic banks’ performance when they perform a supervisory role, but the impact is negligible when they have only an advisory role. The effect of board structure (board size and board independence) and CEO power (CEO-chair duality and internally recruited CEO) on the performance of Islamic banks is overall negative. Our findings provide support for the positive contribution of Shari’ah supervision boards but also emphasize the need for enforcement and regulatory mechanism for them to be more effective.     

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.     

Boards: Does one size fit all?

This paper reexamines the relation between firm value and board structure. We find that complex firms, which have greater advising requirements than simple firms, have larger boards with more outside directors. The relation between Tobin's Q and board size is U-shaped, which, at face value, suggests that either very small or very large boards are optimal. This relation, however, arises from differences between complex and simple firms. Tobin's Q increases (decreases) in board size for complex (simple) firms, and this relation is driven by the number of outside directors. We find some evidence that R&D-intensive firms, for which the firm-specific knowledge of insiders is relatively important, have a higher fraction of insiders on the board and that, for these firms, Q increases with the fraction of insiders on the board. Our findings challenge the notion that restrictions on board size and management representation on the board necessarily enhance firm value.     

The Effects of Outside Directors and Board Shareholdings on the Relation Between Chief Executive Compensation and Firm Performance

Critics of corporate governance have suggested that improvements in board monitoring will arise from more independent boards consisting of outside directors and from increased stock ownership by directors. Presumably these changes should result in more rational, more defensible compensation decisions in which pay is clearly tied to results. In this paper, we test the premise that boards with a relatively higher proportion of outsiders and boards with significant shareholdings maintain a closer link between corporate performance and executive pay than do boards with fewer outsiders and boards holding little stock. The results of the study, based on a sample of 268 large corporations, are mixed. As expected, boards with significant shareholdings maintain a stronger linkage between compensation and firm-level performance. This finding persists even after controls are included for CEO and outsider shareholdings. Contrary to expectations, however, evidence was not found that firms with a higher proportion of outsiders on the board of directors relate compensation more strongly to firm results.     

Bank board structure and performance: Evidence for large bank holding companies

The subprime crisis highlights how little we know about bank governance. This paper addresses a long-standing gap in the literature by analyzing the relationship between board governance and performance using a sample of banking firm data that spans 34 years. We find that board independence is not related to performance, as measured by a proxy for Tobin’s Q. However, board size is positively related to performance. Our results are not driven by M&A activity. But, we provide new evidence that increases in board size due to additions of directors with subsidiary directorships may add value as BHC complexity increases. We conclude that governance regulation should take unique features of bank governance into account.     

Top Management Compensation and the Structure of the Board of Directors in Commercial Banks

We examine the relationship between top management compensation and thestructure of the board of directors for a sample of commercial banks. Wefind that boards with more reputable outside directors compensate managersmore heavily with long-term incentives (stock and stock options) than withcash (salary and bonus). We also find a significant positive correlationbetween the future performance of our sample banks and the proportion oftheir managers' compensation in the form of long-term incentives. Taken together, these results suggest that boards with highly reputed outsidedirectors are more effective in providing managers with the appropriateincentives and thus ensuring better future firm performance. Anotherindication of the effectiveness of these boards is our finding that theycompensate managers more heavily with long-term incentives (instead ofcash) when these managers are more entrenched. We also find very little evidence of mutually beneficial back-scratching or collusion betweenoutside directors and senior managers when setting management compensation.But boards with long-serving outside directors are less effective increating appropriate management incentives.     

CORPORATE BOARDS AND BANK LOAN CONTRACTING

We investigate the role of corporate boards in bank loan contracting. We find that when corporate boards are more independent, both price and nonprice loan terms (e.g., interest rates, collateral, covenants, and performance‐pricing provisions) are more favorable, and syndicated loans comprise more lenders. In addition, board size, audit committee structure, and other board characteristics influence bank loan prices. However, they do not consistently affect all nonprice loan terms except for audit committee independence. Our study provides strong evidence that banks recognize the benefits of board monitoring in mitigating information risk ex ante and controlling agency risk ex post, and they reward higher quality boards with more favorable loan contract terms.     

上市公司董事会特征与审计费用率

本文以披露了2003年年报审计费用的上市公司为样本,借助回归分析方法,研究了审计费用率与董事会特征的相关性。本文发现,审计费用率与独立董事的规模显著负相关,与董事会的独立性、非独立董事规模显著正相关,与董事会会议次数不相关;与审计委员会的设立、独立董事的薪酬相关性不显著。客户规模、子公司个数、应收账款和存货在总资产中的比重、审计任期仍是影响审计费用率的主要因素;审计任期与审计费用率的相关性说明,审计师首次执行审计业务时不仅没有审计折价现象,反而可能存在显著的审计溢价。发现表明,独立董事相对规模较大的董事会支持高质量的审计服务,而绝对规模较大的董事会更可能改善公司内部控制环境。     

Does board structure in banks really affect their performance?

We study whether board structure (board size, independence and gender diversity) in banks relates to performance. Using a broad panel of large US bank holding companies over the period 1997–2011, we find that both board size and independent directors decrease bank performance. Although gender diversity improves bank performance in the pre-Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) period (1997–2002), the positive effect of gender diminishes in both the post-SOX (2003–2006) and the crisis periods (2007–2011). Finally, we show that board structure is particularly relevant for banks with low market power, if they are immune to the threat of external takeover and/or they are small. Our two-step system generalised method of moments estimation accounts for endogeneity concerns (simultaneity, reverse causality and unobserved heterogeneity). The findings are robust to a wide range of other sensitivity checks including alternative proxies for bank performance.