Is Busy Really Busy? Board Governance Revisited

We investigate the relationship between firm governance and the board's position in the social network of directors. Using a sample of 133 German firms over the four‐year period from 2003 to 2006, we find that firms with intensely connected supervisory boards are (1) associated with lower firm performance, and (2) pay their executives significantly more. We interpret these results as evidence of poor monitoring in firms with directors who are more embedded in the social network. In both cases, simple measures for busy directors that were used by other studies in the past fail to show any significant pattern. The findings suggest that the quality and structural position of additional board seats may play a bigger role than simply the number of board appointments.     

Director Quality and Firm Performance

Many financial economists argue that the board of directors' efficacy in the monitoring of managerial behavior depends upon the quality of the directors. Assuming that there is a link between the stock performance of target firms and the quality of their directors, we empirically categorize directors receiving additional directorships following a takeover as “above average” and “below average.” We then follow the stock performance of firms hiring new directors for three years after their hiring. We match the two categories of directors with the performance of hiring firms after a director's appointment. Accounting for other contemporaneous effects, we regress the hiring firms' post‐performance on director quality and other attributes. The results indicate that directors of “above average” quality are related to hiring firms with “above average” post‐performance.     

Co-opted boards and capital structure dynamics

This study examines the effects of co-opted directors and further tests the monitoring effectiveness of non-co-opted independent directors and co-opted independent directors on capital structure decisions. Employing a large sample of 2548 US firms over the 1996–2015 period, we find strong evidence that co-opted boards exert a positive and significant influence on firms' financial leverage. We also find that, whereas co-opted independent directors are positively associated with financial leverage, non-co-opted independent directors have a negative influence on a firm's leverage ratio, suggesting that co-option weakens the effective monitoring, thereby increasing the firm's leverage ratio. Further analysis indicates that co-opted boards adjust towards target leverage levels at a faster speed, with a half-life within a year for book and market leverage. Lastly, our results show that the agency costs of managerial discretion and stockholder-bondholder conflicts arising from board co-option are important drivers of financial leverage relative to tax incentives. Our results are robust to alternative measures of board co-option, financial leverage, and endogeneity concerns.     

Director capital and corporate disclosure quality

Conventional wisdom regarding board effectiveness emphasizes the role of board composition and incentives in alleviating conflicts of interest. We argue that board capital, however, may be a more important aspect of board efficacy since directors are the highest level agents of shareholders, meet infrequently, and shareholders have limited recourse for poor decision-making. In contrast, shareholders and the SEC can sue/prosecute directors for conflicts of interest or bias. One role of the board involves determining the depth and degree of the firm’s financial disclosures. To test the idea that high capital boards seek to provide greater disclosure quality to investors, we manually collect data on director attributes and apply factor analysis to measure the networking, educational, and experience capital of the board. The results indicate that board capital is positively related to disclosure quality, with differing key attributes for inside and outside directors. These results are robust to 2SLS and difference-in-difference approaches.     

EVIDENCE ON THE MARKET FOR PROFESSIONAL DIRECTORS

Using the temporary increase in the supply of directors associated with successful tender offers, we examine characteristics of directors who are valuable in the market for board seats. We find that after a takeover, professional directors are three times more likely to receive new appointments than other types of directors released from their respective boards. We find that the proportion of professional directors in above‐average performing targets is significantly greater than that in underperforming targets. Our results indicate that professional directors generally have valuable general human capital that more than offsets the costs of multiple directorships.     

Does the director labor market offer ex post settling-up for CEOs? The case of acquisitions

We examine the rewards for experience and ability in the director labor market. We show that large acquisitions are associated with significantly higher numbers of subsequent board seats for the acquiring CEO, target CEO, and the directors. We also find that, in the case of acquisitions, experience is more important than ability. Both value-destroying and value-increasing acquisitions have significant and positive effects on a CEO's future prospects in the director labor market. In addition to increasing our understanding of the director labor market, these results suggest that the ex post settling-up incentives thought to exist in the director labor market are weak for acquisitions.     

New Evidence on the Market for Directors: Board Membership and Pennsylvania Senate Bill 1310

We examine the relation between a board's decision to reject antitakeover provisions of Pennsylvania Senate Bill 1310 and subsequent labor market opportunities of those same board members. Compared to directors retaining all provisions, directors rejecting all protective provisions of SB1310 are three times as likely to gain additional external directorships and are 30 percent more likely to retain their internal slot on the board of that same Pennsylvania company. For external board seats, the results are driven by nonexecutive directors who are not members of the management team; for internal board seats, the results are driven by executive directors.     

Social capital and capital allocation efficiency

Based on the social norms and structural theories of social capital, this study examines the relationship between community social capital and the firms’ capital allocation efficiency. We hypothesize and find that the community social capital of a firm's headquarter area has a negative and statistically significant impact on its capital allocation inefficiency, which is robust to alternative proxies for community social capital and capital allocation inefficiency, propensity score matching and instrumental variable regressions. In addition, we find that the effect of community social capital is more pronounced for firms with poor internal ethical culture and weak network connections to outside executives and directors, implying that community social capital becomes important in these situations. This finding links prior social norms and networks literature to capital allocation studies in that the norms and networks components of community social capital discipline self-interested managers’ behavior and reduce information asymmetry-two channels of capital allocation efficiency. Overall, community social capital works as a compensatory monitoring and information transfer mechanism and improves the firms’ capital allocation efficiency.     

Choice of acquisition form in Australia and the post‐takeover employment of target firm directors on the acquiring firm board

In Australia, a corporate acquisition can be structured as either a scheme of arrangement or a takeover. We investigate the association between deal structure and the retention of target directors on the merged entity board. We find that the odds of a target director subsequently sitting on the merged entity's board are significantly higher in schemes. The results also show that premiums are lower in schemes of arrangement when additional target directors are appointed to the board of the acquiring firm. The findings indicate that target director appointment is unrelated to the merged entity's post‐acquisition performance.     

Compensation committee governance quality,chief executive officer stock option grants,and future firm performance

This paper examines whether the relationship between future firm performance and chief executive officer (CEO) stock option grants is affected by the quality of the compensation committee. Compensation committee quality is measured using six committee characteristics – the proportion of directors appointed during the tenure of the incumbent CEO, the proportion of directors with at least ten years’ board service, the proportion of directors who are CEOs at other companies, the aggregate shareholding of directors on the compensation committee, the proportion of directors with three or more additional board seats, and compensation committee size. We find that future firm performance is more positively associated with stock option grants as compensation committee quality increases.     

Are Busy Boards Effective Monitors?

Firms with busy boards, those in which a majority of outside directors hold three or more directorships, are associated with weak corporate governance. These firms exhibit lower market‐to‐book ratios, weaker profitability, and lower sensitivity of CEO turnover to firm performance. Independent but busy boards display CEO turnover‐performance sensitivities indistinguishable from those of inside‐dominated boards. Departures of busy outside directors generate positive abnormal returns (ARs). When directors become busy as a result of acquiring an additional directorship, other companies in which they hold board seats experience negative ARs. Busy outside directors are more likely to depart boards following poor performance.     

Founders and board structure: Evidence from UK IPO firms

This study investigates whether a company's founders affect the combination of executive, grey and independent directors on its board at the time of initial public offering (IPO) in the UK. Particularly, we analyse how venture capitalists are associated with board structure in founder-managed and non-founder-managed firms. We find that UK IPO firms managed by founders tend to have more executive directors. Further, they are more likely to stack non-executive directors with more independent directors relative to grey directors. Venture capital ownership is not significantly associated with board structure at the IPO stage. However, further evidence suggests that venture capital ownership is negatively related to the percentage of executive directors and positively related to the percentage of grey directors in the founder-managed firms.     

Multiple directorships and acquirer returns

This paper examines the impact of multiple directorships on stockholder wealth around the announcements of mergers and acquisitions. Grounded in agency theory, we argue that multiple directorships affect the quality of managerial oversight and thus influence agency conflicts in acquisition decisions. We show that acquiring firms where directors hold more outside board seats experience more negative abnormal returns. This adverse effect, nonetheless, does not extend across the entire range of multiple directorships. Rather, the detrimental impact is significant only when the number of outside board seats surpasses a certain threshold. We interpret this result as suggesting that directors serving on multiple boards allow value-destroying acquisitions when they become too busy beyond a certain point, and the effect of directors’ busyness on acquisition performance appears to be nonlinear. We employ several alternative definitions of directors’ busyness and obtain consistent results.     

Board social capital and stock price crash risk

Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting - We show how board social capital influences stock price crash risk. Considering that directors are embedded in two kinds of social...     

Acquirer-target social ties and merger outcomes

This article investigates the effect of social ties between acquirers and targets on merger performance. We find that the extent of cross-firm social connection between directors and senior executives at the acquiring and the target firms has a significantly negative effect on the abnormal returns to the acquirer and to the combined entity upon merger announcement. Moreover, acquirer-target social ties significantly increase the likelihood that the target firm?s chief executive officer (CEO) and a larger fraction of the target firm?s pre-acquisition board of directors remain on the board of the combined firm after the merger. In addition, we find that acquirer CEOs are more likely to receive bonuses and are more richly compensated for completing mergers with targets that are highly connected to the acquiring firms, that acquisitions are more likely to take place between two firms that are well connected to each other through social ties, and that such acquisitions are more likely to subsequently be divested for performance-related reasons. Taken together, our results suggest that social ties between the acquirer and the target lead to poorer decision making and lower value creation for shareholders overall.     

Financial fraud,director reputation,and shareholder wealth

We investigate the reputational impact of financial fraud for outside directors based on a sample of firms facing shareholder class action lawsuits. Following a financial fraud lawsuit, outside directors do not face abnormal turnover on the board of the sued firm but experience a significant decline in other board seats held. This decline in other directorships is greater for more severe allegations of fraud and when the outside director bears greater responsibility for monitoring fraud. Interlocked firms that share directors with the sued firm also exhibit valuation declines at the lawsuit filing. Fraud-affiliated directors are more likely to lose directorships at firms with stronger corporate governance and their departure is associated with valuation increases for these firms.     

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.     

Board Overlap, Seat Accumulation and Share Prices

We examine the board overlap among firms listed in Switzerland. Collusion, managerial entrenchment, and financial participation cannot explain it. The overlap appears to be induced by banks and by the accumulation of seats by the most popular directors. We also document that seat accumulation is negatively related to firm value, possibly because of the conflicts of interest that multiple directorships induce and the time constraints directors face. Contrary to popular beliefs, however, the directors of traded firms do not generally hold more than one mandate in other traded firms. They do hold multiple seats in non-traded firms.     

独立董事:代理问题之一部分

本文研究独立董事制度。经理人的性质在于其是以经营才能方面的人力资本优势加入企业合约而实质拥有企业剩余控制权的人力资本所有者。当董事和董事会实质拥有企业剩余控制权时, 独立董事和内部董事都是企业的经理人, 董事会就是企业的管理层, 董事 (董事会) 与股东之间存在着实质的代理关系和代理问题。因此, 作为经理人的独立董事, 其本身首先是代理问题的一部分, 只有在其与股东之间的代理问题得到较好解决之后, 独立董事才可能成为一种有效的公司治理机制。本文认为, 有关各方缺乏对独立董事的经理人性质和其本身首先是代理问题的一部分的共同认知, 而这正是导致企业董事会的独立性与企业业绩之间不存在显著关系或呈现显著负相关关系的根本原因之所在。     

Are CEOs judged on their companies' social reputation?

How consequential is social reputation for a CEO's career? We find that the CEOs of those firms with greater strengths (controversies) on corporate social responsibilities (CSR) are more (less) likely to serve on external boards, and they hold more (fewer) outside directorships. CEOs lose board seats after the media expose their companies in negative environmental and social news. More nuanced analyses show that workplace diversity and supply-chain human rights are most consequential among the social and environmental dimensions of CSR. Our study demonstrates that CEOs are judged on their companies' social reputation in the director labor market. Our results also suggest that social reputation plays an important role in promoting CSR.