Institutional Monitoring and REIT CEO Compensation

Our objective in this paper is to investigate the relationship between institutional ownership and CEO compensation structure of REITs. Based on detailed analyses of data on institutional ownership, performance, CEO and board characteristics over the 10 year period 1998–2007, we find significant evidence that large institutions influence governance through CEO compensation—greater institutional ownership is associated with greater emphasis on incentive-based compensation (higher pay-performance sensitivity of CEO compensation), and higher cash and total compensation for CEOs. Further, we find that institutions are less active when managers are performing in a superior fashion. Two important conclusions emerge from the analysis. First, similar to unregulated firms, institutional owners do act as monitors in REITs. Broadly, this result suggests that governance is necessary for REITs. Second, institutional investors set a high pay-performance sensitivity for CEOs, but are willing to pay higher cash compensation to induce managers to take risk.     

Corporate governance and capital allocations of diversified firms

We examine how various aspects of corporate governance structures affect the capital allocation inefficiency that drives the value discounts of diversified firms. Diversified firms with more effective internal or external governance mechanisms experience more efficient investment allocations at both the firm and segment levels and show less of a diversification discount. The efficiency of the investment allocation process is better for diversified firms with high board independence, low board busyness, high institutional ownership, high outside director ownership, high CEO equity-based pay, high audit quality, and strong shareholder rights. The results hold after controlling for other potential influences. Our evidence suggests that corporate governance considerations are important in assessing the relation between investment efficiency and firm value for diversified firms.     

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.     

Why do CEOs agree to the discipline of dividends?

This study investigates dividend initiation as the product of the imbalance of power between shareholders and management in U.S. firms from 2003 to 2012. We find that dividend initiation is associated with a stronger governance structure (strong shareholders' rights and board independence), in accordance with the outcome model. We do not identify a single motivation for dividend initiation. Dividend-initiating firms tend to rely on various forms of governance balanced by the interests and ownership of CEOs and directors. Firms with institutional owners are more likely to initiate dividends concurrent with the turnover of the CEO. Dual CEOs initiate dividends when they own more shares, and boards of directors initiate dividends with a higher personal ownership stake when shareholders' rights are weak. We also find that when initiation is due to stronger governance, it is significantly related to the firm's investment opportunities, while for weak governance firms, that relationship is not observed. We interpret this as evidence that, under weaker governance, the decision to initiate dividends is motivated by agency conflicts rather than investment or capital structure considerations.     

Should I stay or should I go? Former CEOs as monitors

In the German two-tiered system of corporate governance, it is not uncommon for chief executive officers (CEOs) to become the chairman of the supervisory board of the same firm upon retirement. This practice has been the subject of controversial debate because of potential conflicts of interest. As a member of the supervisory board, the former CEO must monitor his successor and former colleagues and is involved in setting their pay. We analyze a panel covering 150 listed firms over a 10-year period. Consistent with a leniency bias, we find evidence that firms in which a former CEO serves on the supervisory board pay their executives more. We further find weak evidence that the compensation of the members of the supervisory board is also higher. Short-run event study results indicate that the announcement of the transition of a retiring CEO to the supervisory board is considered good news. Thus, despite the increases in executive compensation we document, CEO transitions are not a cause of concern for shareholders.     

The discretionary effect of CEOs and board chairs on corporate governance structures

In this study we analyze the effect of latent managerial characteristics on corporate governance. We find that CEO and board chair fixed effects explain a significant portion of the variation in board size, board independence, and CEO-chair duality even after controlling for several firm characteristics and firm fixed effects. The effect of CEOs on corporate governance practices is attributable mainly to executives who simultaneously hold the position of CEO and board chair in the same firm. Our results do not show a decline in CEO discretionary influence on corporate governance after the enactment of the Sarbanes–Oxley Act and stock exchange governance regulations.     

The impact of family-CEOs and their demographic characteristics on dividend payouts: Evidence from Latin America

We investigate the effect of family-CEOs and CEO demographic characteristics on firms’ dividend policy in Latin America. We show that family-CEO firms pay less amount of dividends and invest more in capital expenditures than nonfamily-CEO firms do. Direct family ownership (ownership concentration) negatively (positively) affects dividend payouts. Among the CEO demographic characteristics, CEO tenure has a consistent and significant negative effect on the dividend payout. Firms in a strong corporate governance environment pay more dividends and are less likely to appoint family members as CEOs, suggesting that strong corporate governance forces firms to pay more dividends and restrains firms from appointing CEOs based on family ties.     

Celebrity CEOs and corporate investment: A psychological contract perspective

Drawing on the psychological contract theory, we examine how the celebrity status of chief executive officers (CEO) influences corporate investment behavior. Using a sample of Chinese listed companies from 2002 to 2019, we find that celebrity CEOs increase corporate investment levels, leading to lower investment efficiency. In addition, they employ more impression management tactics to signal their superior managerial ability, and dodge possible rejections of their investment decisions by having fewer board meetings. Furthermore, since the perceived psychological contract is dynamic, we provide evidence that the association between the celebrity CEO and corporate investment is more pronounced when a firm faces environmental uncertainty, and pressures from intensive industry competition and peers' performance. Our study contributes to corporate finance literature and results indicate that CEOs with celebrity status are pressured to maintain a psychological contract, which in turn, reduce the efficiency of corporate resource allocation.     

What Drives CEOs to Take on More Risk? Some Evidence from the Laboratory of REITs

Many have pointed to excessive risk‐taking by the CEOs of financial firms as a contributor to the recent worldwide economic crisis. The same observers often blame questionable corporate governance structures and compensation practices for that risk‐taking. But is this perception correct? And what is the relationship between CEO incentives and risk‐taking outside of the financial industry, where the government guarantees provided by deposit insurance could have distorted incentives? In an attempt to answer these questions, the authors analyze the relationship between CEO incentives and corporate risk‐taking by 101 U.S. REITs during the period 2003 to 2007. Their main finding is that corporate risk‐taking, as measured by the growth rate in corporate debt (the only measure of risk that is completely under the control of the CEO), is inversely related to CEO stock ownership—that is, the larger the CEO's equity ownership stake, the slower the growth in debt financing and financial risk‐taking. At the same time, the authors find that financial risk‐taking is positively related to large cash bonuses for the CEOs and to situations in which the CEO is also chairman of the board of directors. Finally, the authors also report that CEOs who are relatively new to the job grow more slowly and borrow less, suggesting that boards of directors can temporarily contain risky expansion plans by the CEO. These results provide support for those corporate governance reformers who wish to cut cash bonus payments for CEOs in favor of long‐term stock ownership.     

The effect of CEO social capital,CEO duality and state-ownership on corporate innovation

This study explores the effects that CEO social capital has on firm innovation. Among the different aspects that affect firm innovation, this aspect has been overlooked, even though it may play a crucial role, given the fact that CEOs are important decision-makers within firm boundaries. Therefore, in this study we address the following research question: What effect does the CEO's social capital have on corporate innovation? This study dissects the effects of CEO social capital into its internal and external dimensions, and it looks at related moderating effects. Grounding our study in social capital theory, using a sample of Chinese listed firms between 2007 and 2016, we propose and provide empirical evidence that both the internal and external social capital of CEOs play a critical role for the innovation of firms. In addition, we have also explored the boundary conditions of these effects, considering the way CEO duality and state ownership moderate the effects brought about by CEO internal and external social capital on corporate innovation. Our findings contribute to the scientific understanding of the conditions in which CEO social capital may benefit firm innovation to a greater extent, by also considering the effects of CEO duality and state ownership. Moreover, the results of this study provide managers with clear indications about the optimal conditions under which firm innovation may be benefited by CEO social capital, which is in the case of CEO duality and state-owned enterprises (SOEs).     

Corporate governance or globalization: What determines CEO compensation in China?

This paper examines the relationship between corporate governance and CEO compensation in China. In contrast to results derived from U.S. data, we find little evidence that Chinese CEOs take advantage of weaker board structures or less demanding shareholders to extract higher compensation packages. Instead, our results lend support to the view that the increasingly global managerial labor market and compensation standards have a greater impact on CEO pay level. Our study suggests that CEOs in developing economies like China, in our case, benefit more from their degree of exposure to these changes than from corporate governance imperfections.     

Corporate governance and dynamics capital structure: evidence from Vietnam

This paper examines the relationship between corporate governance and speed of adjustment (SOA) of capital structure for listed firms in Vietnam from 2000 to 2016. We first examine the literature on the influence of crucial corporate governance mechanisms, including gender diversity and managerial ownership, on SOA. Empirically, we then find that board size, board independence, gender diversity, and managerial ownership significantly increase SOA, but CEO duality significantly decreases it. We discuss some policy implications for firms and Vietnamese authorities.     

Outsider CEOs and corporate debt

We examine the extent to which outsider chief executive officers (CEOs) influence corporate financial leverage policies. We define an outsider CEO as one who appears in the reporting year and became CEO either immediately upon joining or within 3 months of joining a firm. There are arguments in the literature that the selection of an outsider CEO can either increase or decrease financial leverage. We investigate this issue using 11,118 Australian firm-year observations from 1216 firms listed during the period 2001–2015. Our findings suggest that, in the short-term after their appointment, outsider CEOs reduce firm dependence on debt. This result is robust to several additional tests and four measures to minimize endogeneity concerns. However, with an increase in their tenure at the firm, outsider CEOs revert to greater dependency on corporate debt. After supplementary analyses, we determine that the outsider CEOs short-term strategy of reducing financial leverage involves using cash reserves and restricting dividends to reduce existing debt. Instead, outsider CEOs finance capital expenditure projects thus providing a positive signal to the market that such CEOs are more creditworthy. Our results also suggest that outsider CEOs exercise more control over financial leverage when they have specialist attributes.     

Board gender diversity,power, and bank risk taking

Having female board members brings ethical/societal perspectives and new resources to decision making. However, there is lack of evidence on whether it mitigates bank excessive risk-taking; hence, this paper addresses this question. It complements the normative corporate governance literature by combining agency theory and approach/inhibition theory of power from social psychology. For a sample of 195 U.S. commercial banks during 2002–2018, banks invest in more risky assets when female directors perceive the positive rewards of risky investments (in banks that have larger regulatory capital ratios and/or are well-capitalized) and when power shifts away due to CEO equity ownership. On the other hand, banks invest in less risky positions when female directors perceive the penalties inherent in a risky investment during the financial crisis. This paper provides novel evidence on the effect of gender diversity, as a governance mechanism, on risk taking in a social-psychology context. It offers insights on the effect of gender diversity on bank riskiness.     

Corporate social responsibility overinvestment in mergers and acquisitions

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) has been advocated by scholars and practitioners whereas overinvestment in CSR can destroy value. This paper investigates how CSR overinvestment influences firm value in the context of mergers and acquisitions (M&As). Specifically, we examine the shareholder wealth and financial performance of firms who bid on targets with CSR overinvestment. The results suggest that firms purchasing CSR-overinvesting targets experience significant declining market reactions to the M&A announcements and deteriorating financial performance following the M&A transactions. We further show significant improvement in CSR ratings and CEO pay among acquirers purchasing CSR-overinvesting targets. Moreover, the adverse effects of CSR-overinvesting targets on M&A outcomes are more pronounced for the acquiring firms with weak corporate governance or with retiring CEOs. Our findings suggest that a firm makes a value-destroying M&A with a CSR-overinvesting target probably for the benefit of improved CSR and CEO gains. This study provides evidence for the agency view of CSR investment in the context of M&As.     

The effect of corporate governance on CEO luck: Evidence from the Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS)

CEOs are “lucky” when they receive stock option grants on days when the stock price is the lowest in the month of the grant, implying opportunistic timing. Extending the work of Bebchuk et al. (2010), we explore the effect of overall corporate governance quality on CEO luck. Provided by the Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS), our comprehensive governance metrics are much broader than those used in prior studies, encompassing more diverse aspects of corporate governance, such as audit, state laws, boards, ownership, and director education. We show that an improvement in governance quality by one standard deviation diminishes CEO luck by 14.77–21.06%. The governance standards recommended by ISS appear to be effective in deterring the opportunistic timing of option grants.     

Risk management,corporate governance,and bank performance in the financial crisis

The recent financial crisis has raised several questions with respect to the corporate governance of financial institutions. This paper investigates whether risk management-related corporate governance mechanisms, such as for example the presence of a chief risk officer (CRO) in a bank’s executive board and whether the CRO reports to the CEO or directly to the board of directors, are associated with a better bank performance during the financial crisis of 2007/2008. We measure bank performance by buy-and-hold returns and ROE and we control for standard corporate governance variables such as CEO ownership, board size, and board independence. Most importantly, our results indicate that banks, in which the CRO directly reports to the board of directors and not to the CEO (or other corporate entities), exhibit significantly higher (i.e., less negative) stock returns and ROE during the crisis. In contrast, standard corporate governance variables are mostly insignificantly or even negatively related to the banks’ performance during the crisis.     

Target CEO age,ownership decisions,and takeover outcomes

This paper examines the effect of target CEO age, in association with target corporate governance mechanisms, on the ownership decisions and takeover outcomes in eight East and Southeast Asian countries. The results show that acquirers are more likely to select partial-control acquisitions of target firms managed by older CEOs, and that the impact of target CEO age on the partial-control acquisition propensity is much stronger in emerging markets relative to developed economies. The study further finds that target CEO age leads to a lower probability of obtaining desired equity ownership levels compared to unmatched ownership achievements, controlling for target corporate governance structures. The findings also run robustness checks regarding variations in the compulsory acquisition cut-off in the sample countries. Overall, this paper adds to the growing of mainstream corporate governance literature regarding the relevance of CEO personal characteristics in agency problems for corporate decisions.     

CEO Ownership,Stock Market Performance,and Managerial Discretion

We examine the relationship between CEO ownership and stock market performance. A strategy based on public information about managerial ownership delivers annual abnormal returns of 4% to 10%. The effect is strongest among firms with weak external governance, weak product market competition, and large managerial discretion, suggesting that CEO ownership can reverse the negative impact of weak governance. Furthermore, owner‐CEOs are value increasing: they reduce empire building and run their firms more efficiently. Overall, our findings indicate that the market does not correctly price the incentive effects of managerial ownership, suggesting interesting feedback effects between corporate finance and asset pricing.     

Boards,CEO entrenchment,and the cost of capital

Existing research on chief executive officer (CEO) turnover focuses on CEO ability. This paper argues that board ability is also important. Corporate boards are reluctant to replace CEOs, as this makes financing expensive by sending a negative signal about board ability. Entrenchment in this model does not result from CEO power, or from agency problems. Entrenchment is mitigated when there are more assets-in-place relative to investment opportunities. The paper also compares public and private equity. Private ownership eliminates CEO entrenchment, but market signals improve investment decisions. Finally, the model implies that board choice in publicly listed firms will be conservative.