The Effect of Board Diversity on Earnings Quality: An Empirical Study of Listed Firms in Vietnam

Previous studies have established that firms’ effectiveness can differ based on the differences among directors within a board, and between boards. However, studies have yet to establish the effectiveness of the diverse attributes of the board on firms’ quality of earnings in an emerging market setting such as Vietnam. This study investigates the effect of board diversity on earnings quality in a sample of Vietnamese listed firms. The two dimensions of board diversity measures in this study cover a wide range of structural and demographic attributes of board of directors, using a diversity‐of‐boards index (dissimilarities among firm boards, i.e., board structure) and a diversity‐in‐boards index (dissimilarities among directors within a board, i.e., demographic attributes of board members). Earnings quality is an aggregate measure compiled from four accounting‐based measures of earnings quality: accruals quality, earnings persistence, earnings predictability and earnings smoothness. We find a significant, positive linear relationship between diversity of boards and earnings quality, while the relationship between diversity in boards and earnings quality is non‐linear, with a U‐shaped curve.     

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.     

Employee ownership, board representation, and corporate financial policies

French law mandates that employees of publicly listed companies can elect two types of directors to represent employees. Privatized companies must reserve board seats for directors elected by employees by right of employment, while employee-shareholders can elect a director whenever they hold at least 3% of outstanding shares. Using a comprehensive sample of firms in the Société des Bourses Françaises (SBF) 120 Index from 1998 to 2008, we examine the impact of employee-directors on corporate valuation, payout policy, and internal board organization and performance. We find that directors elected by employee shareholders increase firm valuation and profitability, but do not significantly impact corporate payout policy. Directors elected by employees by right significantly reduce payout ratios, but do not impact firm value or profitability. Employee representation on corporate boards thus appears to be at least value-neutral, and perhaps value-enhancing in the case of directors elected by employee shareholders.     

Corporate governance and firm value at dual class firms

This study explores whether corporate governance at dual class firms differs from that of their single class counterparts and whether firm value at dual class firms is associated with governance. Employing a sample of 1309 U.S. dual class firm‐year observations for the period 1996–2006, we show evidence that dual class firms are more likely to employ more shareholder rights provisions while exhibiting lower board and board committee independence than single class firms. The results also show that shareholder rights increase while board provisions decrease in wedge at dual class firms. Further findings underscore that firm value at dual class firms decreases in wedge, and increases in shareholder rights and in board‐related provisions, particularly in director independence. While strong board‐related governance at dual class firms is significantly positively related to firm value in a multivariate setting, shareholder rights are significantly associated with firm value only in instances of the weakest board provisions. Following unification, firms employ more antitakeover provisions while strengthening their board and board committee independence.     

Board tenure and firm performance

We view director tenure as an indicator of a firm's stability. Longer board tenure indicates that shareholders are satisfied with their director appointments, that the board has the relevant mix of capital, that it is effective at monitoring and advising management, and that the firm is unlikely to face operational and strategic problems that require drastic changes to its board. Using a broad sample of up to 3800 firms over a 20-year period, we show that firms with longer board tenure have higher future abnormal returns. Our evidence suggests that investors misprice board tenure: longer board tenure is associated with higher market valuations but not with higher expected returns as measured by analysts' target prices.     

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.     

CEO Compensation and Board Structure

In response to corporate scandals in 2001 and 2002, major U.S. stock exchanges issued new board requirements to enhance board oversight. We find a significant decrease in CEO compensation for firms that were more affected by these requirements, compared with firms that were less affected, taking into account unobservable firm effects, time-varying industry effects, size, and performance. The decrease in compensation is particularly pronounced in the subset of affected firms with no outside blockholder on the board and in affected firms with low concentration of institutional investors. Our results suggest that the new board requirements affected CEO compensation decisions.     

Board connections and M&A transactions

We examine M&A transactions between firms with current board connections and find that acquirers obtain higher announcement returns in transactions with a first-degree connection where the acquirer and the target share a common director. Acquirer returns are also higher in transactions with a second-degree connection where one acquirer director and one target director serve on the same third board. Our results suggest that first-degree connections benefit acquirers with lower takeover premiums while second-degree connections benefit acquirers with greater value creation. Overall, we provide new evidence that board connectedness plays important roles in corporate investments and leads to greater value creation.     

The effect of independent directors’ characteristics on firm performance: Tenure and multiple directorships

In this paper, we analyze how the tenure and the number of directorships of independent directors may influence the relationship between board independence and firm performance. Our sample is composed of US listed firms for the period 2008–2012. Several robustness checks and sensitivity analyses are performed and we confirm that the board’s independence positively influences the firm’s performance. Nevertheless, this relationship exists only under certain values of directors’ tenure and external directorships. Our findings show that these variables determine the effectiveness of independent directors. Therefore, this paper highlights the need for a more specific approach, based on the personal characteristics of independent directors, in order to study their influence on corporate decisions, strategy and outcomes. Furthermore, our evidence has direct implications for companies in the selection of board members.     

Women in the boardroom and their impact on governance and performance

We show that female directors have a significant impact on board inputs and firm outcomes. In a sample of US firms, we find that female directors have better attendance records than male directors, male directors have fewer attendance problems the more gender-diverse the board is, and women are more likely to join monitoring committees. These results suggest that gender-diverse boards allocate more effort to monitoring. Accordingly, we find that chief executive officer turnover is more sensitive to stock performance and directors receive more equity-based compensation in firms with more gender-diverse boards. However, the average effect of gender diversity on firm performance is negative. This negative effect is driven by companies with fewer takeover defenses. Our results suggest that mandating gender quotas for directors can reduce firm value for well-governed firms.     

Labor unemployment risk and corporate financing decisions

This paper presents evidence that firms choose conservative financial policies partly to mitigate workers' exposure to unemployment risk. We exploit changes in state unemployment insurance laws as a source of variation in the costs borne by workers during layoff spells. We find that higher unemployment benefits lead to increased corporate leverage, particularly for labor-intensive and financially constrained firms. We estimate the ex ante, indirect costs of financial distress due to unemployment risk to be about 60 basis points of firm value for a typical BBB-rated firm. The findings suggest that labor market frictions have a significant impact on corporate financing decisions.     

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.     

Director Networks and Credit Ratings

We explore the effect of director social capital, directors with large and influential networks, on credit ratings. Using a sample of 11,172 firm‐year observations from 1999 to 2011, we find that larger board networks are associated with higher credit ratings than both firm financial data and probabilities of default predict. Near‐investment grade firms improve their forward‐looking ratings when their board is more connected. Last, we find that larger director networks are more beneficial during recessions, and times of increased financial uncertainty. Our results are robust to controls for endogeneity. Tests confirm that causality runs from connected boards to credit ratings.     

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。     

External Networking and Internal Firm Governance

We use panel data on S&P 1500 companies to identify external network connections between directors and CEOs. We find that firms with more powerful CEOs are more likely to appoint directors with ties to the CEO. Using changes in board composition due to director death and retirement for identification, we find that CEO‐director ties reduce firm value, particularly in the absence of other governance mechanisms to substitute for board oversight. Moreover, firms with more CEO‐director ties engage in more value‐destroying acquisitions. Overall, our results suggest that network ties with the CEO weaken the intensity of board monitoring.     

International comparative analysis of the association between board structure and the efficiency of value added by a firm from its physical capital and intellectual capital resources

This study investigates the link between corporate board features and corporate performance for a sample of 286 publicly traded firms from South Africa (84 firms), Sweden (94 firms), and the UK (108 firms). Corporate board features considered are board composition, inside director ownership, duality and board size. In contrast to prior literature, performance is defined as the efficiency of value added (VA) rather than in financial terms. Further, the analysis examines the association between board features and efficiency of VA and each of the firm's physical capital (PC) and intellectual capital (IC), respectively. Finally, the present study analyzes the association between board features and corporate performance conjointly. Comparable to general findings from studies using U.S. data, the empirical analysis as a whole did not discern consistent significant link between the four board features and corporate performance across the three nations. However, individual board features are found to influence corporate performance in isolated cases. Overall, results provide evidence that even under different sociopolitical and economic conditions, governance needs vary across firms. Consequently, these findings do not lend support to the notion that uniform board structures should be mandated.     

Do gender diverse boards enhance managerial ability?

We examine the link between board gender diversity and managerial ability to transform corporate resources into revenue. Drawing on a sample of U.S firms during the period 2001–2016, we find a positive and economically meaningful association between female directors on boards and managerial ability, particularly when female directors are in monitoring roles on the board. The documented effect is stronger when using a tenure weighted measure of female representation on boards; and more pronounced for firms that have three or more women on the board of directors, in line with the critical mass hypothesis. We uncover that critical mass of female directors in monitoring roles is particularly conducive to enhancing managerial ability. Our channel analysis tests further reveal a distinctive tendency of firms with more gender diverse boards to shape the human capital of the firm by promoting managers with more generalist managerial skills. We find consistent results when we employ propensity score matching estimates and difference-in-differences using sudden deaths of female directors as a potential shock to address endogeneity concerns. We discuss implications for theory and policy.     

Corporate governance when founders are directors

We examine chief executive officer (CEO) compensation, CEO retention policies, and mergers and acquisition (M&A) decisions in firms in which founders serve as a director with a nonfounder CEO (founder-director firms). We find that founder-director firms offer a different mix of incentives to their CEOs than other firms. Pay-for-performance sensitivity for nonfounder CEOs in founder-director firms is higher and the level of pay is lower than that of other CEOs. CEO turnover sensitivity to firm performance is also significantly higher in founder-director firms compared with nonfounder firms. Overall, the evidence suggests that boards with founder-directors provide more high-powered incentives in the form of pay and retention policies than the average US board. Stock returns around M&A announcements and board attendance are also higher in founder-director firms compared with nonfounder firms.     

Governance Structure and Firm Performance in Private Family Firms

Although a large proportion of firms are family owned and most family firms are private, our understanding of private family firms is limited. Using confidential information on family relationships between board members, CEOs, and shareholders, this is the first study to provide large‐scale evidence on the association between governance structure and firm performance in family‐controlled private firms. Our sample is unique as it covers almost all private limited liability firms in Norway, spans 11 years, traces firm ownership to ultimate owners, and identifies family relationship using data on kinship, marriage, and adoption. The results show a U‐shaped relationship between family ownership and firm performance. Higher ownership of the second largest owner, higher percentage of family members on the board, stronger family power, and smaller boards are associated with higher firm performance. In addition, the positive association between the ownership of the second largest owner and firm performance also occurs when the second largest owner is a member of the controlling family, but the association is stronger when the second largest owner is a non‐family member. We further test the relative importance of these test variables and find that ownership structure is more associated with firm performance than board structure.