Determinants of corporate ownership and board structure: evidence from Singapore

This study examines the determinants and interrelationships among corporate ownership and board structure characteristics using a sample of Singapore listed firms. The institutional environment in Singapore differs from that in many developed Western economies in several important respects, including a weak market for corporate control, more concentrated stock ownership, and significant government ownership in many private sector firms.Three characteristics—board composition, board leadership structure and board size—are used to capture the monitoring ability of the board. These board characteristics are assumed to be endogenously determined, together with two ownership characteristics, managerial ownership and blockholder ownership. We use two-stage least squares regression to estimate the determinants of board and ownership characteristics. Our findings indicate that corporate ownership and board structures are related, and that there are significant interrelationships among board structure characteristics. The proportion of outside directors is negatively related to managerial ownership, board size and government ownership. The use of a dual leadership structure is positively related to blockholder ownership, and negatively related to regulation and to CEO tenure.     

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.     

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.     

Corporate Governance and Mergers and Acquisitions Performance in Banks: Evidence under the Special Regulatory Environment in Taiwan

In this study, we focus on the relation between bank governance and bank merger results under Taiwan’s special regulatory environment in 2000. Adopting governance variables (executive remuneration, managerial ownership, and board diversity), we find that managerial ownership is positively related to bank merger results and that board size is negatively correlated with bank mergers’ performance. This study supports sound governance mechanisms to prevent banks from pursuing a value-loss merger and acquisition (M&A). Our results offer the insight that internal bank governance structures have a bigger impact on the value effects from bank mergers. Thus, regulators may elevate the performance of bank M&As by enhancing corporate governance codes.     

Board of director characteristics and earnings quality surrounding implementation of a corporate governance code in Mexico

Mexico recently enacted a corporate governance code. One objective of the code is to improve board of director oversight and to reveal more transparent information to shareholders by including detailed information regarding the structure of the board and its functions. Research in the U.S. has documented improvement in earnings quality associated with board characteristics. Whether or not board characteristics are associated with improved earnings quality in Mexico is questionable given the business environment in which firms operate, characterized by controlling family ownership and weak legal protection of property rights. The purpose of this study is to investigate whether or not board characteristics other than compliance with board independence (board composition disclosure, family concentrated ownership and shared-directors) are associated with the improvement in earnings quality found in previous research. Earnings quality is measured using income smoothing, timely loss recognition and conditional accruals. We find firms that do not have concentrated family ownership or share directors have greater increases in earnings quality than firms that have concentrated family ownership or share directors. We conclude that applying board-level corporate governance reforms, without considering cultural and legal environments, may limit the desired effects of the change.     

Do minority acquisitions transfer better corporate governance practices? An analysis of UK's cross-border minority investments

This study examines the influence of minority shareholders on the transfer of corporate governance practices into companies in other countries where they invest. By analysing UK firms that acquired a minority ownership in foreign firms between 1993 and 2014, we find evidence of better corporate governance in the board structure of target foreign firms following UK firms taking a minority shareholding, the extent and nature of the changes varying depending on the quality of investor protection in the country the foreign target firm is located. Our findings contribute to the on-going debates on the spillover effect of better corporate governance practices via cross-border mergers and acquisitions as well as relationship between internal (board of directors) and external (country's quality of investor protection) corporate governance mechanisms.     

Corporate governance and the timeliness of corporate internet reporting by U.K. listed companies

This study is an examination of the timeliness of corporate internet reporting by U.K. companies listed on the London Stock Exchange (LSE). The research examines the significance of several corporate governance and firm-specific characteristics as potential determinants of the timeliness of corporate internet reporting.Our primary analysis provides evidence of a significant association between timely corporate internet reporting and the corporate governance characteristics of board experience and board independence. Our findings provide evidence that boards with less cross directorships, more experience in terms of the average age of directors, and lower length in service for executive directors provide more timely corporate internet reporting. We find that board independence is negatively associated with timely corporate internet reporting.Follow-up analysis provides additional evidence of a significant association between the timeliness of corporate internet reporting and board experience. The evidence indicates that role duality and block ownership are associated with less timely corporate internet reporting.Our findings also reveal strengths and weaknesses in the Internet reporting of U.K. listed companies. Companies need to voluntarily focus on improving the timeliness dimension of their corporate internet reporting so that the EU and U.K. accounting regulators do not replace recommendations with regulations.     

Founders,heirs, and corporate opacity in the United States

We argue that information about firm activities can vary substantially in the presence of founder or heir ownership, thereby influencing the risks borne by minority investors. We explore two hypotheses with regard to these controlling shareholders and corporate transparency, focusing on their role as monitor in-place and their potential to exploit firm opacity to accrue private benefits of control. To test these notions, we create an opacity index that ranks the relative transparency of the two thousand largest industrial US firms and find founder and heir ownership in 22% and 25% of these firms, respectively. Our analysis indicates that, in large, publicly traded companies, both founder and heir firms are significantly more opaque than diffuse shareholder firms. We also find that founder and heir-controlled firms exhibit a negative relation to performance in all but the most transparent firms. Surprisingly, additional tests reveal that concerns about divergences in ownership versus control (management type, dual class shares, and board influence) appear to be substantially less important than corporate opacity in explaining the performance impacts of founder and heir control. Finally, we decompose corporate opacity into disclosure and market scrutiny components, finding that the disclosure quality component appears to be of greater importance to investors. However, irrespective of whether these controlling shareholders create or stay in the firm because of corporate opacity, our analysis suggests that founders and heirs in large, publicly traded firms exploit opacity to extract private benefits at the expense of minority investors.     

Large shareholders’ power and the quality of corporate governance: An analysis of Brazilian firms

This paper analyzes the incentives of large shareholders to implement the corporate governance system that favors their interests within a framework of highly concentrated ownership and poor legal protection for investors. A metric for corporate governance based on the fulfillment of non-mandatory rules of good corporate governance is used. System GMM (Generalized Method of Moments) estimates for a balanced panel data of Brazilian firms reveal that the ownership concentration is detrimental to corporate governance quality and the quality of board composition. In accordance with the expropriation effect on principal-principal agency conflicts, by weakening the corporate governance system and board composition, large controlling shareholders may use private benefits of control. As proposed by the substitution effect, in a complementary way, controlling shareholders may renounce strong boards and directly perform management monitoring, mitigating agency conflicts with managers. Finally, the ability of large shareholders other than the main blockholder is not enough to contest his/her power to shape the corporate governance system. The work provides evidence of the prominence of the principal–principal agency problem in an emerging market, by analyzing the effect of ownership concentration over the quality of the corporate governance system, and also that other large non-controlling shareholders are not able to contest the power of the main blockholder.     

The impact of corporate governance on Internet financial reporting

This study examines the association between corporate governance mechanisms and disclosure transparency measured by the level of Internet financial reporting (IFR) behavior. We measure corporate governance by shareholder rights, ownership structure, board composition, and audit committee characteristics. We develop a disclosure index to measure the extent of each sample firm’s IFR by presentation format, information content, and corporate governance disclosures. Results indicate that firms with weak shareholder rights, a lower percentage of blockholder ownership, a higher percentage of independent directors, a more diligent audit committee, and a higher percentage of audit committee members that are considered financial experts are more likely to engage in IFR. The findings suggest that corporate governance mechanisms influence a firm’s Internet disclosure behavior, presumably in response to the information asymmetry between management and investors and the resulting agency costs. Additional exploratory analysis indicates that the association between corporate governance and IFR varies with firm size. Our results suggest that new regulatory guidance in corporate governance leads to improved disclosure transparency via IFR.