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.     

Differences in CEO compensation under large and small institutional ownership

I examine the influence of large and small institutional investors on different components of chief executive officer (CEO) compensation, using US data for 2006–2015. An increase in large institutional ownership reduces total pay and current incentive compensation (i.e., options, stocks, bonus pay), whereas small institutional investors lower long‐term incentive pay (i.e., pension, deferred pay, stock incentive pay). These findings are consistent with managerial agency theory and the substitution of incentive pay by institutional monitoring. The effects are stronger for higher ownership levels and firms with weak governance, less financial distress, long‐tenured CEOs, multiple segments, and more free cash flow.     

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.     

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.     

The Interrelationship Between Managerial Ownership and Board Structure

Abstract:  The paper tests the hypothesis that high managerial ownership entrenches managers by allowing the CEO to create a board that is unlikely to monitor. The results show a strong negative relationship between the level of managerial ownership and corporate governance factors, such as, the split of the roles of the CEO and the Chairman, the proportion of non-executive directors, and the appointment of a non-executive director as a Chairman. I also find that companies with low managerial ownership are more likely to change their board structure to comply with the Cadbury (1992) recommendations. The results suggest that managers, through their high ownership, choose a board that is unlikely to monitor. Overall, the findings cast doubt on the effectiveness of the board as an internal corporate governance mechanism when managerial ownership is high.     

THE RISE IN MANAGERIAL STOCK OWNERSHIP

Despite the widespread view from Berle and Means onward that ownership of U.S. companies has become increasingly separated from managerial control, the authors report that managerial ownership of public corporations is markedly higher today than in 1935. Using a comprehensive sample of the 1,500 publicly traded firms in 1935 and a comparable sample of 4,200 firms in 1995, their study finds that managerial ownership increased from an average of 13% in 1935 to 21% in 1995. In terms of real (1995) dollar values, average managerial ownership increased from $18 million to $73 million over the same 60‐year period. One potential explanation for this increase is that greater reliance on managerial ownership has substituted for less reliance on other incentive alignment devices, such as pay‐for performance and the market for corporate control. The authors, however, report just the opposite. The use of such other corporate governance mechanisms has generally also increased over time, suggesting that the top managements of today's publicly traded corporations face greater pressure from investors and boards of directors than managements earlier in the century. An alternative explanation concern possible changes over time in the effects of certain company characteristics on the costs and benefits of using managerial ownership as a control device. While most of the characteristics the authors examined had the same relationship to managerial ownership in both periods, the role of volatility was different. In 1935, managerial ownership was inversely related to firm volatility; that is, higher volatility was associated with lower managerial ownership. In 1995, however, the relationship of managerial ownership to volatility was “nonlinear”; managerial ownership was positively related to firm volatility at low and moderate levels of volatility but the relationship turns negative when firm volatility is high. The overall lower level of volatility today, together with advances in capital markets and financial theory that have reduced the costs of hedging, appear to have reduced the costs of managers holding large stakes in their firms.     

The determinants of auditor switching from the perspective of corporate governance in China

This paper reports the association between firms' internal corporate governance mechanisms and their auditor switch decisions in the Chinese context. We identify two types of auditor switch, namely switching to a larger auditor and switching to a smaller auditor. Three variables are used to proxy for firms' internal corporate governance mechanism, including the ownership concentration (shareholding by the largest owner), the effectiveness of supervisory board (SB), and the duality of chairman of board of directors (CBoD) and CEO. We regressed the internal corporate governance variables over firms' audit switching types during a specific period of 2001-2004 when a bear market continued in China. The empirical results demonstrate that firms with larger controlling owners or in which CBoD and CEO are held by the same person are more likely to switch to a smaller auditor rather than to a larger one. However, the effect of the SB variable does not have a significant impact on auditor switching decisions. In general, the study findings suggest that firms with weak internal corporate governance mechanism tend to switch to smaller or more pliable auditors in order to sustain the opaqueness gains derived from weak corporate governance. On the other hand, with the improvement of corporate government, firms should be more likely to choose large (high-quality) auditors in making auditor switching decisions.     

Corporate Governance and Asset Sales: The Effect of Internal and External Control Mechanisms

We investigate firms that sell assets to determine whether corporate governance mechanisms are effective at controlling agency problems. Our evidence shows that these firms have lower managerial ownership and are more likely to make unrelated acquisitions, suggesting weak internal controls. Analysis of insider trading activity shows that, on average, net buying increases before the asset sale and shareholders benefit more when this occurs. Results suggest that how managers reach a given level of ownership provides more information about incentive alignment than just the level of ownership. Our results also highlight the dynamic nature of corporate restructuring as firms acquire and then sell assets.     

The effects of corporate acquisitions on CEO compensation and CEO turnover of family firms

This paper investigates the impact of corporate acquisitions on CEO compensation and CEO turnover of family firms in Continental Europe. We find that CEOs in family firms do not experience an increase in their compensation during the post-acquisition period, while there is a positive and statistically significant association between the compensation of CEOs in non-family firms and their acquisition activity. This finding is consistent with the view that controlling family shareholders provide monitoring for CEOs mitigating managerial agency problems that arise from the separation of ownership and control. Further, we find that the likelihood of CEO turnover declines following an acquisition in non-family firms, suggesting that these acquiring CEOs do not face a higher likelihood of dismissal while they receive a higher level of compensation. In contrast, there is no significant impact of acquisitions on CEO turnover in family firms.     

Does market power discipline CEO power? An agency perspective

We examine how product market competition (PMC) shapes chief executive officer's (CEO) power. Using various measures to capture both PMC and CEO power, our analyses, which include a quasi‐natural experiment, find evidence that CEOs have less power when the product market is more competitive. Furthermore, the impact of PMC on CEO power is more pronounced for firms with entrenched management, lower CEO ownership, lower analyst coverage, and for firms experiencing good ‘luck’ (windfall performance). Our results suggest that market power can act as a substitute for corporate governance in disciplining CEO power, particularly when prone to agency problems.     

CEO ownership, external governance, and risk-taking

This paper shows the relation between CEO ownership and firm valuation hinges critically on the strength of external governance (EG). The relation is hump-shaped when EG is weak, but is insignificant when EG is strong. The results imply that CEO ownership and EG are substitutes for mitigating agency problems when ownership is low. However, very high levels of share ownership can reduce firm value by entrenching the CEO and discouraging him from taking risk, unless mitigated by strong EG. We identify channels through which CEO ownership affects firm value by examining R&D, which is discretionary and risky. We find CEO ownership similarly exhibits a hump-shaped relation with R&D when EG is weak, but no relation when EG is strong. Our results are robust to endogeneity issues concerning CEO ownership and EG.     

公司治理、管理者动机与衍生金融工具使用

基于中国上市公司2007~2013年财务数据,研究公司治理对管理者使用衍生金融工具的影响,并结合中国制度背景,深入分析和检验企业产权、政策监管对公司治理效应的影响。实证结果表明,公司治理对管理者使用衍生金融工具的动机存在重要影响,公司治理水平越高,管理者越倾向于利用衍生金融工具避免财务困境风险;相反,管理者越倾向于利用衍生金融工具规避薪酬风险。研究还发现,公司治理的作用机制会受到所有权性质的影响,国有控制属性会弱化公司治理效应,对衍生金融工具交易的政策监管差异是重要原因。     

Flights of fancy: Corporate jets,CEO perquisites,and inferior shareholder returns

This paper studies perquisites of CEOs, focusing on personal use of company planes. For firms that have disclosed this managerial benefit, average shareholder returns underperform market benchmarks by more than 4% annually, a severe gap far exceeding the costs of resources consumed. Around the date of the initial disclosure, firms’ stock prices drop by an average of 1.1%. Regression analysis finds no significant associations between CEOs’ perquisites and their compensation or percentage ownership, but variables related to personal CEO characteristics, especially long-distance golf club memberships, have significant explanatory power for personal aircraft use.     

The role of managerial incentives in corporate acquisitions: the 1990s evidence

This paper examines the relationship between the likelihood a firm is acquired and the governance and financial characteristics of the firm. Given many of the developments in the corporate control market in the late 1980s, I suspect that the process governing takeover likelihood may have changed in the 1990s. I examine a sample of 342 NYSE/AMEX firms that were acquired during the 1990–1997 period and compare them to a matched sample of nonacquired firms. I find that firms that were acquired over this period can be characterized as having lower managerial ownership and higher ownership by outsiders, particularly higher ownership by nonmanagement blockholders with board representation. The fact that managerial ownership is negatively related to takeover likelihood is consistent with studies using data from 1970s and 1980s. This suggests that managerial ownership helps managers maintain control, or alternatively that ownership proxies for how much managers care about control.     

The influence of firm- and manager-specific characteristics on the structure of executive compensation

We analyze the influence of firm and managerial characteristics on executive compensation. Consistent with theory, we find monitoring difficulties result in greater use of options while CEO and blockholder ownership result in less. Risky investment is positively related to options and negatively related to cash bonus and restricted stock, suggesting that firms use options to encourage managers to take risks. We find a negative (positive) relation between options and leverage (convertible debt) consistent with minimizing the agency costs of debt. Finally, we provide new evidence on managerial horizon and incentives, documenting a concave relation between cash bonus and CEO age.     

Corporate governance,external market discipline and firm productivity

Using a sample of Australian companies over the 2000–2005 period, we examine the impact of internal corporate governance on firm's total factor productivity, taking into account the interaction between internal governance and external market discipline. Our empirical findings point to a substitution effect between product market competitiveness and firm-level corporate governance. Overall, internal corporate governance mechanisms – more efficient boards and greater CEO stock-based compensation – are effective instruments for improving firm productivity. However, internal governance is less effective when a firm faces a highly competitive product market. We find only weak empirical support for an association between firm's ownership structure and productivity, and no support for an association between industry takeover intensity and firm productivity.     

Corporate governance and firm value during a financial crisis

The main purpose of this paper is to evaluate the effects of management ownership and other corporate governance variables on Hong Kong firms’ stock performance following the onset of the Asian Financial Crisis (1997–98). Our results show that Hong Kong firms with a more concentrated management (executive board) ownership displayed better capital market performance during the 13-month period of the Crisis. We also find that firms with more equity ownership by non-executive directors, and in which the positions of CEO and board chairperson were occupied by the same individual experienced a smaller stock price decline. Our findings are consistent with the notion that there is a greater alignment of insiders with outside owners, rather than the expropriation by insiders who have the opportunity to divert value, for firms with higher levels of management ownership during an unexpected capital market crisis.     

Cash holding and control-oriented finance

We critically reassess the notion that high liquid asset holding by firms faced with weak investor protection is evidence of managerial rent extraction. We show that firms facing agency problems may establish tight controls over management through concentrated ownership. Using data on Belgian listed firms between 1991 and 2006, we find a strong positive association between ownership concentration and cash holding. This indicates a precautionary motive on the part of the controlling shareholders who highly value control. We also find that firm market valuation is positively affected by the amount of cash held by firms. On the other hand, managerial ownership has no impact. These results are consistent with the hypothesis that firms' owners are pursuing a rational strategy to mitigate agency costs in the face of weak investor protections.     

Why Do Canadian Firms Cross‐list? The Flip Side of the Issue

We investigate the relation between managerial incentives and the decision to cross‐list by comparing Canadian firms cross‐listed on US stock exchanges to industry‐ and size‐matched control firms. After controlling for firm and ownership structure characteristics, we find a positive association between substantial holdings of vested options held by CEOs prior to cross‐listing and the decision to cross‐list. Further, firms managed by CEOs with substantial holdings of vested options exhibit positive announcement returns and negative post‐announcement long‐run returns. CEOs of cross‐listed firms seem to take advantage of the aforementioned market behaviour, because they abnormally exercise vested options and sell the proceeds during the year of listing only when their firms underperform during the subsequent year. In addition, there is a positive relation between substantial holdings of vested options and discretionary accruals during the year of listing, consistent with the view that CEOs manage earnings to keep stock prices at high levels. Overall, these results have significant implications for the cross‐listing literature, suggesting an association between cross‐listing and CEO incentives to maximize CEO private benefits.     

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.