Monitoring Managers: Does It Matter?

We study how well‐incentivized boards monitor CEOs and whether monitoring improves performance. Using unique, detailed data on boards' information sets and decisions for a large sample of private equity–backed firms, we find that gathering information helps boards learn about CEO ability. “Soft” information plays a much larger role than hard data, such as the performance metrics that prior literature focuses on, and helps avoid firing a CEO for bad luck or in response to adverse external shocks. We show that governance reforms increase the effectiveness of board monitoring and establish a causal link between forced CEO turnover and performance improvements.     

What do boards really do? Evidence from minutes of board meetings

We analyze a unique database from a sample of real-world boardrooms — minutes of board meetings and board-committee meetings of eleven business companies for which the Israeli government holds a substantial equity interest. We use these data to evaluate the underlying assumptions and predictions of models of boards of directors. These models generally fall into two categories: “managerial models” that assume boards play a direct role in managing the firm, and “supervisory models” that assume that boards monitor top management but do not make business decisions themselves. Consistent with the supervisory models, our minutes-based data suggest that boards spend most of their time monitoring management: approximately two-thirds of the issues boards discussed were of a supervisory nature, they were presented with only a single option in 99% of the issues discussed, and they disagreed with the CEO only 2.5% of the time. Nevertheless, at times boards do play a managerial role: Boards requested to receive further information or an update for 8% of the issues discussed, and they took an initiative with respect to 8.1% of them. In 63% of the meetings, boards took at least one of these actions or did not vote in line with the CEO. Taken together our results suggest that boards can be characterized as active monitors.     

The impact of board capital and board characteristics on firm performance

The purpose of this study is to investigate the effects of board capital on the relationship between CEO duality, board dependence, managerial share ownership and performance. We argue that board capital (the ability of board members to perform manager-monitoring activities and to provide advice and counsel to management) varies across board members. Highly qualified board members will be better at monitoring management and constitute a more valuable resource for firms. Based on a sample of U.S. companies listed in the Compustat S&P 500 and using both resource dependence and agency theories, we predict and find that CEO duality and board dependence negatively affect performance and that board capital mitigates the negative effects. We also predict and find that managerial share ownership positively affects performance and that board capital strengthens this positive relationship. The results are consistent with the view that firms benefit from board capital in terms of outside directors' ability to monitor managers and provide advice and counsel to managers.     

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.     

Corporate Performance,Corporate Governance and Top Executive Turnover in Finland

This paper empirically investigates how corporate governance forces and firm performance affect top executive turnover in Finnish listed companies. I document an increase in CEO, top management, and board turnover in response to poor stock price performance and operating losses. The sensitivity of the relation between stock price performance and CEO turnover is significantly higher in firms with a two‐tier board structure (when the CEO is not the chairman), but significantly lower when the CEO or a board member is the controlling shareholder. These results suggest that both the ownership structure and the board design have implications for the disciplining of managers.     

Should Independent Directors Have Term Limits? The Role of Experience in Corporate Governance

We examine the role of independent directors with extended tenure in board‐level governance, monitoring decisions, and advising outcomes. These directors exhibit a higher level of commitment as they attend more board meetings and take more committee memberships. Firms with a higher proportion of these directors have lower chief executive officer (CEO) pay, higher CEO turnover‐performance sensitivity, and a smaller likelihood of intentionally misreporting earnings. These firms also restrict the expansion of resources under the CEO's control as they are less likely to make acquisitions, while the acquisitions they do make are of higher quality. Efforts to impose term limits on directors may, therefore, be misguided.     

CEO Turnover and Retention Light: Retaining Former CEOs on the Board

Prior CEO turnover literature characterizes the board's decision as a choice between retaining versus replacing the CEO. We focus instead on the CEO's decision rights and introduce a third option in which the incumbent CEO is removed but retained on the board for an extended period, which we call Retention Light. Firms may benefit from Retention Light because former CEOs possess unique monitoring and advising abilities, but the former CEO could also exploit available decision rights for personal benefit. A Retention Light CEO's decision rights generally exceed those of CEOs who exit the firm entirely but fall short of the rights of a retained CEO. We find that when prior firm performance is better, the former CEO is more likely to be retained on the board (Retention Light) than to exit the firm. However, this relation is weaker when the CEO reaches normal retirement age at which time CEO power becomes more important. We also provide evidence on how the nature of the CEO's bargaining power varies with his personal attributes and board characteristics in its influence on the Retention Light decision. Retention Light firms are more likely than CEO‐exit firms to select a successor CEO with relatively weaker bargaining power. Finally, Retention Light involving a nonfounder CEO is negatively associated with the firm's postturnover financial performance. Overall, Retention Light is a distinct CEO turnover option that has important consequences for board decisions and firm performance.     

Earnings management following chief executive officer changes: the effect of contemporaneous chairperson and chief financial officer appointments

Using a sample of listed Australian firms from 1999 to 2007, we examine the relationship between discretionary accruals and concurrent senior management appointments. Employing panel data regression models and focusing on a measure of discretionary accruals that excludes the effect of transparent write‐downs such as restructuring charges, we find that chief executive officer (CEO) appointments, as a general phenomenon, are not significantly associated with opaque earnings management in the year of appointment or the following year. However, we find that CEO changes accompanied by a concurrent change in board chairperson are associated with significant income‐decreasing earnings management in the year of appointment. We detect no significant relationship between contemporaneous CEO and chief financial officer changes and discretionary accruals. We find no evidence of earnings management in the first compete financial period following CEO appointment, regardless of whether or not concurrent Chair or chief financial officer appointments occurred.     

DO FIRMS SEEK A TARGET BOARD STRUCTURE? EVIDENCE FROM THE POST‐SOX PERIOD

We investigate whether firms restructure board composition to align with changes in their contracting environment. Board size and independence increase with firm complexity, consistent with theoretical predictions. However, the hypothesized negative relation between board independence and information costs is evident only for firms completing acquisitions. Furthermore, board independence increases to offset increases in CEO power in a sample of firms making acquisitions, but decreases when CEO power increases in a large cross‐section of firms. We conclude that after the Sarbanes–Oxley Act of 2002, firms face constraints adjusting to target board structure, but these constraints can be mitigated by a shock to the contracting environment via acquisition.     

CEO权力、董事会稳定性与盈余管理

基于CEO和董事会相对权力的视角,研究了CEO权力和董事会稳定性对盈余质量的影响。研究发现,CEO权力越大,上市公司盈余管理程度越高;而稳定的董事会能够有效削弱CEO权力与盈余管理之间的正相关关系。区分企业产权性质后发现,上述研究结论主要体现在民营企业中。进一步研究发现,CEO任期较短时,CEO相对董事会的权力较小,稳定的董事会能够有效削弱CEO权力与盈余管理之间的正相关关系。但随着CEO任期的增长,CEO相对于董事会的权力越强,董事会并不能有效监督CEO操纵盈余管理行为。     

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.     

Information Control, Career Concerns, and Corporate Governance

We examine corporate governance effectiveness when the CEO generates project ideas and the board of directors screens these ideas for approval. However, the precision of the board's screening information is controlled by the CEO. Moreover, both the CEO and the board have career concerns that interact. The board's career concerns cause it to distort its investment recommendation procyclically, whereas the CEO's career concerns cause her to sometimes reduce the precision of the board's information. Moreover, the CEO sometimes prefers a less able board, and this happens only during economic upturns, suggesting that corporate governance will be weaker during economic upturns.     

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.     

It Takes Two: The Incidence and Effectiveness of Co‐CEOs

This study examines the phenomenon of co‐CEOs within publicly traded firms. Although shared executive leadership is not widespread, it occurs within some very prominent firms. We find that co‐CEOs generally complement each other in terms of educational background or executive responsibilities. Our results show that firms most likely to appoint co‐CEOs have lower leverage, a more limited firm focus, less independent board structure, fewer advising directors, lower institutional ownership, and greater levels of merger activity. The governance structure of co‐CEO firms suggests that co‐CEOships can serve as an alternative governance mechanism, with co‐CEO mutual monitoring substituting for board or external monitoring and co‐CEO complementary skills substituting for board advising. An event study indicates that the market reacts positively to appointments of co‐CEOs while a propensity score analysis shows that the presence of co‐CEOs increases firm valuation.     

Divisional Managers and Internal Capital Markets

Using hand‐collected data on divisional managers at S&P 500 firms, we study their role in internal capital budgeting. Divisional managers with social connections to the CEO receive more capital. Connections to the CEO outweigh measures of managers' formal influence, such as seniority and board membership, and affect both managerial appointments and capital allocations. The effect of connections on investment efficiency depends on the tradeoff between agency and information asymmetry. Under weak governance, connections reduce investment efficiency and firm value via favoritism. Under high information asymmetry, connections increase investment efficiency and firm value via information transfer.     

Are board monitoring and CEO incentives substitutes for each other? Evidence from Australian market reaction to acquisition announcements

We examine the hypotheses that board monitoring and CEO stock incentives are effective mechanisms and substitutes for each other using the Australian acquisition market as an experimental field. The results confirm that Australian firms use board monitoring and CEO incentives as substitutes for each other, but the effects of these mechanisms on the acquirers' return do not support the notion that each can substitute for the role of the other. We find the market reaction to acquisitions made by acquirers with low monitoring-high CEO incentives is significantly higher than the reaction to those made by acquirers with high monitoring-low CEO incentives. Further analyses confirm that monitoring level does not make a difference when the CEO is granted high or low incentives but reduces the gain from M&As when used as a substitute for CEO incentives. The latter, if high enough, effectively aligns the managers' interests with those of the shareholders. Our findings hold when we control for other variables and possible endogeneity in the main variables of interest. These results suggest that Australian firms, on average, focus on the board's monitoring role at the expense of its advisory role, a setting that reduces firm value if used as a substitute for CEO incentives.     

Us knows us in the UK: On director networks and CEO compensation

We analyze the relation between CEO compensation and networks of executive and non-executive directors for all listed UK companies over the period 1996-2007. We examine whether networks are built for reasons of information gathering or for the accumulation of managerial influence. Both indirect networks (enabling directors to collect information) and direct networks (leading to more managerial influence) enable the CEO to obtain higher compensation. Direct networks can harm the efficiency of the remuneration contracting in the sense that the performance sensitivity of compensation is then lower. We find that in companies with strong networks and hence busy boards the directors' monitoring effectiveness is reduced which leads to higher and less performance-sensitive CEO compensation. Our results suggest that it is important to have the ‘right’ type of network: some networks enable a firm to access valuable information whereas others can lead to strong managerial influence that may come at the detriment of the firm and its shareholders. We confirm that there are marked conflicts of interest when a CEO increases his influence by being a member of board committees (such as the remuneration committee) as we observe that his or her compensation is then significantly higher. We also find that hiring remuneration consultants with sizeable client networks also leads to higher CEO compensation especially for larger firms.     

Building better boards

Companies facing new requirements for governance are scrambling to buttress financial-reporting systems, overhaul board structures--whatever it takes to comply. But there are limits to how much good governance can be imposed from the outside. Boards know what they ought to be: seats of challenge and inquiry that add value without meddling and make CEOs more effective but not all-powerful. A board can reach that goal only if it functions as a high-performance team, one that is competent, coordinated, collegial, and focused on an unambiguous goal. Such entities don't just evolve; they must be constructed to an exacting blueprint--what the author calls board building. In this article, Nadler offers an agenda and a set of tools that boards can use to define and achieve their objectives. It's important for a board to conduct regular self-assessments and to pay attention to the results of those analyses. As a first step, the directors and the CEO should agree on which of the following common board models best fits the company: passive, certifying, engaged, intervening, or operating. The directors and the CEO should then analyze which business tasks are most important and allot sufficient time and resources to them. Next, the board should take inventory of each director's strengths to ensure that the group as a whole possesses the skills necessary to do its work. Directors must exert more influence over meeting agendas and make sure they have the right information at the right time and in the right format to perform their duties. Finally, the board needs to foster an engaged culture characterized by candor and a willingness to challenge. An ambitious board-building process, devised and endorsed both by directors and by management, can potentially turn a good board into a great one.     

The association between employee stock option disclosures and corporate governance: Evidence from an enhanced disclosure regime

This study examines the role of corporate governance in employee stock option (ESO) disclosures following the revision of AASB 1028 Employee Benefits in 2001. We find that, while firms do not fully comply with AASB 1028 ESO disclosures, they voluntarily provide other ESO disclosures. In relation to corporate governance measures that have a role in the financial reporting process, we find two corporate governance measures dominate our results—the quality of auditor and duality of the role of CEO and Chair of the Board of Directors. We show that, in general, external auditor quality has positive incremental association with both mandatory and voluntary ESO disclosures while the dual role of CEO and chairperson of the board is associated with lower levels of mandatory disclosure.     

University of Delaware

During the early '90s, sharehold‐ers and other observers were call‐ing for a stronger link between CEO pay and performance–more spe‐cifically, a link between CEO pay and shareholder value. One result was a dramatic increase in the use of stock options for incentive pur‐poses. But, in the face of a booming stock market during the '90s, the “excesses” in CEO pay became a controversial issue in the business press. And when a number of CEOs cashed out their option holdings just prior to the collapse of their own companies' stock prices, the topic generated even more controversy. This roundtable brings together a small group of people from academia, business, institutional investing, and the courts to discuss problems with executive pay and corporate governance. There was general agreement among the pan‐elists that the board of directors and the compensation committee have a fiduciary responsibility to share‐holders to ensure that executive compensation is appropriate, and that an active, informed, and inde‐pendent board is critical to achiev‐ing that end. Nevertheless, in many cases, shareholders have voted on stock option plans and have almost always approved them–and in this sense they too bear some responsi‐bility for incentive plans that fail to serve their own interest. As one remedy for the problem, both the New York Stock Exchange and the Conference Board have called for boards to hire the compensation consultants who design the compen‐sation plans. But this is not likely to be a complete solution since, as several panelists pointed out, the consultants do not negotiate executive pay con‐tracts. There have also been new regulations on board independence to prevent “friendly” boards from overpaying their CEOs–although, here again, some panelists expressed reservations about the loss of “institu‐tional memory” if these regulations mean giving up board members from a company's major suppliers or lead banks. The loss of such outside ex‐pertise and knowledge of the com‐pany may be even more critical now that board members with any pos‐sible relationship to the firm are pro‐hibited from sitting on various board committees. In general, there was a clear pref‐erence among the panelists for market‐based solutions–with greater reliance on investors' ef‐forts to protect their own inter‐ests–as a meaningful alternative to new regulations designed to ensure the sort of responsible be‐havior that monitoring by inves‐tors is intended to accomplish. Survey data indicate that institu‐tional investors have finally real‐ized that pay packages matter, espe‐cially when they are outrageously high and completely disconnected from financial performance. In such cases, investors are likely to “weigh in” on compensation prac‐tices, and through repeated use, the shareholder voting process could become an effective force for disciplining management. The primary role of the judiciary in all this is twofold: first, to hold corpo‐rate board members accountable for their actions; and second, to protect the integrity of the share‐holder voting process.