高管团队内部治理与企业资本结构调整——基于非CEO高管独立性的视角

本文以2001-2017年A股上市公司为研究样本,实证检验了高管团队内部治理对企业资本结构的影响。研究发现:当企业负债不足时,高管团队内部治理效应能够显著提高企业(尤其是非国有企业)的负债水平,降低企业实际资本结构与目标资本结构的偏离程度。这种高管团队内部治理效应在第一类委托代理问题比较严重以及非CEO高管监督动机较强的企业中更加显著。作用机制分析表明,高管团队内部治理效应能够通过降低第一类代理成本来降低企业资本结构与目标资本结构的偏离程度。本文的研究结论为改善我国上市公司治理提供了新的思路,对于优化企业融资结构、深化金融供给侧结构性改革具有一定的启示意义。     

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.     

Shareholder Rights, Boards, and CEO Compensation

I analyze the role of executive compensation in corporate governance.As proxies for corporate governance, I use board size, boardindependence, CEO-chair duality, institutional ownership concentration,CEO tenure, and an index of shareholder rights. The resultsfrom a broad cross-section of large U.S. public firms are inconsistentwith recent claims that entrenched managers design their owncompensation contracts. The interactions of the corporate governancemechanisms with total pay-for-performance and excess compensationcan be explained by governance substitution. If a firm has generallyweaker governance, the compensation contract helps better alignthe interests of shareholders and the CEO.     

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.     

Determinants of board structure: Evidence from Australia

Linck et al. (2008) investigate the determinants of board structure in the US, an environment that features high litigation risk and low ownership concentration. In contrast, using a hand-collected data set that includes information from more than 1000 firms, this paper investigates the determinants of board structure in Australia, an environment that features low litigation risk and high ownership concentration. Multivariate analyses suggest that whereas board size and board independence increase with firm size, CEO duality decreases with firm size. Additional tests suggest that high ownership concentration increases board size, decreases board independence and increases CEO duality. These results imply that if high litigation risk against directors (as in the US) plays a monitoring role in corporate governance, ownership concentration appears to offer an alternative governance mechanism in countries such as Australia, which feature low litigation risk.     

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.     

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 impact of corporate governance on auditor choice: Evidence from China

As the largest and fastest growing emerging market, China is becoming more and more important to investors throughout the world. The purpose of this paper is to investigate the determinants of firms’ auditor choice in China in respect of their corporate governance mechanism. Normally firms have to take a trade-off in their auditor choice decisions, i.e., to hire high-quality auditors to signal effective audit monitoring and good corporate governance to lower their capital raising costs, or to select low-quality auditors with less effective audit monitoring in order to reap private benefits derived from weak corporate governance and less-transparent disclosure (the opaqueness gains). We develop a logit regression model to test the impact of firms’ internal corporate governance mechanism on auditor choice decisions made by IPO firms getting listed during a bear market period of 2001–2004 in China. Three variables are used to proxy for firms’ internal corporate governance mechanism, i.e., the ownership concentration, the size of the supervisory board (SB), and the duality of CEO and chairman of board of directors (BoDs). We classify all auditors in China into large auditors (Top 10) and others (non-Top 10), assuming the large auditors can provide higher quality audit services. The empirical results show that firms with larger controlling shareholders, with smaller size of SB, or in which CEO and BoDs chairman are the same person, are less likely to hire a Top 10 (high-quality) auditor. This suggests that when benefits from lowering capital raising costs are trivial, firms with weaker internal corporate governance mechanism are inclined to choose a low-quality auditor so as to capture and sustain their opaqueness gains. On the other hand, with improvement of corporate governance, firms should be more likely to appoint high-quality auditors.     

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.     

The pattern of investment surrounding CEO retirements: UK evidence

The recent spate of corporate scandals worldwide has again raised serious concerns about the quality of corporate governance. We examine the governance effects on investment expenditure in the year of CEO retirement. Based on a sample of the 460 largest UK listed companies during 1990–1998, we find no evidence of changes in capital or research and development expenditure when CEOs are on the verge of retiring. In addition, neither board size nor leadership structure (separating the posts of CEO and chairman) influence corporate investment during the CEO's final year. However, we do show that there are some important governance effects. Cutbacks in fixed asset spending at the time of CEO departure are less likely in firms with executive-dominated boards. There is evidence that stock ownership of outside directors is associated with increased capital expenditure when the CEO retires. Finally, further analysis suggests that insider board monitoring and outsider equity ownership may act as substitute mechanisms in ensuring that retiring CEOs focus on value creating activities.     

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.     

Determination of Executive Compensation in an Emerging Economy. Evidence from India

Most studies of the determination of executive compensation are based on the experience of developed countries, and mainly focus on Chief Executive Officer (CEO) compensation. Determination of board compensation is relatively ignored in the literature. This paper examines the effect of corporate governance, firm performance, and corporate diversification on the board, as well as CEO compensation and its components, in the context of an emerging economy-India-where a managerial market has yet to develop. Data for 462 firms for 1997-2002 in the Indian manufacturing sector have been used. This paper finds that board compensation largely depends on current- and past-year performance and diversification of the firm, whereas CEO compensation depends on current-year firm performance only. Among the personal attributes of the CEO, only in-firm experience has significant influence on CEO compensation. This finding contradicts the existing studies, where current- and past-year firm performance, as well as age, experience, and education of the CEO are important factors in determining CEO compensation.     

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.     

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.     

Financial Globalization,Governance, and the Evolution of the Home Bias

We merge portfolio theories of home bias with corporate finance theories of insider ownership to create the optimal corporate ownership theory of the home bias. The theory has two components: (1) foreign portfolio investors exhibit a large home bias against countries with poor governance because their investment is limited by high optimal ownership by insiders (the “direct effect” of poor governance) and domestic monitoring shareholders (the “indirect effect”) in response to the governance and (2) foreign direct investors from “good governance” countries have a comparative advantage as insider monitors in “poor governance” countries, so that the relative importance of foreign direct investment is negatively related to the quality of governance. Using both country‐level data on U.S. investors' foreign investment allocations and Korean firm‐level data, we find empirical evidence supporting our optimal corporate ownership theory of the home bias.     

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 acquisitiveness of youth: CEO age and acquisition behavior

I demonstrate that acquisitions are accompanied by large, permanent increases in Chief Executive Officer (CEO) compensation, which create strong financial incentives for CEOs to pursue acquisitions earlier in their career. Accordingly, I document that a firm's acquisition propensity is decreasing in the age of its CEO: a firm with a CEO who is 20 years older is ∼30%$\sim 30\%$ less likely to announce an acquisition. This negative effect of CEO age on acquisitions is strongest among firms where CEOs likely anticipate or can influence high post-acquisition compensation, and is absent for other investment decisions that are not rewarded with permanent compensation gains. The age effect cannot be explained by the selection of young CEOs by acquisition-prone firms, nor by a story of declining overconfidence with age. This paper underscores the relevance of CEO personal characteristics and CEO-level variation in agency problems for corporate decisions.     

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 practices,CEO characteristics and firm performance

This paper examines the link between firm performance, CEO characteristics and changes in corporate governance practices using an unbalanced panel of 1721 firms from 1980 to 1995. This paper provides the stylized facts about corporate governance practices and details how governance practices have evolved over time. By 1995, the majority of firms had implemented differing types of charter amendments, poison pills or other governance provisions that are potentially harmful to shareholders. Most firms have adopted multiple and even redundant governance provisions. Shareholders are more likely to approve an increase in the power of the boards of directors of better performing firms, while the boards of poorly performing firms are much more likely to initiate governance changes, such as poison pills, that circumvent shareholder approval. I find no relationship between CEO age, tenure or compensation and governance changes.