Category Archives: Empirical Research

Does Majority Voting Improve Board Accountability?

Edward B. Rock is the Saul A. Fox Distinguished Professor of Business Law at University of Pennsylvania Law School. This post is based on a paper, Does Majority Voting Improve Board Accountability?, authored by Professor Rock, Stephen J. Choi, Murray and Kathleen Bring Professor of Law at the New York University School of Law, Jill E. Fisch, Perry Golkin Professor of Law at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, and Marcel Kahan, George T. Lowy Professor of Law at the New York University School of Law.

Directors have traditionally been elected by a plurality of the votes cast (the Plurality Voting Rule or PVR). This means that the candidates who receive the most votes are elected, even if a candidate does not receive a majority of the votes cast. Indeed, in uncontested elections, a candidate who receives even a single vote is elected. Proponents of “shareholder democracy” have advocated a shift to a Majority Voting Rule (MVR), under which a candidate must receive a majority of the votes cast to be elected. This, proponents say, will make directors more accountable to shareholders.


Management Philosophies and Styles in Family and Non-Family Firms

William Mullins is Assistant Professor of Finance at the University of Maryland and Antoinette Schoar is Professor of Finance at MIT. This post is based on an article authored by Professor Mullins and Professor Schoar.

A growing body of evidence supports the view that there are substantial differences in the management styles and skill sets of individual CEOs, and these differences seem to translate into effects on firm performance and how firms operate. However, we know little about what drives these differences in CEO behavior. In particular, we do not know if the management philosophies and styles of CEOs vary with the governance structure or ownership of the firm (for example, whether it is a family firm or widely held firm), or even across countries. One view is that the extent to which they take a stakeholder approach to management—in opposition to a shareholder focused approach—is an important determinant of CEO behavior. Family members as CEO might be more likely to adopt a stakeholder view, since they have a longer horizon and care about the reputation of the family beyond profit maximization. An alternative view holds that greater emphasis on stakeholder management is a feature of entire countries, evolving in response to aspects of the economy as a whole, rather than to firm-specific characteristics.

In our paper, How Do CEOs See Their Roles? Management Philosophies and Styles in Family and Non-Family Firms, forthcoming in the Journal of Financial Economics, we explore how the interplay of firm level and country level factors shape CEO management styles and beliefs regarding their roles.


Investor-Advisor Relationships and Mutual Fund Flows

Leonard Kostovetsky is Assistant Professor of Finance at Boston College. This post is based on Professor Kostovetsky’s recent article, available here.

In my paper, Whom Do You Trust? Investor-Advisor Relationships and Mutual Fund Flows, forthcoming in the Review of Financial Studies, I investigate the role of trust in the asset management industry. While there is plenty of anecdotal and survey evidence which underlines the general importance of trust in finance, academic research has been scarce due to the difficulty of quantifying and measuring trust. In this paper, I use an exogenous shock to the relationships between investors and mutual fund advisory companies (e.g. Fidelity, Wells Fargo, Vanguard, etc.) to try to tease out the effect of trust.


The Product Market Effects of Hedge Fund Activism

Praveen Kumar is Professor of Finance at the University of Houston. This post is based on an article authored by Professor Kumar and Hadiye Aslan, Assistant Professor of Finance at Georgia State University, available here. Related research from the Program on Corporate Governance includes The Long-Term Effects of Hedge Fund Activism by Lucian Bebchuk, Alon Brav, and Wei Jiang (discussed on the Forum here), The Myth that Insulating Boards Serves Long-Term Value by Lucian Bebchuk (discussed on the Forum here), The Law and Economics of Blockholder Disclosure by Lucian Bebchuk and Robert J. Jackson Jr. (discussed on the Forum here), and Pre-Disclosure Accumulations by Activist Investors: Evidence and Policy by Lucian Bebchuk, Alon Brav, Robert J. Jackson Jr., and Wei Jiang.

Whether intervention by activist investors, such as hedge funds, is beneficial or detrimental to the shareholders of target firms remains controversial. Proponents marshal considerable empirical evidence that hedge fund activism (HFA) is associated with significant medium-to-long-run improvements in targets’ cost and investment efficiency, profitability, productivity, and shareholder returns. Opponents, however, insist that HFA forces management to take myopic decisions that weaken firms in the longer run. The debate rages in academia, media, and has already featured in the 2016 presidential campaign.

Despite this intense interest, however, the research on the effects HFA has typically focused only on its impact on the performance of target firms. But targets of HFA do not exist in vacuum; they have industry competitors, suppliers, and customers. It is by now well known that HFA has a broad scope that often—simultaneously or sequentially—touches on virtually every major aspect of company management, including changes in product market strategy, negotiation tactics with suppliers and customers, and knowledge-based technical advice of production organization. In particular, HFA that improves target’s cost efficiency and product differentiation, and generally redesigns its competitive strategy, should have a significant impact on the target’s competitors (or rival firms). This prediction follows from basic principles of strategic interaction among firms in oligopolistic interaction. Indeed, the received theory of industrial organization provides the effects of cost improvements and product differentiation on rivals’ equilibrium profits and market shares.


Shadow Resolutions as a “No-No” in a Sound Banking Union

Luca Enriques is Allen & Overy Professor of Corporate Law at Oxford University. The following post is based on a paper co-authored by Professor Enriques and Gerard Hertig.

Credit crisis related bank bailouts and resolutions have been actively debated over the past few years. By contrast, little attention has been paid to resolution procedures being generally circumvented when banks are getting insolvent in normal times.

In fact, supervisory leniency and political considerations often result in public officials incentivizing viable banks to acquire failing banks. In our book chapter Shadow resolutions as a no-no in a sound Banking Union, published in Financial Regulation: A Transatlantic Perspective 150-166 (Ester Faia et al. eds.), Cambridge University Press, 2015, we consider this a very unfortunate approach. It weakens supervision, distorts competition and, most importantly, gives resolution a bad name.


Employee Rights and Acquisitions

Anzhela Knyazeva is a Financial Economist at the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. This post is based on an article authored by Dr. Knyazeva, Diana Knyazeva, Financial Economist at the Securities and Exchange Commission; and Kose John, Professor in Banking and Finance at New York University. The views expressed in this post are those of Dr. Knyazeva and do not necessarily reflect those of the Securities and Exchange Commission or its Staff.


In our paper, Employee Rights and Acquisitions, which was recently featured in the Journal of Financial Economics, we consider incentive conflicts involving employees, and how they may affect firms in the context of acquisitions. More specifically, we look at the effects of variation in employee protections on shareholder value, the choice of targets, and deal characteristics.  We focus on acquisitions since they are major firm investment decisions with the potential to substantially affect firm value.


Corporate Governance Responses to Director Rule Changes

Cindy Vojtech is an Economist at the Federal Reserve Board. This post is based on an article authored by Dr. Vojtech and Benjamin Kay, Economist at the U.S. Treasury’s Office of Financial Research.

Much of the corporate governance literature has been plagued by endogeneity problems. In our paper, Corporate Governance Responses to Director Rule Changes, which was recently made publicly available on SSRN, we use a law change as a natural experiment to test how firms adjust the choice and magnitude of governance tools given a floor level of monitoring from independent directors. Through this analysis, we can recover the structural relationship between inputs in the governance production function. We study these relationships with a new board of director dataset with a much larger range of firm size.

In 2002, U.S. stock exchanges and the Sarbanes-Oxley Act established minimum standards for director independence. These director rules altered firm choice of other tools for mitigating agency problems. On average, treated firms do not increase the size of their board, instead inside directors are replaced with outside directors.


SEC Disclosures by Foreign Firms

Audra Boone is a senior financial economist at the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in the Division of Economic and Risk Analysis. This post is based on an article authored by Dr. Boone, Kathryn Schumann, Assistant Professor of Finance at James Madison University, and Joshua White, Assistant Professor of Finance at the University of Georgia. The views expressed in the post are those of Dr. Boone and do not necessarily reflect those of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Commissioners, or the Staff.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) established the ongoing reporting regime for U.S.-listed foreign firms when most of these filers were large, well-known companies that had a primary trading venue on a major foreign exchange. Accordingly, prior work argues that the SEC exempted these firms from producing quarterly and event-driven filings beyond those mandated by their home country or exchange. [1] Specifically, the SEC stipulates that foreign firms must supply ongoing disclosures on a Form 6-K only when they publicly release information outside the U.S. (e.g., updates on earnings, acquisitions, raising capital, or payout structure). [2]

The composition of foreign firms listing in the U.S. has evolved over the years towards one with more firms stemming from less transparent countries and those lacking a primary listing outside the U.S. Notably, foreign firms with these characteristics likely have fewer ongoing reporting mandates, and thus considerable discretion regarding the information they supply to the SEC. Yet, there is little evidence on how the deference to home country requirements affects ongoing reporting and information flows in more recent periods. Studying these issues helps understand the relative trade-offs of creating a competitive landscape for attracting foreign firm listings and ensuring meaningful information flows to investors, thus balancing capital formation and investor protection.

On Secondary Buyouts

François Degeorge is Professor of Finance at the University of Lugano This post is based on an article authored by Professor Degeorge; Jens Martin, Assistant Professor of Finance at the University of Amsterdam; and Ludovic Phalippou, Associate Professor of Finance at Saïd Business School, Oxford University.

Twenty years ago, private equity (PE) firms seeking to exit sold their portfolio companies to another company in the same industry or organized an IPO. Nowadays, 40 percent of PE exits occur through secondary buyouts (SBOs), transactions in which a PE firm sells a portfolio company to another PE firm. The rise of SBOs has elicited concerns among PE investors (the limited partners with stakes in private equity funds): Does the rise of SBOs mean that PE firms have run out of investment ideas? Do SBOs create or destroy value for investors? Our paper, On Secondary Buyouts, forthcoming in the Journal of Financial Economics, provides answers to these questions.


Seven Myths of Boards of Directors

David Larcker is Professor of Accounting at Stanford University. This post is based on an article authored by Professor Larcker and Brian Tayan, Researcher with the Corporate Governance Research Initiative at Stanford University. Related research from the Program on Corporate Governance includes The Costs of Entrenched Boards by Lucian Bebchuk and Alma Cohen, and How Do Staggered Boards Affect Shareholder Value? Evidence from a Natural Experiment by Alma Cohen and Charles C. Y. Wang.

Corporate governance experts pay considerable attention to issues involving the board of directors. Because of the scope of the board’s role and the vast responsibilities that come with directorship, companies are expected to adhere to common best practices in board structure, composition, and procedures. Our paper, Seven Myths of Boards of Directors, which was recently made publicly available on SSRN, reviews seven commonly accepted beliefs about boards of directors that are not substantiated by empirical evidence.


  • Subscribe

  • Cosponsored By:

  • Supported By:

  • Programs Faculty & Senior Fellows

    Lucian Bebchuk
    Alon Brav
    Robert Charles Clark
    John Coates
    Alma Cohen
    Stephen M. Davis
    Allen Ferrell
    Jesse Fried
    Oliver Hart
    Ben W. Heineman, Jr.
    Scott Hirst
    Howell Jackson
    Robert J. Jackson, Jr.
    Wei Jiang
    Reinier Kraakman
    Robert Pozen
    Mark Ramseyer
    Mark Roe
    Robert Sitkoff
    Holger Spamann
    Guhan Subramanian

  • Program on Corporate Governance Advisory Board

    William Ackman
    Peter Atkins
    Joseph Bachelder
    John Bader
    Allison Bennington
    Daniel Burch
    Richard Climan
    Jesse Cohn
    Isaac Corré
    Scott Davis
    John Finley
    David Fox
    Stephen Fraidin
    Byron Georgiou
    Larry Hamdan
    Carl Icahn
    Jack B. Jacobs
    Paula Loop
    David Millstone
    Theodore Mirvis
    James Morphy
    Toby Myerson
    Morton Pierce
    Barry Rosenstein
    Paul Rowe
    Rodman Ward