Tag: Firm performance


Employment Protection and Takeovers

Andrey Golubov is Assistant Professor of Finance at Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto. This post is based on an article by Professor Golubov; Olivier Dessaint, Assistant Professor of Finance at Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto; and Paolo Volpin, Professor of Finance at Cass Business School, City University London.

Cost reductions in the pursuit of economies of scale and scope are commonly believed to be a major driver—and a key source of synergies—in corporate takeovers. Restructuring the workforce, largely in the form of layoffs, is presumed to be one of the primary channels through which such cost reductions are obtained. However, despite the central role of labor force issues in takeovers, there is no systematic empirical evidence on the importance of workforce restructuring as a driver of the market for corporate control and as a source of merger synergies. This is partly because labor regulations are largely uniform within countries, and any cross-country variation comes with a host of other pertinent differences. Our new paper, entitled Employment Protection and Takeovers, which was recently made publicly available on SSRN, fills this void and provides the first systematic evidence on the link between labor regulation and takeovers.

READ MORE »

Brain Drain or Brain Gain? Evidence from Corporate Boards

Mariassunta Giannetti is Professor of Economics at the Stockholm School of Economics. This post is based on an article by Professor Giannetti; Guanmin Liao, Associate Professor of Accounting at the School of Accountancy, Central University of Finance and Economics; and Xiaoyun Yu, Associate Professor of Finance at Indiana University, Bloomington.

Development economists have long warned about the costs for developing countries of the emigration of the best and brightest that decamp to universities and businesses in the developed world (Bhagwati, 1976). While this brain drain has attracted a considerable amount of economic research, more recently, arguments have been raised that the emigration of the brightest may actually benefit developing countries, because emigrants may eventually return with more knowledge and organizational skills. (See The Economist, May 26, 2011.) Thus, the brain drain may actually become a brain gain.

In our paper, Brain Drain or Brain Gain? Evidence from Corporate Boards, forthcoming in the Journal of Finance, we demonstrate a specific channel through which the brain gain arising from return migration to emerging markets may benefit the overall economy: the brain gain in the corporate boards of publicly listed companies. Specifically, we highlight the effects of individuals with foreign experience joining the boards of directors on firms’ performance and corporate policies in China.

READ MORE »

Restraining Overconfident CEOs Through Improved Governance

Mark Humphery-Jenner is Senior Lecturer at the UNSW Business School. This post is based on the article Restraining overconfident CEOs through improved governance: Evidence from the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, authored by Mr. Humphery-Jenner, Suman Banerjee, Associate Professor in the Department of Economics and Finance at the University of Wyoming, and Vikram Nanda, Professor of Finance at Rutgers University.

In our recent paper, Restraining overconfident CEOs through improved governance: Evidence from the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, forthcoming in the Review of Financial Studies, we use the joint passage of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and changes to the NYSE/NASDAQ listing rules to analyze the impact of improved governance in moderating the behavior of overconfident CEOs. Overconfidence can lead managers to overestimate returns and underestimate risk. The literature suggests that while some CEO overconfidence can benefit shareholders, a highly distorted view of risk-return profiles can destroy shareholder value. An intriguing question is whether there are ways to channel the drive and optimism of highly overconfident CEOs while curbing the extremes of risk-taking and over-investment associated with such overconfidence. We explore such a possibility in this paper. Specifically, we investigate whether appropriate restraints on CEO discretion and the introduction of diverse viewpoints on the board serve to moderate the actions of overconfident CEOs and, in the end, benefit shareholders.

READ MORE »

The Benefits of Limits on Executive Pay

The following post comes to us from Peter Cebon of the University of Melbourne and Benjamin Hermalin, Professor of Economics at the University of California, Berkeley. Work from the Program on Corporate Governance about CEO pay includes: The CEO Pay Slice by Lucian Bebchuk, Martijn Cremers, and Urs Peyer (discussed on the Forum here); Paying for Long-Term Performance by Lucian Bebchuk and Jesse Fried (discussed on the Forum here); and Lucky CEOs and Lucky Directors by Lucian Bebchuk, Yaniv Grinstein and Urs Peyer (discussed on the Forum here).

Our paper, When Less Is More: The Benefits of Limits on Executive Pay, forthcoming in the Review of Financial Studies, addresses the question of whether limits on executive compensation harm or benefit shareholders. In particular, our model shows that if regulation limits executive compensation, this can make it possible for the board to give the CEO incentives that are both more effective and less costly, and for the two parties to create a relationship that is more collaborative. Among the implications—some of which we are exploring in a companion paper in progress—is this collaborative relationship makes it more attractive for the CEO to pursue long-run strategies (e.g., organic growth) that are more profitable than the short-run strategies (e.g., mergers and acquisitions) they would have pursued if firms had to rely on stock-based compensation for their executives.

READ MORE »

Diversity on Corporate Boards: How Much Difference Does “Difference” Make?

The following post comes to us from Deborah L. Rhode, the Ernest W. McFarland Professor of Law and Director of the Center on the Legal Profession at Stanford University, and Amanda K. Packel, the Deputy Director of the Arthur and Toni Rembe Rock Center for Corporate Governance, a joint initiative of Stanford Law School and the Stanford Graduate School of Business.

In recent years, increasing attention has focused on the influence of gender and racial diversity on boards of directors. More than a dozen countries now require some form of quotas to increase women’s representation on boards, and many more have voluntary quotas in corporate governance codes. In the United States, support for diversity has grown in principle, but progress has lagged in practice, and controversy has centered on whether and why diversity matters.

In our article, Diversity on Corporate Boards: How Much Difference Does “Difference” Make?, which was recently published in Delaware Journal of Corporate Law, 39, no. 2, Fall 2014, we evaluate the case for diversity on corporate boards of directors in light of competing research findings. An overview of recent studies reveals that the relationship between diversity and financial performance has not been convincingly established. There is, however, some theoretical and empirical basis for believing that when diversity is well managed, it can improve decision-making and enhance a corporation’s public image by conveying commitments to equal opportunity and inclusion. We believe increasing diversity should be a social priority, but not for the reasons often assumed. The “business case for diversity” is less compelling than other reasons rooted in social justice, equal opportunity, and corporate reputation. Our article explores the rationale for diversity and strategies designed to address it.

READ MORE »

When Are Powerful CEOs Beneficial?

The following post comes to us from Minwen Li and Yao Lu, both of the Department of Finance at Tsinghua University, and Gordon Phillips, Professor of Finance at the University of Southern California.

In our paper, CEOs and the Product Market: When Are Powerful CEOs Beneficial?, which was recently made publicly available on SSRN, we explore what the central factors are that influence when and how powerful CEOs may add value and how the benefits and costs of CEO power vary with industry conditions. In an ideal world, shareholders would grant an optimal level of power, weighing various costs and benefits specific to the firm’s characteristics and the business conditions in which it operates. We hypothesize that the optimal amount of power changes based on product market conditions.

Most recent research has shown that CEO power is negatively associated with firm value and is associated with negative outcomes for the firm. Articles have suggested that powerful CEOs may be bad news for shareholders (e.g., Bebchuk, Cremers, and Peyer 2011; Landier, Sauvagnat, Sraer, and Thesmar 2013). Morse, Nanda, and Seru (2011) provide evidence that powerful CEOs may have more favorable incentive contracts. Khanna, Kim, and Lu (forthcoming) show that CEO power arising from personal decisions can increase the likelihood of fraud within corporations.

READ MORE »

Shirking CEOs

The following post comes to us from Lee Biggerstaff of the Department of Finance at Miami University of Ohio; David Cicero of the Department of Finance at the University of Alabama; and Andy Puckett of the Department of Finance at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville.

Anytime you hire someone there is always a risk that they will not complete their task with the level of diligence that you had anticipated. Unless you monitor the hired party at all times, which can be extremely inefficient, they always have the temptation to “shirk” their responsibilities and avoid the hard work required to do an excellent job. In our paper, FORE! An Analysis of CEO Shirking, which was recently made publicly available on SSRN, we provide evidence that some CEOs of public companies in the U.S. succumb to the same temptation to shirk their duties to shareholders by choosing leisure consumption over the hard work required to maximize firm values.

READ MORE »

Military CEOs

The following post comes to us from Efraim Benmelech and Carola Frydman, both of the Finance Department at Northwestern University.

In our paper, Military CEOs, forthcoming in the Journal of Financial Economics, we examine the effect of military service of CEOs and managerial decisions, corporate policies, and corporate outcomes. Service in the military may alter the behavior of servicemen and women in various ways that could affect their actions when they become CEOs later in life. Militaries have organized, sequential training programs that combine education with on-the-job experience and are designed to develop command skills. Evidence from sociology and organizational behavior research suggests that individuals may acquire hands-on leadership experience through military service that is difficult to learn otherwise and that they may be better at making decisions under pressure or in a crisis (Duffy, 2006). It is possible, therefore, that military CEOs may be more prepared to make difficult decisions during periods of industry distress. Moreover, military service emphasizes duty, dedication, and self-sacrifice. The military may thus inculcate a value system that encourages CEOs to make ethical decisions and to be more dedicated and loyal to the companies they run rather than pursue their own self-interest (Franke, 2001).

READ MORE »

Human Capital, Management Quality, and Firm Performance

The following post comes to us from Thomas Chemmanur and Lei Kong, both of the Department of Finance at Boston College, and Karthik Krishnan of the Finance Group at Northeastern University.

The quality of the top management team of a firm is an important determinant of its performance. This is an obvious statement to many. Yet, there is little evidence that relates top management team quality to firm performance in a causal manner. Part of the challenge in doing so stems from assigning a measure to the quality of the top management team. There are, after all, various aspects of top managers that contribute to their performance, including their education, their connections and prior experience. Another reason that relating management quality to firm performance is hard is that one can argue that the best managers can simply select into the best firms to work in. This makes making causal statements extremely hard in this context. As a result, while one can point toward anecdotal evidence relating good managers to good performance (e.g., Steve Jobs of Apple), systematic evidence is lacking in the academic literature on this issue. The relation between management quality and firm performance is important in more than just an academic context. For instance, analysts frequently cite top management quality as a reason to invest in a stock. Thus, one needs to ask what they mean by “quality,” and does it really impact the future performance of the firm.

READ MORE »

Do Going-Private Transactions Affect Plant Efficiency and Investment?

The following post comes to us from Sreedhar Bharath of the Department of Finance at Arizona State University, Amy Dittmar of the Department of Finance at the University of Michigan, and Jagadeesh Sivadasan of the Department of Business Economics and Public Policy at the University of Michigan.

Are private firms more efficient than public firms? Jensen (1986) suggests that going-private could result in efficiency gains by aligning managers’ incentives with shareholders and providing better monitoring. In our paper, Do Going-Private Transactions Affect Plant Efficiency and Investment?, forthcoming in the Review of Financial Studies, we examine a broad dataset of going-private transactions, including those taken private by private equity, management and private operating firms between 1981 and 2005. We link data on going-private transactions to rich plant-level US Census microdata to examine how going-private affects plant-level productivity, investment, and exit (sale and closure). While we find within-plant increases in measures of productivity after going-private, there is little evidence of efficiency gains relative to a control sample composed of firms from within the same industry, and of similar age and size (employment) as the going-private firms. Further, our productivity results hold excluding all plants that underwent a change in ownership after going-private, alleviating the potential concern that control plants may undergo improvements through ownership changes.

READ MORE »

  • 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
    Richard Breeden
    Daniel Burch
    Richard Climan
    Jesse Cohn
    Isaac Corré
    Scott Davis
    John Finley
    Daniel Fischel
    Stephen Fraidin
    Byron Georgiou
    Larry Hamdan
    Carl Icahn
    David Millstone
    Theodore Mirvis
    James Morphy
    Toby Myerson
    Barry Rosenstein
    Paul Rowe
    Rodman Ward