Yearly Archives: 2018

Industry Tournament Incentives and the Product Market Benefits of Corporate Liquidity

Jian Huang is an assistant professor of finance in the College of Business and Economics at Towson University; Bharat A. Jain is a professor of finance in the College of Business and Economics at Towson University; and Omesh Kini is a distinguished university professor and professor of finance at Georgia State University Robinson College of Business. This post is based on their recent article, forthcoming in the Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis.

Recent research suggests that the inherent optionality present in intra-firm rank-order tournaments provides senior managers with distinct and incremental career-enhancing incentives from option-based compensation schemes to implement riskier but value-enhancing firm policies (Kale, Reis, and Venkateswaran (2009) and Kini and Williams (2012)). Extending the notion of tournaments beyond the top management team to focus on the CEO, Coles, Li, and Wang (2017) find that CEO industry tournament incentives (henceforth ITI), as captured by the pay differential between the firm’s CEO and the maximal industry CEO pay, encourage the adoption of riskier but value-enhancing corporate investment and financing policies. In our article, Industry Tournament Incentives and the Product Market Benefits of Corporate Liquidity, forthcoming in the Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, we add to the literature on managerial tournaments by examining whether and how ITI shape corporate cash policy. To shed light on this issue, we empirically examine the impact of ITI on the: (i) level of cash holdings, (ii) marginal value of cash holdings, and (iii) strategic actions that entail the use of excess cash to obtain competitive benefits in the firm’s product markets.

READ MORE »

Tax Reform Implications for U.S. Businesses and Foreign Investments

Philip Wagman and Richard Catalano are partners and Alan Kravitz is an associate at Clifford Chance. This post is based on a Clifford Chance publication by Mr. Wagman, Mr. Catalano, and Mr. Kravitz.

On December 20, 2017, Congress voted to enact the most sweeping US tax reform bill in decades. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (the “TCJA” or the “Act”) will reduce business tax rates and revamp the US international tax system. While the President may not sign the Act until January 2018, its adoption into law appears virtually certain.

Overview

The TCJA’s proponents in Congress intend it to boost US businesses by making a host of changes to how they are taxed. While the legislation has (somewhat unexpectedly) passed through Congress at warp speed, many of its basic ideas have been advanced in some form by the Act’s Republican authors for over a decade. Key provisions of the Act include, as described in more detail below, a permanent reduction in the US federal corporate income tax rate from 35% to 21%; reduced tax rates (ranging up to 29.6%) for many US businesses organized as partnerships, limited liability companies (LLCs) and S corporations; immediate expensing of the full cost of equipment bought before 2023; and broad changes to the United States’ international tax rules, including tax-free repatriation of profits earned abroad in the future.

READ MORE »

Non-rating Revenue and Conflicts of Interest

Bo Becker is Professor of Finance and Ramin Baghai is Associate Professor of Finance at the Stockholm School of Economics. This post is based on their recent paper.

Credit rating agencies produce one of the key technologies of the financial system. Ratings have been in use for more than a century, and their application has continuously expanded to new types of financial securities and contracts. Regulations, contracts, investment mandates, capital requirements, loan pricing, all frequently rely on credit ratings.

The expanded use of credit ratings has not been without difficulties and setbacks. Inflated ratings played an important role in the financial crisis of 2008-2009, when large losses on structured securities that had received overly optimistic ratings at issue contributed to destabilizing the financial system (e.g., Benmelech and Dlugosz 2009). Consequently, the production and use of ratings have been subject to more questions and scrutiny in the decade since the financial crisis than ever before, from academics, the public, and policymakers (see, e.g., White 2010, Sangiorgi and Spatt 2017).

READ MORE »

Weekly Roundup: December 29, 2017-January 4, 2018


More from:

This roundup contains a collection of the posts published on the Forum during the week of December 29, 2017-January 4, 2018.

Venture Capital Investments and Merger and Acquisition Activity around the World


Global and Regional Trends in Corporate Governance for 2018


Credit Default Swaps, Agency Problems, and Management Incentives


Why Do Some Companies Leave? Evidence on the Factors that Drive Inversions


Globalization and Executive Compensation


Pre-IPO Analyst Coverage: Hype or Information Production?




Opportunity Makes a Thief: Corporate Opportunities as Legal Transplant and Convergence in Corporate Law


Top 10 Topics for Directors in 2018


The Appointment of Senior Program Fellow Robert Jackson as SEC Commissioner



Delaware Court on Risks to Buyers When Devising Earn-Outs


The Changing Landscape of Auditor Litigation and Its Implication for Audit Quality

The Changing Landscape of Auditor Litigation and Its Implication for Audit Quality

Colleen Honigsberg is an Assistant Professor at Stanford Law School; Shivaram Rajgopal is the Roy Bernard Kester and T.W. Byrnes Professor of Accounting and Auditing at Columbia Business School; and Suraj Srinivasan is the Philip J. Stomberg Professor of Business Administration at Harvard Business School. This post is based on their recent paper.

Stretching back to Central Bank v. First Interstate, [1] a series of Supreme Court opinions have limited shareholders’ ability to bring claims under Rule 10b-5 against auditors. Prior literature has noted the changes in auditor liability and questioned whether the current law provides auditors with efficient incentives (e.g., Park, 2017; Coffee, 2006; Partnoy, 2001). However, our paper, The Changing Landscape of Auditor Litigation and Its Implications for Audit Quality, is the first to provide empirical evidence that recent court opinions have led to declines in Rule 10b-5 liability exposure and have implications for audit quality.

READ MORE »

Delaware Court on Risks to Buyers When Devising Earn-Outs

Robert Little is a partner and Benjamin Bodurian is an associate at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP. This post is based on a Gibson Dunn publication by Mr. Little, Mr. Bodurian, and Paige Lager, and is part of the Delaware law series; links to other posts in the series are available here.

Buyers and sellers in M&A transactions sometimes structure a portion of the purchase price as an earn-out. In an earn-out structure, the buyer pays part of the purchase price at the closing and the remainder if and when the target business achieves pre-defined milestones after the closing. An earn-out is often a means to bridge a valuation gap in purchase price negotiations between the buyer and the seller when the seller is confident in the business’s future prospects, but the buyer is unwilling to pay full value for the business based on the seller’s projections. A compromise can be for the buyer to agree to pay additional consideration for the business if and when the seller’s projections are achieved. This additional consideration is the earn-out.

READ MORE »

How Director Age Influences Corporate Performance

Elizabeth Carroll is a Research Analyst at Equilar, Inc. This post is based on an Equilar publication by Ms. Carroll.

Concurrent with discussions around board refreshment and diversity, age has also become a hot topic in board composition. Though older directors generally have more executive and board experience, there is concern that a lack of board refreshment and age diversity can stultify companies and result in subpar performance, and on the flipside, that younger executives may be able to bring unique skills to the boardroom to help navigate a fast-changing corporate environment.

In addition to actively seeking younger directors, some companies have instituted mandatory retirement ages or term limits as a way to promote regular board refreshment and avoid any of the negative connotations surrounding stale, aging boards. For example, a majority of companies with retirement mandates say that no director can be reelected to the board after reaching either the age of 72 or 75.

READ MORE »

The Appointment of Senior Program Fellow Robert Jackson as SEC Commissioner

The U.S. Senate recently voted by unanimous consent to confirm Hester Peirce and Robert J. Jackson Jr. as SEC Commissioners (for a description of each commissioner’s background and experience, see their written statements submitted to the Senate committee, available here and here). The Forum congratulates both Commissioners and wishes them much success in their important work. The Forum is also pleased and honored to note Commissioner Jackson’s long-standing work for over a decade with the Harvard Law School Program on Corporate Governance and the Forum.

Jackson graduated from Harvard Law School in 2005. During his time as a student, Jackson worked at the Program on Corporate Governance and co-authored with Professor Lucian Bebchuk a study on Executive Pensions. The study documented the large amounts that CEOs of public companies were receiving in the forms of pensions that were not made transparent by then-existing disclosure rules. The Bebchuk-Jackson study (on which the authors also relied in a comment letter submitted to the SEC) contributed to the SEC’s 2006 reform of the rules governing disclosure of executive pensions.

After a year of clerking on the Second Circuit, Jackson returned to Harvard to work with Bebchuk as a postdoctoral fellow at the Program on Corporate Governance. During his postdoctoral fellowship, Jackson served as the Forum’s first editor during its initial and formative period. Interviewed for an article about the Forum’s anniversary in the Harvard Law School Bulletin, Jackson commented: “[Editing the Forum] gave me … an experience that convinced me that legal academia was the place for me…Ten years later, I still draw on those relationships and insights in my teaching and scholarship.”

Following his postdoctoral fellowship, Jackson practiced as an associate at Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz and then served as an adviser to senior officials at the Treasury Department during the financial crisis. He and Bebchuk advised Kenneth Feinberg in the Office of the Special Master for TARP Executive Compensation, helping to reform pay practices at firms like AIG and Citigroup. While at the Treasury, Jackson also helped produce the Obama Administration’s proposals and rulemaking on executive pay and corporate governance, including rules governing say on pay and compensation in financial institutions.

After the passage of Dodd-Frank, Jackson joined Columbia Law School and served on its faculty for six years until his confirmation as an SEC Commissioner. During this period, he continued to work with the Program, serving as a Senior Fellow, and to carry out joint research with Bebchuk. The Program issued five studies that Jackson co-authored with Bebchuk during this period—two articles on corporate political spending (Corporate Political Speech: Who Decides? and Shining Light on Corporate Political Spending), an article on the constitutional limits on the use of poison pills (Toward a Constitutional Review of the Poison Pill), and two articles on pre-disclosure stock accumulations by activist investors (The Law and Economics of Blockholder Disclosure, and, jointly with Alon Brav and Wei Jiang, Pre-Disclosure Accumulations by Activist Investors: Evidence and Policy).

In 2011, along with Bebchuk, Jackson co-chaired a bipartisan committee of academics urging the SEC to adopt rules requiring public companies to disclose to investors whether and how they spend shareholder money on politics. Their study Shining Light on Corporate Political Spending (discussed on the Forum here) subsequently put forward a comprehensive case for such disclosure. The petition has attracted more than 1.2 million comments urging the SEC to adopt such rules—more than any other petition in the SEC’s history—and a bipartisan group of three former SEC Commissioners wrote the SEC to explain that the petition’s proposal is a “slam dunk.” Jackson, together with Bebchuk, published a long series of posts on the Forum about the petition, including many posts responding to each of the objections to the petition opponents have raised (see the Forum posts here).

During his time as law professor, Jackson also founded a lab at Columbia Law School that used data-science techniques in the study of securities markets. In one study that has received considerable attention (How Quickly Do Markets Learn? Private Information Dissemination in a Natural Experiment), Jackson and co-authors Wei Jiang and Joshua Mitts identified and studied high-speed trading activity on SEC systems. In another study (How Does Legal Enforceability Affect Consumer Lending? Evidence from a Natural Experiment), Jackson and co-authors Colleen Honigsberg and Richard Squire carried out cutting-edge investigative work showing the effects of a surprising Second Circuit decision on the availability of consumer credit.

Reacting to Jackson’s confirmation, Program Director Bebchuk stated that “Rob Jackson will bring to the SEC a perfect blend of academic rigor, a keen understanding of the rich and complex texture of institutions, rules and markets, and a strong commitment to public service and the protection of investors.” The Forum wishes Jackson much success and looks forward to following his contributions to SEC work.

Top 10 Topics for Directors in 2018

Kerry E. Berchem and Christine B. LaFollette are partners at Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. This post is based on an Akin Gump publication by Ms. Berchem and Ms. LaFollette, Daniel F. FeldmanLauren Helen LeydenMichelle A. Reed and Lauren O’Brien as well as several other lawyers from across the firm in a variety of practices.

1. Cybersecurity threats.

Cybersecurity preparedness is essential in 2018 as the risk of, and associated adverse impact of, breaches continue to rise. The past year redefined the upward bounds of the megabreach, including the Yahoo!, Equifax and Uber hacks, and the SEC cyber-attack. As Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Co-Directors of Enforcement Stephanie Avakian and Steven Peikin warned, “The greatest threat to our markets right now is the cyber threat.” No crisis should go to waste. Boards should learn from others’ misfortunes and focus on governance, crisis management and recommended best practices relating to cyber issues.

2. Corporate social responsibility.

By embracing corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives, boards are able to proactively identify and address legal, financial, operational and reputational risks in a way that can increase the company value to all stakeholders-investors, shareholders, employees and consumers. Boards should invest in CSR programming as an integral element of company risk assessment and compliance programs, and should advocate public reporting of CSR initiatives. Such initiatives can serve as both differentiating and value-enhancing factors. According to recent studies, companies with strong CSR practices are less likely to suffer large price declines, and they tend to have better three- to five-year returns on equity, as well as a greater chance of long-term success.

READ MORE »

Opportunity Makes a Thief: Corporate Opportunities as Legal Transplant and Convergence in Corporate Law

Martin Gelter is professor of law at Fordham University School of Law and Genevieve Helleringer is associate professor of law at Oxford University and ESSEC Business School. This post is based on their recent article, forthcoming in the Berkeley Business Law Journal.

We have recently posted our forthcoming article, Opportunity Makes a Thief: Corporate Opportunities as Legal Transplant and Convergence in Corporate Law (forthcoming in the Berkeley Business Law Journal), on SSRN.

The article surveys the corporate opportunities doctrine in four jurisdictions: the US, the UK, Germany, and France. Our analysis enables us to trace the development of the doctrine, exposing the way in which certain models of dealing with a particular issue have arisen, and how these models have then spread. Fiduciary duties are often today held out as typical instruments of shareholder protection in the US and the UK, both of which are often held out as model jurisdictions in corporate governance internationally. However, fiduciary duties in these two jurisdictions often operate in strikingly different ways. While the US relies on an open-ended standard, the UK corporate opportunities doctrine effectively constitutes a rule. Rules and practices regarding the handling of directors’ personal interest in certain business opportunities encompass an economic as well as a moral dimension. Considering the differences in business ethics and corporate culture, it is no surprise that there is a large disparity in these rules and practices in different jurisdictions, especially considering clichéd distinctions between the common law and civil law worlds. The resulting balance may still differ from one jurisdiction to another, depending on the weight accorded to the duty of loyalty of directors.

READ MORE »

Page 85 of 86
1 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86