Posts from: Henrik Cronqvist


Shaped by Their Daughters: Executives, Female Socialization, and Corporate Social Responsibility

Henrik Cronqvist is Professor of Finance at University of Miami and Frank Yu is Associate Professor of Finance at China Europe International Business School (CEIBS). This post is based on their recent article, forthcoming in the Journal of Financial Economics.

“You’ve already given us a reason to reflect on the world we hope you live in.”
—Facebook’s CEO Mark Zuckerberg in “A letter to our daughter.”

Research in social science has recently demonstrated the importance of the family environment for an individual’s behavior. For example, parents may impact their children by instilling certain values in them. Some emerging work has suggested that the opposite may also be important: Children may shape their parents. In this article, we examine whether one category of top decision-makers, namely corporate executives managing some of the largest public companies in the U.S., is systematically affected by their family environment, in particular by parenting a daughter. Evidence for such a female socialization hypothesis has recently been reported for other categories of top decision-makers, including congress members and federal judges in the U.S., so our study expands this hypothesis into research in financial economics related to corporate executives.

READ MORE »

Corporate Governance and the Creation of the SEC

The following post comes to us from Arevik Avedian of Harvard Law School; Henrik Cronqvist, Professor of Finance from China Europe International Business School (CEIBS); and Marc Weidenmier, Professor of Economics at Claremont Colleges.

Severe turmoil in financial markets—whether the Panic of 1826, the Wall Street Crash of 1929, or the Global Financial Crisis of 2008—often raises significant concerns about the effectiveness of pre-existing securities market regulation. In turn, such concerns tend to result in calls for more and stricter government regulation of corporations and financial markets. It is widely considered that the most significant change to U.S. financial regulation in the past 100 years was the Securities Act of 1933 and the subsequent creation of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to enforce it. Before the SEC creation, federal securities market regulation was essentially absent in the U.S. In our paper, Corporate Governance and the Creation of the SEC, which was recently made publicly available on SSRN, we examine how companies listing in the U.S. responded to this significant increase in the provision of government-sponsored corporate governance. Specifically, did this landmark legislation have any significant effects on board governance (e.g., the independence of boards) and firm valuations?

READ MORE »

CEO Contract Design: How Do Strong Principals Do It?

The following post comes to us from Henrik Cronqvist, Associate Professor of Finance at Claremont McKenna College and Rüdiger Fahlenbrach, Associate Professor of Finance at the Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne (EPFL) and affiliated with the Swiss Finance Institute.

In our paper, CEO Contract Design: How Do Strong Principals Do It?, forthcoming in the Journal of Financial Economics, we contribute a new perspective on executive compensation research by studying changes to CEO employment contracts implemented by some of the most sophisticated and financially savvy principals in U.S. capital markets: private equity sponsors. If the changes in a firm’s governance structure following a leveraged buyout (LBO) allow for arm’s-length bargaining between private equity (PE) sponsors, as ‘‘strong principals,’’ and the CEOs of the portfolio companies as their agents, we may observe changes to contract features of importance to the private equity sponsors.

Our objective in this paper is to answer three questions. First, do the strong principals redesign CEO contracts? If they do, which contract features do they change? We examine a comprehensive set of features of CEO contracts in addition to cash pay, such as perquisites, equity incentives, vesting conditions, and severance pay. Second, how do the CEO contracts designed by PE sponsors square with contracting theories? Finally, do the CEO contracts we study avoid some of the most criticized compensation practices in U.S. public firms? Regulators and shareholder interest groups should be interested in whether their proposals differ markedly from contracts where a shareholder with significant ownership and financial expertise bargains with a CEO.

READ MORE »

Estimating the Effects of Large Shareholders Using a Geographic Instrument

This post comes to us from Bo Becker, Assistant Professor of Finance at Harvard Business School; Henrik Cronqvist, McMahon Family Chair in Corporate Finance, George R. Roberts Fellow, and Associate Professor of Financial Economics at Claremont McKenna College; and Rüdiger Fahlenbrach, Swiss Finance Institute Professor at Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne.

In our paper, Estimating the Effects of Large Shareholders Using a Geographic Instrument, forthcoming in the Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, we develop and test a new instrumental variable framework which allows us to separate selection effects from treatment effects for a large group of blockholders and to quantify their impact on several aspects of firm behavior. We start by documenting that non-managerial individual shareholders hold blocks in firms that are headquartered close to where they live. We then use this empirical fact to create an instrumental variable (the geographic variation in the density of wealthy individuals) for the presence of a large shareholder in a publicly traded U.S. firm. This instrument predicts the presence of a block in a firm with surprising power, and it is robust to the inclusion of variables that vary geographically, reducing concerns about its validity.

READ MORE »

Large Shareholders and Corporate Policies

This post comes from Henrik Cronqvist at Claremont McKenna College and Rüdiger Fahlenbrach at The Ohio State University.

In our paper, Large Shareholders and Corporate Policies, which was recently accepted for publication in the Review of Financial Studies, we investigate whether large shareholders play an important role for corporate policy choices and firm performance. We argue that one explanation for the lack of large-sample evidence of blockholder effects is that large shareholders differ from each other, and existing empirical frameworks do not incorporate blockholder heterogeneity into an economic analysis of large shareholders. To account for this heterogeneity, we develop an empirical framework and to construct a new blockholder-firm panel data set that can be used to analyze the economic effects of blockholder heterogeneity. The novel feature of our data set is that it allows us to identify and track all unique large shareholders among large U.S. public firms − in essence the Standard and Poor’s (S&P) 1,500 universe − from 1996 to 2001. This data set allows us to take the analysis of large shareholders to the smallest possible economic unit: the individual blockholder. Our empirical approach involves running panel regressions in which corporate policy and firm performance variables are regressed on year and firm fixed effects as well as time-varying firm-level characteristics to control for observable and unobservable firm heterogeneity, and most importantly, blockholder fixed effects.

We find statistically significant and economically important blockholder fixed effects in investment, financial, and executive compensation policies. This evidence suggests that blockholders vary in their beliefs, skills, or preferences. Different large shareholders have distinct investment and governance styles: they differ in their approaches to corporate investment and growth, their appetites for financial leverage, and their attitudes towards CEO pay. Given the evidence on blockholder heterogeneity and corporate policies, we ask whether firm performance is systematically related to the particular large shareholder present in a firm. We find blockholder fixed effects in firm performance measures, and differences in style are systematically related to firm performance differences. a blockholder in the 75th (25th) percentile is associated with 4% (3%) higher (lower) return on assets (ROA), all else equal, which are large effects given that the average ROA is around 5% in our sample.

The documented blockholder effects in firm policies could be consistent with either an influence explanation, in the sense that large shareholders impact policies, or a selection interpretation, in that blockholders systematically select firms in which they invest major stakes based on a preference for certain policies. Our evidence is more consistent with influence for activist, pension fund, corporate, individual and private equity blockholders, but more consistent with systematic selection for large mutual fund shareholders. Finally, we analyze sources of the heterogeneity, and find that blockholders with a larger block size, board membership, direct management involvement as officers, or with a single decision maker are associated with larger effects on corporate policies and firm performance.

The full paper is available for download here.

  • Subscribe or Follow

  • Supported By:

  • Program on Corporate Governance Advisory Board

  • Programs Faculty & Senior Fellows