Search results

The purpose of this paper is to examine the relationship between the strength of corporate governance and the value of firm-level investment policies following the passage of the Sarbanes–Oxley (SOX) Act of 2002 and the associated changes to the listing requirements of major stock exchanges. In particular the authors seek to examine potential changes in the market’s assessed value of capital expenditures after the passage of the SOX Act relative to before.

The authors employ a difference-in-difference methodology, centred on the year of the passage of the SOX Act to test for the role of governance on the marginal value of capital expenditures. Excess stock returns are calculated by subtracting Fama and French (1993) size and book-to-market portfolio value-weighted returns from the firms’ annual stock returns. Each firm is grouped into one of 25 size and book-to-market portfolios for each year in the sample, with size and the book-to-market ratio proxying for sensitivity to common risk factors in stock returns (Fama and French, 1993).

The authors find that markets responded to the change in governance brought about by the new regulation by altering the value of firm-level capital expenditures in a way that is generally consistent with predictions of agency theory. While the overall findings imply a reduction in agency conflicts post-SOX, there is some evidence that certain firms may have suffered excessive costs of compliance, while still others saw managers become excessively risk averse.

The study has implications related to the efficacy of legislation. Cross-sectional variation in the effect of SOX on the marginal value of capital expenditures suggests that one-size-fits-all legislative approach can have both expected as well as unintended consequences. The study limits its analysis to examining the impact of three significant provisions of the Act. While, the value implications of the Act are largely captured by the selected three, a more comprehensive study could expand on the set of provisions studies to obtain a more granular level impact.

This research should add to the growing body of the literature examining the effect of SOX on firms’ real activities and decisions, as well as contribute to the debate on whether the Act was beneficial or costly to firms. With particular reference to the impact of capital expenditure on firm value, the research contributes to the sparse literature examining the contribution of capital expenditures to firm value and the role that agency conflicts play in this relationship. Additionally, this research adds to the growing body of the literature that examines the costs and benefits of the sweeping new regulations brought on by the adoption of SOX.

Given the importance of investment policy for economic productivity and growth, the insights provided by findings in this research should benefit lawmakers both within the USA as well as in countries where corporate misconduct and fraud is a concern.

This is the first study that examines the impact of the SOX Act on the way capital markets value firm-level investment in capital expenditures. Since use of corporate resources by managers is fraught with agency conflicts, the role of SOX in potentially alleviating this conflict as revealed by the tests in this study are very valuable.

This study examines the underlying factors which influence and cross-sectionally explain differences in the degree of dividend smoothing of firms. Differences in corporate dividend smoothing are documented by estimating the sensitivity of corporations' dividend payout ratios to changes in earnings. Theoretical determinants of dividend smoothing are investigated by cross-sectionally regressing the degree of dividend smoothing of firms against firm characteristics. The results show that riskier firms and smaller firms are more likely to smooth dividends. The empirical relationship between dividend smoothing and firm characteristics is much more significant for high growth firms, and varies considerably amongst sub-groups of the data that differ with respect to firm risk.

We examine whether the curvilinear relationship between directors’ equity ownership and firm performance exists in a non-Western economy such as Singapore. We find that it does, although the inflection points are much higher than that generally cited for U.S. firms. We then compare this relationship across two kinds of firms that are not common to the U.S. marketplace. We observe for founder-controlled firms that the impact of director ownership is insignificant. We also examine government-linked corporations and in spite of the presence of a government blockholder, find that the pattern of alignment, entrenchment and then alignment remains operative.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the relationship between CEOs' inside debt holdings (pension benefits and deferred compensation) and the operating leverage of the firms they manage, with the aim to examine whether CEO incentives play a role in corporate risk-taking.

The authors investigate the relation between CEO inside debt holdings (CIDH) (pension benefits and deferred compensation) and the operating leverage (DOL) of the firms they manage. Using a sample of 11,145 US firm-year observations over the period 2006–2017, the authors find a strong negative association between CIDH and DOL. Additional analyses reveal that the relationship between CIDH and DOL is more pronounced in firms with heightened agency issues, powerful CEOs and for CEOs with stronger professional networks. The results are robust to various sensitivity and endogeneity tests.

The authors find strong evidence confirming the expected negative association between CEO inside debt and DOL suggesting that firms with higher inside debt tend to maintain lower levels of operating leverage. These findings continue to hold with the alternative measure for the inside debt and operating leverage, and across a range of tests designed to rule out the possibility that the primary findings are in any way driven by potential endogeneity. In addition, the findings demonstrate that the presence of manager-shareholder agency conflicts can strengthen the inside debt–DOL relationship suggesting the strong role of inside debt in reducing firm risk.

Findings in this paper have implications for design of compensation structures so that corporate boards can establish incentives as a tool for risk management. A limitation of this study is that it is focused on one market, i.e. US listed companies, so the findings may not be applicable on a global scale.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study that links firm-level management of operating leverage through design of CEO inside debt incentives (two obvious choices for risk-reduction at the CEOs’ disposal include reducing financial risk through reduction of firm leverage and reducing operating risk through reduction of operating leverage). While use of firm leverage as an instrument of choice has been explored in the past, use of operating leverage to achieve risk reduction when CEO possess high inside holding, has received very little attention.