No abstract

Using the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) as an exogenous shock to board structure, we identify internal monitoring via board independence and estimate its impact on corporate debt maturity. We introduce a triple difference-indifference approach. Additionally, we use a simultaneous equations model and address that decisions about leverage and debt maturity are simultaneous. We also incorporate new debt issuance in the model to ensure the causality in the relation is from internal monitoring towards the maturity of new debt. The findings provide support for agency theory. As board independence increases, internal monitoring becomes stronger, and good governance substitutes for external control over managers through short-term debt. Subsequently, firms have more long-maturity debt. The results are robust to controlling for other internal monitoring mechanisms, CEO characteristics, financial constraints, cash, bond ratings, yield, and debt seniority. The impact of increased board independence on debt maturity is more significant for conglomerates and cases where there is a greater need for internal control over managers, such as CEO duality, high GIM index, straight debt, less strict covenants, high intangibility, high free cash flow, no majority blockholders, high discretionary accruals, or high real earnings management. In further analyses, we rule out the concern that our results are due to better reporting of internal controls through SOX Section 404 or an increase in auditors' liability after SOX, rather than increased board independence.

No abstract

I examine the influence of large and small institutional investors on different components of chief executive officer (CEO) compensation, using US data for 2006–2015. An increase in large institutional ownership reduces total pay and current incentive compensation (i.e., options, stocks, bonus pay), whereas small institutional investors lower long‐term incentive pay (i.e., pension, deferred pay, stock incentive pay). These findings are consistent with managerial agency theory and the substitution of incentive pay by institutional monitoring. The effects are stronger for higher ownership levels and firms with weak governance, less financial distress, long‐tenured CEOs, multiple segments, and more free cash flow.

I propose an explanation for investment decisions by socially responsible investment funds (SRI) on the firms with higher corporate social responsibility (CSR). Different from the previous literature, I use a unique and comprehensive measure that considers both firm CSR ratings and fund CSR perception. I show SRI mutual funds increase their ownership about 15 % for one unit increase in the firm CSR score when those funds are highly sensitive to CSR. This finding is more pronounced for employee relations and society areas of CSR. The results also hold for a broader range of mutual funds. While industry concentration does not have influence on the fund investment, SRI funds particularly choose socially responsible firms operating in construction, transportation, personal services, and financial sector. I show the funds with CSR sensitivity underperform the market in general and fail to improve their portfolio performance after they invest in the firms with high CSR. Keywords Socially responsible investment Á Corporate social responsibility Á Employee relations Á Dual measure Á Portfolio performance JEL Classification G30 Á G11 Á M14 Á C33 Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (