Title: Do%20Independent%20Directors%20Matter?
1 Board Independence and Long-Term Performance
Sanjai Bhagat University of Colorado, Boulder
Bernard Black Stanford Law School Also,
please see the articles in New York Times,
Chief Executive and CFO in Media Clippings
in the home-page http//bus.colorado.edu/faculty/
bhagat
2Conventional Wisdom
- Large Company Boards should consist mostly of
independent directors. - Institutional shareholders can improve corporate
governance by strengthening independence of
corporate boards. - The Question
Will greater board independence produce better
corporate performance?
3This Study First Large-Scale, Long-Time-Horizon
analysis of affect of independent directors on
corporate performance.
- Stock price and accounting performance during
1985 - 1995 for 950 large U.S. firms.
4Prior Research (1)
- Direct studies of corporate performance and board
structure. - Conflicting results Due to different
performance measures. - None of the prior studies use multiple
performance measures.
5Prior Research (2)
- Board Structure, CEO Replacement, Takeover Bids,
and Poison Pills - Economic effect is quite small.
- Ignores advisory role of boards on usual business
activities.
6Prior Research (3)
- Share Ownership Firm Performance
- Increase in inside stock ownership correlates
with improved performance up to 5 -10 ownership.
- Firms with high inside ownership have less
outside directors. - Hence, important to control for ownership by
insiders and outside blockholders.
7Research Design
- Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS) Board
composition of 957 large U.S. public
corporations Data on inside, affiliated outside,
and independent directors from proxy statements
mailed in early 1991, and 1988. - CRSP Stock returns during 1985 -1995.
- Compustat Accounting data during 1985 -1995.
- Share ownership data from 1991 and 1988 proxy
statements.
8Potential Weakness of Our Research Design
- Survivorship Bias Entry into and exit from
sample during sample period (1985 -1995). - For stock price performance measures, measurement
periods that end/begin/include early 1991 should
be free from above source of bias. - Prospective period of study (1991-1995) No
correlation between survival and board structure.
9Definitions
- Inside directors Directors who are also officers
(CEO, CFO) of the company. - Affiliated directors Directors who have a
significant business relationship with the
company. - Independent directors Not officers and have no
significant business relationship. - DIFF (Fraction of Independent Directors) minus
(Fraction of Inside Directors) - Why DIFF is an appropriate measure of board
independence? Proponents of independent
directors argue that inside directors should be
replaced by independent directors.
10Sample Characteristics
- Table 1 Median firm has 11 board members 7
independent directors, 1 affiliated outsider, 3
insiders (typically including CEO and CFO). - 70 of sample firms have majority-independent
boards (DIFF gt 0). - 6 of sample firms have majority-inside boards.
11Accounting Performance Measures and Board
Structure
- Ratio variables (Table 2)
- Tobins Q (market value of assets/ replacement
value of assets), - Operating Income to Sales,
- Operating Income to Assets,
- Sales to Assets
- Sales to Employees.
12- Equation 5.1 firm performance f1 (INDEP,
CEO ownership, board size, outside director
ownership, no. of outside 5 holders, log(firm
size), industry performance control) - Equation 5.2 INDEP f2 (firm performance,
CEO ownership, outside director ownership, no. of
outside 5 holders, log(firm size)) - Equation 5.3 CEO Ownership f3 (firm
performance, outside director ownership, log(firm
size))
13- Table 5 Simultaneous Equations (3SLS)
Instrumental Variables Estimates - Simultaneous equations (three stage least
squares) regression results for various
performance variables on board independence and
stock ownership for 928 large U.S. public
companies for 1988-1990 and 1991-1993. The
instrumental variables, system of equations, and
performance variables Q, OPI/AST, MAR, and
SAL/AST are defined in the text. - Q 88-90 means average Q during 1988-1990.
- Q 91-93 means average Q during 1991-1993.
- Board and stock ownership variables are based on
early 1991 data. - Industry control for each regression is the mean
of the dependent variable for that regression for
each firm's industry group 302 industry groups
are constructed on the basis of 4-digit SIC codes
from Compustat. t-statistics are in parentheses.
14(No Transcript)
15(No Transcript)
16Bottom Line Poorer performing firms move towards
a board that consists of a greater proportion of
independent directors.However, the performance
of these firms does not necessarily
improve.Study underscores the importance of
using a broad range of variables to measure firm
performance.
17Stock Market Performance Variables and Board
Structure
- If markets are (semi-strong form) efficient, then
impact of board independence on share price would
occur at the time the independent board is first
elected. - Measurement problems in measuring stock market
based performance measures for long (several
years) horizons. - Negative correlation between board independence
and prior stock market performance. Subsequent
stock market performance is not statistically
significant.
18- Results persist after controlling for
- Board size,
- Firm size,
- Stock ownership by CEO,
- Stock ownership by inside directors,
- Stock ownership by independent directors,
- Number and size of outside 5 blockholders.
- Results persist in robust regressions.
19Why increased board independence may not pay off
in improved performance.
- The Case for Inside Directors
- Including insiders on the board may make it
easier for other directors to evaluate them as
potential CEOs. - Insiders may be better at making strategic
investment decisions. (Some evidence that inside
director representation on investment committees
improves firm performance.) - But, senior managers could be invited to board
meetings even if they are not board members. - However, interaction between senior managers
(other than CEO) and other directors may be
different if the managers have seats on the
board, are expected to attend every meeting, must
vote, and are expected to participate in
discussions, than if they attend at the CEOs
pleasure.
20Why increased board independence may not pay off
in improved performance.
- The Case for Inside Directors
- Tradeoff between independence and other
essentials to good decisions. - Inside directors are conflicted, but well
informed. - Independent directors are not conflicted, but are
relatively ignorant about the company. - Tradeoff between independence and incentives.
- Independent directors usually own trivial amounts
of the companys shares. - Inside directors have their human capital (and
substantial financial capital) committed to their
company.
21A case for a modified version of the conventional
wisdom that favors highly independent boards.
- Incentivize independent directors through stock
and stock-option ownership. (Bhagat-Carey-Elson
(1999) - Institutional investors may need to put their own
representatives on boards. (Legal restrictions.) - Todays independent directors are not
independent enough. (Board members that may be
employed by a university or foundation that
receives financial support from the company.) - Require directors to disclose any
(social/professional/business) relationship (past
or present) with the CEO.
22- Heterogeneity among independent directors. Some
types of independent directors are valuable,
while others are not. - CEOs of companies in other industries may be too
busy with their own companies. - Visibility directors - well-known persons with
limited business experience, often holding
multiple directorships and adding gender/racial
diversity are not effective, on average. - Hence pushing boards for greater independence may
be fruitless or even counterproductive, unless
independent directors have particular attributes,
which are currently unknown.