Commitment and entrenchment in corporate governance

K. J.Martijn Cremers, Saura Masconale, Simone Maria Sepe

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

7 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Over the past twenty years, a growing number of empirical studies have provided evidence that governance arrangements protecting incumbents from removal promote managerial entrenchment, reducing firm value. As a result of these studies, “good” corporate governance is widely understood today as being about stronger shareholder rights. This Article rebuts this view, presenting new empirical evidence that challenges the results of prior studies and developing a novel theoretical account of what really matters in corporate governance. Employing a unique dataset that spans from 1978 to 2008, we document that protective arrangements that require shareholder approval-such as staggered boards and supermajority requirements to modify the charter-are associated with increased firm value. Conversely, protective arrangements that do not require shareholder approval-such as poison pills and golden parachutes-are associated with decreased firm value. This evidence suggests that limiting shareholder rights serves a constructive governance function as long as the limits are the result of mutual agreement between the board and shareholders. This function commits shareholders to preserve a board’s authority to exploit competitive private information and pursue long-term wealth maximization strategies. By documenting that committing shareholders to the longer term matters as much as, if not more than, reducing entrenchment for good corporate governance, our analysis sheds much needed light on the allocation of power between boards and shareholders, managerial accountability, and stakeholder interests. We conclude by outlining the implications of our analysis concerning the direction corporate governance policies ought to take.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)727-810
Number of pages84
JournalNorthwestern University Law Review
Volume110
Issue number4
StatePublished - 2016

Fingerprint

shareholder
corporate governance
commitment
firm
governance
evidence
Values
charter
stakeholder
responsibility

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Law

Cite this

Commitment and entrenchment in corporate governance. / Cremers, K. J.Martijn; Masconale, Saura; Sepe, Simone Maria.

In: Northwestern University Law Review, Vol. 110, No. 4, 2016, p. 727-810.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Cremers, KJM, Masconale, S & Sepe, SM 2016, 'Commitment and entrenchment in corporate governance', Northwestern University Law Review, vol. 110, no. 4, pp. 727-810.
Cremers, K. J.Martijn ; Masconale, Saura ; Sepe, Simone Maria. / Commitment and entrenchment in corporate governance. In: Northwestern University Law Review. 2016 ; Vol. 110, No. 4. pp. 727-810.
@article{efb18a1dcd714bf1b4c79355f0ea1bc1,
title = "Commitment and entrenchment in corporate governance",
abstract = "Over the past twenty years, a growing number of empirical studies have provided evidence that governance arrangements protecting incumbents from removal promote managerial entrenchment, reducing firm value. As a result of these studies, “good” corporate governance is widely understood today as being about stronger shareholder rights. This Article rebuts this view, presenting new empirical evidence that challenges the results of prior studies and developing a novel theoretical account of what really matters in corporate governance. Employing a unique dataset that spans from 1978 to 2008, we document that protective arrangements that require shareholder approval-such as staggered boards and supermajority requirements to modify the charter-are associated with increased firm value. Conversely, protective arrangements that do not require shareholder approval-such as poison pills and golden parachutes-are associated with decreased firm value. This evidence suggests that limiting shareholder rights serves a constructive governance function as long as the limits are the result of mutual agreement between the board and shareholders. This function commits shareholders to preserve a board’s authority to exploit competitive private information and pursue long-term wealth maximization strategies. By documenting that committing shareholders to the longer term matters as much as, if not more than, reducing entrenchment for good corporate governance, our analysis sheds much needed light on the allocation of power between boards and shareholders, managerial accountability, and stakeholder interests. We conclude by outlining the implications of our analysis concerning the direction corporate governance policies ought to take.",
author = "Cremers, {K. J.Martijn} and Saura Masconale and Sepe, {Simone Maria}",
year = "2016",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "110",
pages = "727--810",
journal = "Northwestern University Law Review",
issn = "0029-3571",
publisher = "University of Illinois Press",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Commitment and entrenchment in corporate governance

AU - Cremers, K. J.Martijn

AU - Masconale, Saura

AU - Sepe, Simone Maria

PY - 2016

Y1 - 2016

N2 - Over the past twenty years, a growing number of empirical studies have provided evidence that governance arrangements protecting incumbents from removal promote managerial entrenchment, reducing firm value. As a result of these studies, “good” corporate governance is widely understood today as being about stronger shareholder rights. This Article rebuts this view, presenting new empirical evidence that challenges the results of prior studies and developing a novel theoretical account of what really matters in corporate governance. Employing a unique dataset that spans from 1978 to 2008, we document that protective arrangements that require shareholder approval-such as staggered boards and supermajority requirements to modify the charter-are associated with increased firm value. Conversely, protective arrangements that do not require shareholder approval-such as poison pills and golden parachutes-are associated with decreased firm value. This evidence suggests that limiting shareholder rights serves a constructive governance function as long as the limits are the result of mutual agreement between the board and shareholders. This function commits shareholders to preserve a board’s authority to exploit competitive private information and pursue long-term wealth maximization strategies. By documenting that committing shareholders to the longer term matters as much as, if not more than, reducing entrenchment for good corporate governance, our analysis sheds much needed light on the allocation of power between boards and shareholders, managerial accountability, and stakeholder interests. We conclude by outlining the implications of our analysis concerning the direction corporate governance policies ought to take.

AB - Over the past twenty years, a growing number of empirical studies have provided evidence that governance arrangements protecting incumbents from removal promote managerial entrenchment, reducing firm value. As a result of these studies, “good” corporate governance is widely understood today as being about stronger shareholder rights. This Article rebuts this view, presenting new empirical evidence that challenges the results of prior studies and developing a novel theoretical account of what really matters in corporate governance. Employing a unique dataset that spans from 1978 to 2008, we document that protective arrangements that require shareholder approval-such as staggered boards and supermajority requirements to modify the charter-are associated with increased firm value. Conversely, protective arrangements that do not require shareholder approval-such as poison pills and golden parachutes-are associated with decreased firm value. This evidence suggests that limiting shareholder rights serves a constructive governance function as long as the limits are the result of mutual agreement between the board and shareholders. This function commits shareholders to preserve a board’s authority to exploit competitive private information and pursue long-term wealth maximization strategies. By documenting that committing shareholders to the longer term matters as much as, if not more than, reducing entrenchment for good corporate governance, our analysis sheds much needed light on the allocation of power between boards and shareholders, managerial accountability, and stakeholder interests. We conclude by outlining the implications of our analysis concerning the direction corporate governance policies ought to take.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84976334200&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84976334200&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84976334200

VL - 110

SP - 727

EP - 810

JO - Northwestern University Law Review

JF - Northwestern University Law Review

SN - 0029-3571

IS - 4

ER -