Does board independence influence asset redeployability? Evidence from a quasi-natural experiment

Purpose Exploiting an exogenous regulatory shock and a novel measure of asset redeployability, this paper aims to explore the effect of independent directors on asset redeployability. In particular, the authors use an innovative measure of asset redeployability recently developed by Kim and Kung (2016). This novel index has been rapidly adopted in recent literature. Design/methodology/approach Relying on a quasi-natural experiment, the authors execute a difference-in-difference analysis based on an exogenous regulatory shock to board independence. To mitigate endogeneity and demonstrate causation, the authors also perform propensity score matching, instrumental-variable analysis and Oster’s (2019) approach for testing coefficient stability. Findings The difference-in-difference estimates show that firms forced to raise board independence have significantly fewer redeployable assets after the shock than those not required to change board composition. This is consistent with the managerial myopia hypothesis. Subject to more intense monitoring, managers behave more myopically, focusing more on assets that are currently useful to the firm and less on redeployability in the future. Originality/value The study makes key contributions to the literature. First, the study is the first to examine the effect of board governance on asset redeployability. Second, the authors exploit an innovative index of asset redeployability that has been recently constructed in the literature. Third, by using a natural experiment, the results are much more likely to reflect causality than merely an association.

Financial Reporting Discretion, Managerial Myopia, and Investment Efficiency

We explicitly model financial reporting discretion and earnings management in an investment setting where managers have incentives to behave myopically. We show that, when managers are sufficiently but not excessively myopic, granting them some discretion over the mandatory financial reports can lead to better investment decisions. This finding contrasts with the conventional argument that financial reporting discretion facilitates earnings management and exacerbates managerial myopia, leading to inefficient investments. Costly earnings management, while offering managers some ex post protection against bad luck by decreasing the incidence of low financial reports, reduces the expected net benefit of high financial reports ex-ante. Consequently, managers with negative private information find it too costly to mimic those with positive private information, facilitating separation of managers through efficient investment. Thus, curbing managerial myopia by removing or overly restricting earnings management may have the unintended consequence of impairing investment efficiency.

The relationship between managerial attributes and firm risk-taking

PurposeThe main objective of the paper is to examine the relationship between managerial attributes (e.g. managerial entrenchment, managerial myopia and managerial overconfidence) and firm risk-taking on the Tehran Stock Exchange (TSE).Design/methodology/approachThe study’s sample comprises 150 companies listed on the TSE from 2011 to 2017. Risk-taking is calculated as the standard deviation (SD) of stock return. Explanatory factor analysis was performed to calculate the weight of each of the five variables managerial ownership, board independence, chief executive officer (CEO) tenure, board compensation and CEO duality as a proxy for managerial entrenchment. The study by Anderson and Hsiao (1982) was also used to calculate managerial myopia, and the study by Schrand and Zechman (2012) was used to calculate managerial overconfidence.FindingsThe results indicate that the effect of managerial entrenchment and managerial myopia on risk-taking of listed firms on the TSE is positive and significant, implying that an increase in CEO entrenchment is likely to give rise to risk-taking. The authors conjecture that this finding could be due to the investment projects impairing the firm performance in the long run. Furthermore, the effect of managerial overconfidence on listed firms' risk-taking on the TSE is significantly negative. Since overconfidence is one of the traits of narcissism and corporate managers tend to be encouraged and admired, it is implied that they tend to make efficient and low-risk investments that ultimately reduce the firm risk-taking.Originality/valueSeveral theoretical studies show that managerial behavior is a determining factor in the economy. One of the reasons which justify the originality of this study is the context and institutional environment. Undoubtedly, managerial behavior (e.g. managerial entrenchment, managerial myopia and managerial overconfidence) is expected to have some significant variations in developing countries compared to prevailing in developed countries, particularly in the Iranian stock market the economic sanctions. Furthermore, due to the direct impact of individuals' psychological and behavioral characteristics on their decisions and the effect of companies' risk-taking on increasing and decreasing shareholders and companies' wealth, this research is essential. Given the function of designed behavioral criteria for assessing risk-taking behaviors, the relationship between managerial attributes and firms' risk-taking is still unclear and investigated in this study.

Foreign Institutional Ownership and R&D Activities: Evidence from High-tech French Firms

Foreign institutional investors hold over one-fifth of the total market value of the French stock market. Thus, it is important to analyse their influence on corporate investment decisions. This study investigates the impact of foreign institutional ownership on R&D activities. We examine whether these investors enhance or impede R&D investment intensity. Dynamic panel data analysis is applied to a sample of listed French high-tech firms over the period 2008–2014. Our results show that foreign institutional ownership encourages R&D investment while domestic institutional ownership dampens it. Foreign institutional ownership can act as a monitoring mechanism that reduces managerial myopia and encourages long-term and risky investment to enhance firm value.