Renee B. Adams

Is Corporate Governance Different for Bank Holding Companies

1. INTRODUCTION In the wake of the recent corporate scandals, corporate governance practices have received heightened attention. Shareholders, creditors, regulators, and academics are examining the decision-making process in corporations and other organizations and are proposing changes in governance structures to enhance accountability and efficiency. To the extent that these proposals are based on academic research, they generally draw upon a large body of studies on the governance of firms in unregulated, non financial industries. Financial institutions, however, are very different from firms in unregulated industries, such as manufacturing firms. Thus, the question arises as to whether these proposals and reforms can also be effective at enhancing the governance of financial institutions, and, in particular, banking firms. The question is a difficult one to answer, though, given the little research on the governance of banking firms. Therefore, in order to evaluate reforms to the governance structures of banking firms, it is important to understand current governance practices as well as how governance differs between banking and unregulated firms. Otherwise, governance proposals cannot be fine-tuned. Significantly, uniformly designed proposals that do not take into account industry differences at the very least may be ineffective in improving the governance of financial institutions, and at worst may have unintended negative consequences. Accordingly, this article examines corporate governance in banking firms. In particular, we study corporate governance variables identified as relevant by academics and practitioners and describe their differences and similarities vis-a-vis banking firms and manufacturing firms. Because public information on governance characteristics is generally available only for publicly traded bank holding companies (BHCs), we examine the governance of BHCs and not banks. We also discuss the effect of regulation--such as supervisory and regulatory requirements at the state and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) levels--prior to 2000 on banking firm behavior. Many typical external governance mechanisms, such as the threat of hostile takeovers in the industry, are absent in the case of banking firms; therefore, we focus primarily on internal governance structures and shareholder block ownership. Our goal is to provide useful information and a road map for thinking about the governance of financial institutions, in terms of reform as well as research. We discuss the potential benefits and costs associated with some of the corporate governance variables for an average firm. However, we stress that all of these variables are ultimately part of a simultaneous system that determines the corporations value and the allocation of such value among claimants. Also, different governance mechanisms may be substitutes for one another. For example, certain executive pay packages can vary across firms, even in the same business environment, for good reason. Firms with more effective boards may have more equity-based CEO compensation in their structure, while firms with greater CEO ownership may have more cash compensation (Mehran 1995). Thus, the quality of governance of any organization must he evaluated along a number of dimensions. Our sample consists of thirty-five bank holding companies over the 1986-96 period. For these BHCs, we construct governance variables or proxies that have received attention by researchers in law, economics, organization, and management who argue that the variables are correlated with governance practices. We also compare variables in our sample with those for manufacturing firms compiled in other studies. Our comparison of BHCs and manufacturing firms yields several key findings. First, BHC board size (18.2 members versus 12.1 members) and the percentage of outside directors (68.7 percent versus 60.6 percent) are significantly larger on average. …

Corporate Performance, Board Structure, and Their Determinants in the Banking Industry

The subprime crisis highlights how little we know about the governance of banks. This paper addresses a long-standing gap in the literature by analyzing board governance using a sample of banking firm data that spans forty years. We examine the relationship between board structure (size and composition) and bank performance, as well as some determinants of board structure. We document that mergers and acquisitions activity influences bank board composition, and we provide new evidence that organizational structure is significantly related to bank board size. We argue that these factors may explain why banking firms with larger boards do not underperform their peers in terms of Tobins Q. Our findings suggest caution in applying regulations motivated by research on the governance of nonfinancial firms to banking firms. Since organizational structure is not specific to banks, our results suggest that it may be an important determinant for the boards of nonfinancial firms with complex organizational structures such as business groups.

Governance and the Financial Crisis: Governance and the Financial Crisis

Should boards of financial firms be blamed for the financial crisis? Using a large sample of data on nonfinancial and financial firms for the period 1996–2007, I document that the governance of financial firms is, on average, not obviously worse than in nonfinancial firms. In fact, using simple governance scores and governance indices as measures, banks and nonbank financial firms generally appear to be better governed than nonfinancial firms. I also document that bank directors earned significantly less compensation than their counterparts in nonfinancial firms and banks receiving bailout money had boards that were more independent than in other banks. My results suggest that measures of governance that have been the focus of recent governance policies are insufficient to describe governance failures attributed to financial firms. Moreover, recent governance reforms may have to shoulder some of the blame placed on boards of financial firms.

What do Boards do? Evidence from Board Committee and Director Compensation Data

This paper uses data on 1542 board committees and director compensation in a sample of 352 Fortune 500 companies in 1998 to analyze variation in board behavior. I use this data to quantify the amount of effort boards devote to their three different functions: monitoring, dealing with strategic issues and considering the interests of stakeholders. I show that boards appear to take their traditional oversight role seriously, since on average boards devote effort primarily to monitoring. However, there is a fair amount of variation across firms in the amount of effort boards devote to their different functions. In particular boards of larger firms and firms that face more uncertainty devote relatively less effort to monitoring, while boards of diversified firms devote relatively more effort to monitoring. Boards of larger, growing and older firms devote more effort to stakeholder interests on both an absolute and a relative basis. Finally, boards of growing firms devote relatively more effort to strategic issues.

Regulatory Pressure and Bank Directors' Incentives to Attend Board Meetings

The primary way in which directors obtain necessary information is by attending board meetings. Bank directors, in particular, are strongly urged to attend meetings by regulators. We investigate whether such pressure is sufficient for bank directors to have good attendance records. Using data on whether directors were named in proxy statements as attending fewer meetings than they were supposed to, we find that (1) bank directors appear to have worse attendance records than their counterparts in nonfinancial firms, (2) their attendance behavior is related to explicit and implicit incentives for attendance, and (3) past attendance records are not related to the likelihood a director departs the board. Our results suggest that explicit and implicit incentives may provide important complements to regulatory pressure in influencing director behavior.

Does Gender Matter in the Boardroom? Evidence from the Market Reaction to Mandatory New Director Announcements

Around the world, policy makers are mandating gender quotas for boards of publicly-traded firms. Since the benefits and costs of these quotas accrue to shareholders, it is important to see how they react to the appointment of female directors. Using data on mandatory announcements of new director appointments, we find that the gender of directors appears to be value-relevant. On average, shareholders value additions of female directors more than they value additions of male directors. Firms with workplace practices in place to promote workplace equality appear to benefit the most from boardroom gender diversity. This suggests that appointing female directors may help resolve value-decreasing stakeholder conflicts.

Women on Boards: The Superheroes of Tomorrow?

Can female directors help save economies and the firms on whose boards they sit? Policy makers seem to think so. Numerous countries have implemented boardroom gender policies because of business case arguments. While women may be the key to healthy economies, I argue that more research needs to be done to understand the benefits of board diversity. The literature faces three main challenges: data limitations, selection and causal inference. Recognizing and dealing with these challenges is important for developing informed research and policy. Negative stereotypes may be one reason women are underrepresented in management. It is not clear that promoting them on the basis of positive stereotypes does them, or society, a service.

Barriers to Boardrooms

The list of barriers to female representation in management is analogous to the list of barriers to female labor force participation. Accordingly, we examine whether low female labor force participation is the main reason few women hold seats on corporate boards using data from 22 countries over the 2001-2010 period. Using a novel country-level measure of female participation on corporate boards, we show first that the representation of women on boards across countries is actually worse than most surveys suggest. We then examine the extent to which female labor force participation and institutional and country-level characteristics are related to boardroom diversity. We find that labor force participation is significantly related to the representation of women on boards when part-time and unemployed workers are excluded. However, cultural norms, the presence of boardroom quotas and codes promoting gender diversity are also correlated with female representation. This suggests that economic and cultural factors may be important barriers to female career advancement, but that preferences may be less important. While quotas may overcome problems of discrimination, they may be too narrow a policy tool to address other causes of female underrepresentation in management.Boardroom diversity policies link societal and corporate governance objectives. To understand whether they can meet both objectives, we argue one must understand why female directors are relatively underrepresented. We document that boardroom diversity is lower than most surveys suggest. We then show that across countries and US states there are more women in the director pool when more women work full time. However, working full-time may not be sufficient for women to make it to the top because of economic and cultural barriers. Our evidence suggests current boardroom diversity policies may be less effective when barriers to boardrooms are bigger.

Is Pay a Matter of Values

Public outrage over executive compensation reached an all time high during the financial crisis. Around the world, many argued that CEOs and boards were immoral in setting their pay and pressured governments to impose restrictions on executive pay. Using a unique sample of data on human values for CEOs, we show that CEOs and directors have different values than general members of the population. CEOs and directors place more emphasis on power and achievement values than members of the population and they emphasize self-direction values more. However, values appear to have little explanatory power for pay, in contrast to economic variables. While some CEOs may be unethical in setting their pay, our results suggest that pay is not a matter of values on average.

Women in Finance

Across countries, banks have less gender diverse boards than other firms. Bank board diversity is particularly low in countries with greater gender gaps in PISA math scores and lower average math scores. We find similar results using state-level NAEP math scores in the United States. The influence of math scores appears to transcend standard cultural explanations. Female directors are more likely to have an MBA in banks, especially in countries with greater gender gaps in math scores. Our evidence suggests that differences in educational outcomes for boys and girls may have long-lasting implications for their career development.