Corporate Governance and M&A Performance for Banks in Taiwan Chin-Shun Wu Professor of Department of Business Management, National Sun Yat-sen University, Kaohsiung 80424, Taiwan. Chia-Chen Teng Ph.D. Student of Department of Business Management, National Sun Yat-Sen University, Kaohsiung 80424, Taiwan. E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org Tel: +886-7-5252000 ext. 4601~05 Fax: +886-6-2987258 Chien-Chi Chu Ph.D. Student of Department of Business Management, National Sun Yat-Sen University, Kaohsiung 80424, Taiwan. ABSTRACT. Using banks in Taiwan as a sample, this study aims to focus on the relation between banks’ governance characteristics and the outcome of bank merger activities. Adopting governance variables such as executive remuneration, managerial ownership, and board diversity, we find that managerial ownership is significantly positive with bank merger results and that board size is significantly negative with the performance of Taiwanese bank mergers. This study provides support for sound governance mechanisms that may prevent banks from pursuing value-loss merger and acquisition (M&A). Our results offer the insight that, while external regulation attempts to create a friendly environment for banks to conduct mergers, internal bank governance structures play a bigger role upon the value effects of bank mergers. Thus, regulators may elevate the performance of bank M&A by strengthening national corporate governance codes. Keywords: Corporate governance, M&A performance, executive remuneration, managerial ownership, board diversity This paper’s goal is to examine the relation between bank governance and merger and acquisition (M&A) performance under Taiwan’s special regulatory environment. Using bank M&A activities in Taiwan as a sample during the period 1997-2006, we find that managerial ownership is significantly positive with the performance effects of bank merger activities, while board size is negatively associated with the outcome of bank M&A. We also find that board diversity, including gender and education, is not significantly related with bank merger performance. Banks play an essential role in the allocation of resources between savers and borrowers in mitigating the effects of information asymmetries. Given the importance of bank financing to an economy, bank governance guarantees a detailed examination. First, banks’ opaque operations make it more difficult for outsiders to evaluate the risk and value of their loans as opposed to non-financial firms (Morgan, 2002). Second, the belief that governments should put more effort on systematic stability before any concerns about managerial inefficiency is common in light of the current global financial crises and bail-out policies. As a result, the role of regulators may curtail the influence of governance. Poor bank governance may allow insiders to build their empires and give shareholders disappointing returns (Shleifer & Vishny, 1997; Morck, Shleifer, & Vishny, 1990). As many studies have used performance after M&A in a non-financial industry to measure the effectiveness of governance (Byrd & Hickmean, 1992; Wright, Kroll, Lado, & van Ness, 2002; Kini, Kracaw, & Mian, 2004), Hagendorff, Collins, and Keasey (2007) argue that this may be an advantageous way to research bank governance. The specialty and importance of bank governance on M&A activity have received little academic attention. Although there are many U.S. studies and to a lesser extent European studies in the past two decades indicating that bank M&A may cause the acquiring bank shareholders to lose value, Hagendorff, Collins, and Keasey (2007) raise the question that the extent of the reported results can be applied to other areas outside the U.S. The difference in governance, regulation, and system in other places also warrants a separate analysis. Therefore, they strongly encourage research that examines bank governance and M&A performance in other countries. This research contributes to the literature in the following ways. First, numerous studies adopt stock returns around the M&A announcement to measure the performance (i.e. James & Weir, 1987; Pilloff, 1996; Hayward & Hambrick, 1997; Bliss & Rosen, 2001). Most of these studies measure the short event window in days. Instead, we use the accounting ratio ROE after one-year and two-year M&A as the measurement of performance in order to provide more insight on the impact of a corporate governance mechanism upon long-term bank performance. Second, previous studies have focused on the relation between board diversity and performance in the non-financial industry, with scant attention paid to the link between board diversity and M&A outcome in the banking sector. We directly examine the relation between board diversity and the performance after bank M&A. Third, we build a diversity measurement by adopting the Herfindahl index which is regarded as a more effective way to measure diversity (Hagendorff, Collins, & Keasey, 2007). Finally, we consider and control for the external regulatory changes that may impact the performance of bank M&A. In the following section we begin with a review of the regulatory environment of Taiwan’s banking industry. We then develop the research hypothesis about the relation between corporate governance and the outcome of bank M&A. The next section briefly describes the measurement and data used in the empirical analysis, followed by the results. The final section concludes. Regulatory Background of Taiwan’s Banking Industry The legal system of Taiwan’s commercial laws is a fusion of civil law and common law. According to La Porta, Lopez-de-Silanes, Shleifer, and Vishny (1998), Taiwan is categorized under civil law originating from the German family. Based on their finding, common law traditions protect investors considerably more than civil law does, especially in French civil-law countries. On the other hand, German civil-law countries have the highest quality of law enforcement. Taken together, Taiwan has an intermediate level of shareholder and creditor rights protection in the world. More importantly, laws in different countries are not written from scratch, but transplanted from other traditions and families (Watson, 1974). Because civil and common traditions have spread around the world through conquest, borrowing, and imitation, the resultant laws reflect these families’ influences and evolve specifically for individual countries. For instance, the Taiwanese Company Act was founded in 1929 following the German and Japanese legal systems and has quoted many instances from English and American law since 1966 in order to improve the investing environment and to activate corporate capital. The Securities and Exchange Act in Taiwan in 1968 used the same U.S. law in 1933 and Japan’s own one in 1948 as its original version. In addition, the view that law origin matters in deciding the legal protection of minority shareholders and the increase in firm values is controversial, because there are other factors that also matter (Coffee, 1999, 2001, & 2007), such as cultures (Licht, Goldschmidt, & Schwartz, 2001), transplant process (Berkowitz, Pistor, & Richard, 2003), and execution effectiveness (Pistor, Raiser, & Gelfer, 2003). Basically, Taiwan’s financial laws are influenced by both legal origins and display a more diverse, converged perspective of rules. Hence, the research result of Taiwan can be leveraged to other countries with similar legal backgrounds. Financial institutions in Taiwan have gone through tight and loose phases of government regulation and different business cycles. Before 1990, because the bank sector was highly regulated and protected by the government and Taiwan was experiencing high economic growth, the domestic financial industry was a star money maker, but restrictions to entry were lifted after 1991. Among them, the deregulation of private banks, bank branches, and business ranges has been the most pronounced and has led the number of banks to soar in Taiwan within a decade. Because of numerous homogeneous competitors, the interest rate shrank and profit margins declined. In conjunction with slow economic growth and an increased jobless rate, the business environment began to worsen. At that same time, Taiwan’s banking industry faced fierce competition from international financial groups. To cope with the challenge, the Legislative Yuan passed the Financial Institutions Merger Act on December 2000 to expand economies of scale, enhance the efficiency of financial institutions, and create a proper competitive environment. There have been several bank M&A activities, while 48 underperforming financial institutions were phased out of the market. Following this law, the Financial Holding Company Act was passed in June 2001 to increase the synergy of financial institutions, to consolidate the supervision, to develop the financial market, and to protect the public interests. Fifteen financial holding companies have been founded following this act. Taiwan’s government then executed a series of financial reforms with an aim to improve the quality of banks, enlarge the scale of financial institutions, and provide more diverse lines of financial products. In sum, the goal of these regulations was to help create an environment for financial institutions to undertake M&A activities and realize M&A-related performance gains. With regulators’ efforts, the number of domestic banks fell from its peak at 53 in 2000 to 37 by September 2008. For smaller community banks and cooperatives, the number has dropped from 386 in 1994 to 316 in September 2008. At the same time, the NPL ratios have declined significantly from a high of 8.16% in 2001 to 1.53% by the end of September 2008. Hypotheses While regulatory efforts on consolidation have been observed, the actual post-M&A performance of Taiwan’s banking sector and the effect of governance structures on it have not been scrutinized, except in a few unpublished master theses. Hagendorff, Collins, and Keasey (2007) posit that bank governance could play an important role in deciding M&A performance and suggest that unfavorable gains for acquiring bank shareholders are due to the effects of poor bank governance. They summarize three categories identified as the most important bank governance variables: executive remuneration (Bliss & Rosen, 2001), managerial ownership (Hughes, Lang, Mester, Moon, & Pagano, 2003), and board composition (Subrahmanyam, Rangan, & Rosenstein, 1997; Brickley & James, 1987) in U.S. studies. They also review how these governance structures influence M&A performance. In the next section we will relate these surveys to our research and propose their connections with M&A performance of Taiwan banks. Executive compensation and managerial ownership incentives In the non-financial sector, there is a positive link between firm size and executive compensation in the corporate governance literature (Kostiuk, 1990; Baker, Jensen, & Murphy, 1988). CEOs can benefit from M&A activities which increase firm size even though the increase reduces the firm’s market value. Consequently, top management may find it attractive to build empires by purchasing underperforming corporations as long as executive compensation increases in the process. Comprehensive managerial ownership incentives including equity stakes and stock options, on the other hand, can reduce the agency problems associated with bank mergers. Wright, Kroll, Lado, and van Ness (2002) contend that the nature of an executive’s wealth portfolio will impact his or her attitude toward corporate strategy. Managers concerned about their employment income including the value of options may reduce their risk by engaging in conglomerate mergers (Amihud & Lev, 1981). In bank merger performance and executive compensation studies, Bliss and Rosen (2001) find that increases in total compensation after an acquisition amounted to $54 per $1 million in acquired assets, compared with only $30 per $1 million of internal asset growth. When more of a CEO’s compensation is tied to stock options or stock-based compensation, an acquiring bank runs less risk of overpaying. Becher and Campbell (2004) find that bank CEOs in the upper quartile of equity-based compensation are less likely to overpay for a target than those in the lower quartile in a sample of 146 U.S. bank mergers. Cornett, Hovakimian, Palia, and Tehranian (2003) confirm this point that the higher the proportion is of a CEO’s wealth invested in a bank, the more often he will engage in risk-enhancing “worthy” acquisitions. Unfortunately, there were no options granted for bank CEOs during the period of M&A in Taiwan. In Taiwan it is the electronics industry where executive compensation is more stock option-based, consistent with the western finding that the ratio of stock-based to total CEO compensation is somewhat lower in the banking industry (Adams & Mehran, 2003) and that executive compensation in a high-growth industry is less fixed and more stock-based (Smith & Watts, 1992). In summary, since executive compensation generally increases with firm size and no option is contained in the compensation packages of bank managers in Taiwan, managers are more likely to conduct M&A to build their empires. We propose that: Hypothesis 1a: Compensation package changes of CEOs are negatively associated with long-term performance following bank M&A. CEO stock holdings in a bank can be purchased independent of the direct shares received by the compensation committee. There are many studies arguing that as managers’ holdings increase, their interests align with those of outside shareholders (Jensen & Meckling, 1976; Jensen & Murphy, 1990a, b; Palia, 2000; Brown & Maloney, 1998). This leads to the elevation of firm values. Using 423 U.S. acquisitions from 1988 to 1995 as a sample, Cornett, Hovakimian, Palia, and Tehranian (2003) find that the percentage of equity owned by a CEO is significantly positive to excess return at the time of the acquisition announcement. Bank CEOs in their sample owned a mean of 1.25% of the total number of shares outstanding. While Huges, Lang, Mester, Moon, and Pagano (2003) find that increases in insider ownership in all three categories in U.S. financial institutions tend to have poorer changes in Tobin’s Q after acquisition, the coefficient is not significant. Thus, we propose the following hypothesis. Hypothesis 1b: Managerial ownership is positively related with performance after bank M&A. Board of directors Because of their role in providing and monitoring managerial discretion, boards of directors are the most important internal control mechanisms for promoting and protecting shareholder interests (Fama, 1980). Particularly, boards have the authority to ratify managerial initiatives, to evaluate the performance of top management, and to determine managerial compensation packages. The board’s expertise is especially needed for large and infrequent transactions such as acquisitions (Hermalin & Weisbach, 2003). Fama and Jensen (1983) argue that a board’s independence needs to be ensured at all times to mitigate self-serving managerial behavior such as acquisitions undertaken at the expense of shareholder wealth. One way to promote the independence of a firm’s internal governance system is to maintain an optimal balance between its own directors and board members from outside the bank (Byrd & Hickman, 1992). Using U.S. multi-industry and bank boards as samples, several studies show that the number of independent directors or outside monitors can reduce agency costs in the context of bank mergers (Brickley & James, 1987; Subrahmanyam, Rangan, & Rosenstein, 1997; Byrd & Hickman, 1992), but their findings show limitations and criticism. For instance, Byrd and Hickman’s (1992) results only hold when the ratio of inside directors to outside directors is no more than 0.6. Brickley and James’s (1987) sample mainly covers only Midwestern U.S. states, restricting the applicability of their results. Subrahmanyam, Rangan, and Rosenstein (1997) do not consider loan relationship, leading to an overestimation of a bank board’s independence. While board independence is an issue, due to independent directors probably not being truly independent, previous studies suggest that the size of the board of directors has a significant impact on firm performance. Adams and Mehran (2003) report that U.S. bank boards between 1986 and 1999 were larger than those of S&P 500 manufacturing firms. The mean board size is 12 for manufacturing firms and 18 for banks. Hermalin and Weisbach (2003) find that compared with that of manufacturing firms, a larger board size of U.S. banking firms is a function of organizational complexity and firm value. However, Jensen (1993) suggests that as large boards have a greater emphasis on “politeness and courtesy” and thus are easier for a CEO to control, small boards are more effective in monitoring a CEO’s actions. Yermack (1996) finds an inverse relation between board size and performance and posits that a large board size will harm firm value. Similarly, Cornett, Hovakimian, Palia, and Tehranian (2003) report that the total number of directors on the board is significantly and negatively related to abnormal announcement period returns. Thus, we propose the following hypothesis. Hypothesis 2: Board size is negatively related with performance after bank M&A. Board diversity Previous literature suggests that a more diverse board could increase its effectiveness in monitoring and mitigating the agency problem (Erhardt, Werbel, & Shrader, 2003; Shrader, Blackburn, & Iles, 1997). The logic behind this is that the diversity of a board increases creativity and innovation and produces a variety of perspectives so that the quality of decision making by top management can improve (Maznevski, 1994). Ely and Thomas (2001) contend that the dynamics of diverse groups may influence their capability for learning and self-reflection, thus leading to a more activist board that is more likely to discuss a number of issues. More diverse board may be contribute more to the ratification and monitoring of decisions (Fama & Jensen,1983; Hagendorff, Collins, & Keasey, 2007). While theories suggest that board diversity is beneficial for corporate performance, empirically the effect of board diversity on firm performance has been mixed. In fact, there are very few references to the banking industry and almost no applications to the performance effects of M&A activities. Shrader, Blackburn, and Iles (1997) present a positive relation between gender diversity and firm performance at the middle and upper management level, but not for the percentage of female board members. Goodstein, Gautam, and Boeker (1994) find a negative relation between occupational diversity and diversification into new services, because of increased conflicts among diverse members. Dwyer, Richard, and Chadwick (2003) suggest that the beneficial aspects of gender diversity can be fully realized after a more nurturing and supportive organizational setting is in place. Bantel and Jackson (1989) find that more innovative banks are led by managers with higher education levels and more diverse functional backgrounds. They argue that dysfunctional effects of heterogeneity occur only when an extremely high level of diversity exists. Richard (2000) demonstrates that cultural diversity adds value and contributes to a firm’s competitive advantage in the banking industry. Theoretically, we propose: Hypothesis 3: More diverse boards have a positive effect on the performance following bank M&A. Measurements Dependent Variables ROE after M&A is a dependent variable that we use to measure the performance following M&A. To better measure the mid-term or long-term return following bank M&A as suggested by Hagendorff, Collins, and Keasey (2007), we use Return on Equity (ROE) one year and two years after banks have conducted mergers and acquisitions. The ROE is defined as net income divided by total equity. Independent Variables Change in CEO compensation is defined as the change in CEOs’ full package compensation including salaries, bonus, and other business allowances at the end of the year preceding and after the M&A transaction. Managerial ownership is measured by the total holding percentage of the top-five shareholders at the end of the year before M&A, because in most East Asian firms, managers are members of the controlling families (La Porta, Lopez-de-Silances, & Shleifer, 1999). Moreover, Demsetz and Lehn (1985) suggest that the fraction of the top-five largest shareholdings is highly correlated with the Herfindahl index of ownership concentration. Hence, it is a good measure for managerial ownership. Board size accesses the effect of such size on the performance after M&A. To avoid arbitrarily using cutoff point and classifying which board size is appropriate or inappropriate, we directly use the number of directors and supervisors as predictors. Education diversity adopts the widely accepted Herfindahl index and follows Goodstein, Gautam, and Boeker’s (1994) method in constructing the measure of diversity for a panel of Californian hospital boards by their occupational diversity. We develop a measure of board diversity reflecting differences in education backgrounds. We classify board members into 13 groupings based on the colleges or fields (e.g. business, literature, law, engineering, etc.). These groups should reflect the different perspectives that board members bring to the board. We then compute a Gibbs-Martin Index of diversity based on the distribution of board members within these groups. The Gibbs-Martin Index is defined as follows: N 1 Pi , 2 i 1 where Pi signifies the proportion of a board represented by the ith group. This measure indicates the extent of concentration from the perspectives of board members, ranging from high concentration by one single school (valued 0 at the index) to low concentration by various fields (valued 1). Gender diversity follows the logic of our prior measure in constructing the measure of gender diversity. We classify the gender into three categories - male, female, and cannot be identified - because some names of board members could be neutral. The values range from 0 to 1, representing the least and most diverse genders. Control Variables Firm size is highly correlated with firm performance (Lee, Lee, & Pennings, 2001; Tsai, 2001). Thus, we add the total assets at the end of the year before the M&A as the control in our research. ROE before M&A may also has an impact on performance after M&A and thus we control for it. We use ROE at the end of the year before the M&A. Financial institutions merger act enforcement is used to evaluate whether the enforcement of the Financial Institution Merger Act in 2000 has any effect on the performance after M&A. This variable is a dummy one. If the M&A takes place before 2001, then the binary is set to 0 or otherwise is 1. Data The sample focuses on publicly-traded banks that have conducted mergers and acquisitions during 1990 and after 2000 in Taiwan. There were 54 mergers during the period. Deducting those banks that do not go public, we have 48 records in our sample. Compared with a sample size of 48 in the U.S. (Pilloff, 1996) and 51 in Europe (Cybo-Ottone & Murgia, 2000), our sample should not be considered small. Since some of those banks went public late and data cannot be accessed, we fill the missing data with the averages of other available banks in order to finish the regression analysis without losing too much credibility. Bank M&A data are obtained from the Financial Supervisory Commission, Executive Yuan. The M&A performance, board of directors, and compensation are collected from Taiwan Economic Journal and annual reports of banks. Table 1 presents the descriptive statistics of the full sample. [Table 1 is inserted about here.] Table 1 displays that the average ROE following one and two years after M&A is negative with a huge difference between the best and worst outcomes. The negative return is not consistent with the prediction of standard economic theory, which argues that M&A occurs in order to increase shareholders’ value. The gender diversity of the boards is still limited with an indicator of 0.10 on average and with a small standard deviation. [Table 2 is inserted about here.] Table 2 presents the correlation matrix between independent variables. To ensure that the variables do not have the problem of collinearity, we calculate the VIFs among these variables and find the values are below 10. [Table 3 is inserted about here.] Results Table 3 presents the empirical results. We demonstrate here our results in response to three categories identified as the most important governance variables controlling for firm size, past performance, and financial regulation. In these specifications, managerial ownership is significantly positive with ROE after M&A, which is consistent with previous studies that present executives as being concerned about their personal portfolio, and these executives are more likely to conduct M&A that will generate shareholders’ wealth gains (Amihud & Lev, 1981). Since our managerial ownership measure also represents shareholder concentration, the finding is similar with the view that high levels of insider shareholdings and shareholder concentration can resolve agency conflicts (Allen & Cebenoyan, 1991). To further explore the possible non-linear relation between managerial ownership and corporate performance, we adopt piecewise linear regressions with three dummies for ownership and divide the variable into three intervals, 5%-15%, 15-25%, and over 25% (see Morck, Shleifer, & Vishny, 1988 for a discussion of this methodology and Filatotchev, Lien, & Piesse, 2005 for the intervals of firms in Taiwan). Only the group 5%-15% is marginally significant and is positively correlated with the ROE rate, suggesting that the entrenchment effect does not exist in Taiwan’s banking sector. Board size is significantly negative with ROE after M&A. Although it is difficult to decide the optimal board size, too many board members could harm shareholders’ value. As for board diversity, we obtain that education diversity is good for performance, whereas gender diversity is inversely related to ROE after M&A. However, since gender diversity is only marginally significant in Model 3 of Panel A, the effect of board diversity on bank M&A performance is not assured. The finding is consistent with the uncertain roles of board diversity in the literature of governance. We do not see a definite impact of financial institution merger law enforcement on performance after M&A since in all specifications the coefficients are not significant. We also obtain a positive link between the change in CEO compensation packages and performance after bank M&A, but the coefficient is not significant. It appears that while some top managers’ compensation increases significantly after M&A, others see a decline following failed mergers. If the test result were significant, then it would be similar with the view that an increase in CEO compensation after mergers is due to task complexity and managerial effort to realized merger-related gains (Anderson, Becher, & Campbell, 2004). Conclusion Due to the importance of banks on the economy and widespread shareholder value destruction from bank M&A activities, governance of the banking industry is worth further analysis. However, it is surprising to note that the influence of corporate governance on the performance of bank acquisitions has received little academic scrutiny. In addition, most of the literature concerning the links between bank governance and M&A performance concentrates on the U.S. banking market where the results may not be applied to other places around the world, because the systematic differences are significant. Therefore, we focus on examining the link between corporate governance and M&A performance using Taiwan’s banks as a sample. In a broad category of legal origin, Taiwan belongs to one of six German-civil rights countries including Japan and South Korea. Taiwan’s investor protection rights can be classified as intermediate compared with sophisticated investor protection rights in the U.S. Hopefully, this research can be viewed as a comparable study between English countries (common law) and East Asian countries (civil law). Using corporate governance indicators suggested by the literature, we find that managerial ownership is significantly positive with bank M&A performance while board size is significantly negative with the outcome of bank merger activities. Our results suggest that the corporate governance mechanism has a significant impact on bank acquisition performance. It appears that the findings of corporate governance structures based on U.S. data can be applied to East Asia. From the result of this research, while external regulation attempts to construct a relatively easy market for banks to engage in M&A, sound internal corporate governance affects the performance of M&A in the banking sector. Therefore, regulators may enhance the value effects of bank mergers by establishing and implementing effective corporate governance frameworks and principles. References Adams, R., & Mehan, H. 2003. Is corporate governance different for bank holding companies? Economy Policy Review, 9: 123-142. Allen, L., & Cebenoyan, A. S. 1991. Bank acquisitions and ownership structure: Theory and evidence. Journal of Banking and Finance, 15: 425-448. Amihud, Y., & Lev, B. 1981. Risk reduction as a managerial motive for conglomerate mergers. Bell Journal of Economics, 12: 605-617. Anderson, C. W., Becher, D. A., Campbell, I., & Terry, L. 2004. Bank mergers, the market for bank CEOs, and managerial incentives. Journal of Financial Intermediation, 13: 6-27. Baker, G. P., Jensen, M. C., & Murphy, K. J. 1988. Compensation and incentives: Practice vs. theory. Journal of Finance, 43: 593-616. Bantel, K. A., & Jackson, S. E. 1989. Top management and innovations in banking: Does the composition of the top team make a difference? Strategic Management Journal, 10: 107-124. Becher, D. A., & Campbell, T. L. 2004. Corporate governance of bank mergers. Bank Structure and Competition Conference Proceedings, Chicago: Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago. Berkowitz, D., Pistor, K., & Richard, J-F 2003. Economic development, legality and the transplant effect. European Economic Review, 47: 165-195. Bliss, R. T., & Rosen, R. J. 2001. CEO compensation and bank mergers. Journal of Financial Economics, 61: 107-138. Brickley, J. A., & James, C. M. 1987. The takeover market, corporate board composition, and ownership structure: The case of banking. Journal of Law & Economics, 30: 161-180. Brown, W., & Maloney, M. T. 1998. Acquisition performance and corporate board composition. Journal of Law and Economics, forthcoming. Byrd, J. W., & Hickman, K. A. 1992. Do outside directors monitor managers? Evidence from tender offer bids. Journal of Financial Economics, 32: 195-221. Coffee, J. C. 1999. Privatization and corporate governance: The lessons from securities market failure. Journal of Corporation Law, 25: 1-39. Coffee, J. C. 2001. The rise of dispersed ownership: The roles of law and the state in the separation of ownership and control. The Yale Law Journal, 111: 1-82. Coffee, J. C. 2007. Law and the market: The impact of enforcement. Working paper no. 304, Columbia University School of Law. Cornett, M. M., Hovakimian, G., Palia, D., & Tehranian, H. 2003. The impact of the manager-shareholder conflict on acquiring bank returns. Journal of Banking & Finance, 27: 103-131. Cybo-Ottone, A., & Murgia, M. 2000. Mergers and shareholder wealth in European banking. Journal of Banking & Finance, 24(6): 831-859. Demsetz, H., & Lehn, K. 1985. The structure of corporate ownership, causes and consequences. Journal of Political Economy, 93: 1155-1177. Dwyer, S., Richard, O. C., & Chadwick, K. 2003. Gender diversity in management and firm performance: The influence of growth orientation and organizational culture. Journal of Business Research, 56 (12): 1009-1019. Ely, R. J., & Thomas, D. A. 2001. Cultural diversity at work: The effects of diversity perspectives on work group processes and outcomes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46: 229-273. Erhardt, N. L., Werbel, J. D., & Shrader, C. B. 2003. Board of director diversity and firm financial performance. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 11: 102-111. Fama, E. F. 1980. Agency problems and the theory of the firm. The Journal of Political Economy, 88: 288-307. Fama, E. F., & Jensen, M. C. 1983. Separation of ownership and control. Journal of Law & Economics, 26: 301-325. Filatotchev, I., Lien, Y. C., & Piesse, J. 2005. Corporate governance and performance in publicly listed, family-controlled firms: Evidence from Taiwan. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 22: 257-283. Goodstein, J., Gautam, K., & Boeker, W. 1994. The effects of board size and diversity on strategic change. Strategic Management Journal, 15: 241-250. Hagendorff J., Collins, M., & Keasey, K. 2007. Bank governance and acquisition performance. Corporate Governance, 15: 957-968. Hayward, M. L. A., & Hambrick, D. C. 1997. Explaining the premium paid for large acquisitions: Evidence of CEO hubris. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42: 103-127. Hermalin, B. E., & Weisbach, M. S. 2003. Boards of directors as an endogenously determined institution: A survey of the economic literature. Economic Policy Review, 9: 7-26. Hughes, J. P., Lang, W. W., Mester, L. J., Moon, C. G., & Pagano, M. S. 2003. Do bankers sacrifice value to build empires? Managerial incentives, industry consolidation, and financial performance. Journal of Banking & Finance, 27: 417-447. James, C. M., & Weir, P. 1987. Returns to acquirers and competition in the acquisition market: The case of banking. Journal of Political Economy, 95: 355-370. Jensen, M. C. 1993. The modern industrial revolution, exit, and the failure of internal control systems. Journal of Finance, 48: 831-880. Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. 1976. Theory of the firm, managerial behavior, agency cost and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 11: 5-50. Jensen, M. C., & Murphy, K. J. 1990a. Performance pay and top-management incentives. Journal of Political Economy, 98: 225-264. Jensen, M. C., & Murphy, K. J., 1990b. CEO incentives - it’s not how much you pay, but how. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 3: 36-49. Kini, O., Kracaw, W., & Mian, S. 2004. The nature of discipline by corporate takeovers. Journal of Finance, 59(4): 1511-1552. Kostiuk, P. F. 1990. Firm size and executive-compensation. Journal of Human Resources, 25(1): 90-105. La Porta, R., Lopez-de-Silances, F., Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. 1998. Law and Finance. Journal of Political Economics, 106: 1113-1155. La Porta, R., Lopez-de-Silances, F., & Shleifer, A. 1999. Corporate ownership around the world. Journal of Finance, 54: 471-517. Lee, C., Lee, K., & Pennings, J. M. 2001. Internal capabilities, external networks, and performance: A study on technology-based ventures. Strategic Management Journal, 22: 615-640. Licht, A. N., Goldschmidt, C., & Schwartz, S. H., 2001. Culture, law, and finance. International Review of Law and Economics, 25: 229-255. Maznevski, M. L. 1994. Understanding our differences: Performance in decision-making groups with diverse members. Human Relations, 47: 531-552. Morck, R., Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. W. 1988. Management ownership and market valuation: An empirical analysis. Journal of Financial Economics, 20: 293-315. Morck, R., Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. W. 1990. Do managerial objectives drive bad acquisitions? Journal of Finance, 45: 31-48. Morgan, D. P. 2002. Rating banks: Risk and uncertainty in an opaque industry. The American Economic Review, 92: 874-888. Pilloff, S. J. 1996. Performance changes and shareholder wealth creation associated with mergers of publicly traded banking institutions. Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking, 28(3): 294-310. Palia, D. 2000. The impact of regulation on CEO labor markets. Rand Journal of Economics, 31: 165-179. Pistor, K, Raiser, M., & Gelfer, S. 2000. Law and finance in transition economies. The Economics of Transition, 8(2): 325-368. Richard, O. C. 2000. Racial diversity, business strategy, and firm performance: A resource-based view. Academy of Management Journal, 43: 164-177. Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. W. 1997. A survey of corporate governance. Journal of Finance, 52: 737-783. Shrader, C. B., Blackburn, V. B., & Iles, P. 1997. Women in management and firm financial performance: An exploratory study. Journal of Managerial Issues, 9: 355-372. Smith, J. C. W., & Watts, R. L. 1992. The investment opportunity set and corporate financing, dividend, and compensation policies. Journal of Financial Economics, 32(3): 263-292. Subrahmanyam, V., Rangan, N., & Rosenstein, S. 1997. The role of outside directors in bank acquisitions. Financial Management, 26: 23-36. Tsai, W. 2001. Knowledge transfer in intraorganizational networks: Effects of network position and absorptive capacity on business unit innovation and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44: 996-1004. Watson, A. 1974. Legal transplants: An approach to comparative law. Charlottesville: University Virginia Press. Wright, P., Kroll, M., Lado, A., & van Ness, B. 2002. The structure of ownership and corporate acquisition strategies. Strategic Management Journal, 23: 41-53. Yermack, D. 1996. Higher market valuation for firms with a small board of directors. Journal of Financial Economics, 40: 185-211. Table 1. Summary statistics of the full sample The sample period is between 1997 and 2006. The variable CEO compensation is in thousands of New Taiwan Dollars and firm size is in millions of New Taiwan Dollars. Variables Ob Mean Median SD Min. Max. s. ROE one year after M&A (%) 48 -5.58 0.86 25.60 -135.64 21.09 ROE two years after M&A (%) 48 -20.6 3.25 130.00 -888.00 21.2 Managerial ownership (%) 48 65.45 65.45 27.75 5.60 100.00 Change in CEO compensation 48 -771 -771 5,658 -28,220 15,507 Board size 48 16.22 16.00 5.17 7.00 32.00 Education diversity 48 0.65 0.66 0.13 0.10 0.85 Gender diversity 48 0.10 0.11 0.07 0.00 0.35 Firm size 48 500,954 320,736 478,661 64,354 1,965,943 ROE before M&A (%) 48 6.85 6.85 6.60 -21.90 20.63 Financial institutions merger law 48 0.68 1.00 0.46 0.00 1.00 enforcement Table 2. Correlation coefficients 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 1. Managerial ownership 2. Change in 0.08 CEO compensation (0.55) 3. Board size -0.41 -0.04 (0.00) (0.75) 4. Education diversity -0.11 0.07 -0.05 (0.45) (0.63) (0.69) 5. Gender diversity -0.26 0.10 0.10 0.21 (0.07) (0.48) (0.49) (0.14) 6. Firm size 0.10 -0.07 0.00 -0.11 -0.11 (0.49) (0.59) (0.96) (0.43) (0.43) 7. ROE before M&A 0.36 0.05 -0.12 -0.31 -0.09 0.07 (0.01) (0.69) (0.41) (0.02) (0.50) (0.61) 8. Financial institutions 0.26 -0.03 -0.18 -0.15 -0.03 0.28 -0.09 merger act enforcement (0.06) (0.83) (0.22) (0.27) (0.79) (0.05) (0.50) Note: Numbers in parentheses are p-value. Italic indicates p < 0.10. Table 3. Regression analyses of performance after M&A on governance index and financial regulation Panel A. Panel B. Dependent variable: ROE one year after M&A Dependent variable: ROE two years after M&A Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Independent variables Change in 0.00 0.00 CEO compensation (0.85) (0.64) Managerial ownership 32.30* 163.33* (0.03) (0.03) Board size -1.56* -6.69† (0.03) (0.07) Education diversity 24.17 159.50 (0.42) (0.30) Gender diversity -89.75† -278.80 (0.09) (0.29) Control variables Firm size 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 (0.95) (0.86) (0.89) (0.72) (0.67) (0.83) ROE before M&A 0.01 0.38 0.63 -2.39 -0.34 1.22 (0.98) (0.50) (0.30) (0.44) (0.90) (0.69) Financial institutions 1.69 3.93 8.68 35.04 49.27 72.84 merger law enforcement (0.84) (0.84) (0.31) (0.42) (0.25) (0.10) N 48 48 48 48 48 48 Adjusted R-square 3.0% 5.0% 0.0% 6.4% 4.8% 0.0% Note: Numbers in parentheses are p-value. *p < 0.05; †p < 0.10.
Pages to are hidden for
"Executive compensation and managerial ownership incentives"Please download to view full document