Loading…
Does a co‐opted director affect a firm's financial distress risk?
This study examines the relationship between co‐opted directors (CODIR) , measured as the fraction of directors appointed after the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) assumes office to board size, and firms' financial distress risk (FFDR) . Understanding the relationship between CODIR and FFDR is im...
Saved in:
Published in: | International journal of finance and economics 2024-03 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , , |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Citations: | Items that this one cites Items that cite this one |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
Summary: | This study examines the relationship between co‐opted directors
(CODIR)
, measured as the fraction of directors appointed after the Chief Executive Officer
(CEO)
assumes office to board size, and firms' financial distress risk
(FFDR)
. Understanding the relationship between
CODIR
and
FFDR
is imperative due to the significant impact of high risk‐taking on financial crises and the heightened expectations placed on board members for risk oversight. Despite growing research on corporate governance and
FFDR
, little attention has been paid to the role of
CODIRs
, presenting a significant gap in the literature. Using a US sample from 1996 to 2019, covering 13,486 firm‐year observations, we document that
CODIR
reduces
FFDR
, supporting the hypothesis that co‐opted directors have a lower financial distress risk‐taking propensity than their non‐co‐opted counterparts. We also find that a critical mass of at least three
CODIRs
and independent
CODIRs
reduces
FFDR
. Our results also document that
CEO
power in the form of
CEO
duality and
CEO
tenure, external monitoring in the form of the number of analysts following the firm, competition, and takeover susceptibility do not drive our main conclusions for co‐option and
FFDR
. Finally, the results show that
CODIR
reduces
FFDR
through liquidity channels. The findings remain robust to various definitions of co‐option and distress risk, and are consistent in both difference‐in‐differences analysis and propensity score matching. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 1076-9307 1099-1158 |
DOI: | 10.1002/ijfe.2959 |