IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/jfnres/v38y2015i2p193-218.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A New Perspective On Director Busyness

Author

Listed:
  • Chang Liu
  • Donna L. Paul

Abstract

type="main" xml:lang="en"> We provide a new perspective to the multiple directorships literature, which focuses on outside directors. Inside directors, however, are important in both the boardroom and day-to-day operations of the firm. We find that any negative effect of director busyness is more pervasive for inside directors than for outside directors. Additional analysis reveals that bidding firms' acquisition announcement returns are decreasing in inside director board appointments, but there is no such effect for outside directors. These results highlight the importance of inside directors and demonstrate that firm performance can be compromised when they sit on multiple boards.

Suggested Citation

  • Chang Liu & Donna L. Paul, 2015. "A New Perspective On Director Busyness," Journal of Financial Research, Southern Finance Association;Southwestern Finance Association, vol. 38(2), pages 193-218, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:jfnres:v:38:y:2015:i:2:p:193-218
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Chakravarty, Sugato & Rutherford, Leann G., 2017. "Do busy directors influence the cost of debt? An examination through the lens of takeover vulnerability," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 429-443.
    2. Chung, Chune Young & Hur, Seok-Kyun & Liu, Chang, 2019. "Institutional investors and cost stickiness: Theory and evidence," The North American Journal of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 336-350.
    3. Henrique Castro Martins & Cristiano Machado Costa, 2020. "Does control concentration affect board busyness? International evidence," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 24(3), pages 821-850, September.
    4. Ferris, Stephen P. & Jayaraman, Narayanan & Liao, Min-Yu (Stella), 2020. "Better directors or distracted directors? An international analysis of busy boards," Global Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 44(C).
    5. Khondkar E. Karim & Jiayan Li & Karen Jingrong Lin & Ashok Robin, 2022. "Do directors have style? Board interlock and accounting properties," Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 49(1-2), pages 3-32, January.
    6. Chune Young Chung & Chang Liu & Kainan Wang & Blerina Bela Zykaj, 2015. "Institutional Monitoring: Evidence from the F-Score," Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 42(7-8), pages 885-914, September.
    7. Khar Mang Tan & Fakarudin Kamarudin & Bany-Ariffin Amin Noordin & Norhuda Abdul Rahim, 2019. "Firm Efficiency of East Asia Countries: The Impact of Board Busyness," Vision, , vol. 23(2), pages 111-124, June.
    8. Fernando A. Tejerina-Gaite & Miguel A. Fernández-Temprano, 2021. "The influence of board experience on firm performance: does the director’s role matter?," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 25(3), pages 685-705, September.
    9. Chung, Chune Young & Liu, Chang & Wang, Kainan, 2018. "Do firms have target capital structures? Evidence from institutional monitoring," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 65-77.
    10. Sattar, Mahnoor & Biswas, Pallab Kumar & Roberts, Helen, 2022. "Board gender diversity and firm risk in UK private firms," Global Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 54(C).
    11. Nadia Mans-Kemp & Suzette Viviers & Sian Collins, 2018. "Exploring the causes and consequences of director overboardedness in an emerging market," International Journal of Disclosure and Governance, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 15(4), pages 210-220, November.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:jfnres:v:38:y:2015:i:2:p:193-218. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/sfaaaea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.