IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/jda/journl/vol.51year2017issue1pp309-328.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Board Independance and The Efficiency of Internal Capital Markets

Author

Listed:
  • Bilal Al Dah Author-Name: Mustafa A. Dah
  • Mohammad Hani Zantout

    (American University of Beirut, Lebanon
    Lebanese American University, Lebanon)

Abstract

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and exchange listing requirements led to an increase in the percentage of independent members on company boards. The literature offers mixed evidence on the effect of board independence on corporate governance. Independent directors are said to improve the monitoring role of the board of directors. However, the presence of independent directors increases costs associated with information asymmetry and free riding problems. Accordingly, the firm's board monitoring efficiency is expected to have a significant impact on managerial decisions and the allocation of the firm's scarce resources across the different firm segments. We investigate the effect of increased board independence on the efficiency of internal capital markets in diversified firms. Data is collected from the Compustat, ExecuComp, and RiskMetrics databases. Sample is split into 2 sub-periods: (i) Pre-SOX (1996 – 2001); and (ii) Post-SOX (2003-2008). We also divide our sample into two subsamples: (i) Firms that were not in compliance with the independence requirements prior to SOX and became complying afterwards; and (ii) Firms that were already in compliance with the new requirements before SOX. We employ Berger and Ofek's (1995) method by calculating the imputed values of a given firm's segments and comparing the sum of those values to the value of the firm. Internal capital market efficiency is measured following Rajan, Servaes, and Zingales (2000). We find that the increase in board independence post-SOX may have moved firms away from their optimal board structure. Our results suggest that, relative to the pre-SOX period, increased board independence post-SOX had a negative effect on diversified firms' excess value and internal capital market efficiency. The results apply to both subsamples: (i) firms that were previously compliant; and (ii) those that weren't compliant with the mandates. This suggests that firms may not have benefited from the move towards higher independence in the post-SOX era. Mutual back scratching and socialization within the firm may explain the ineffectiveness and inefficiency of increased board independence in diversified firms. The passed legislations may have had a converse effect on corporate boards. Our results are consistent with Linck, Netter, and Yang (2008) who propose that a one-size-fits-all regulation may be inefficient and could move firms away from their optimum board composition.

Suggested Citation

  • Bilal Al Dah Author-Name: Mustafa A. Dah & Mohammad Hani Zantout, 2017. "Board Independance and The Efficiency of Internal Capital Markets," Journal of Developing Areas, Tennessee State University, College of Business, vol. 51(1), pages 309-328, January-M.
  • Handle: RePEc:jda:journl:vol.51:year:2017:issue1:pp:309-328
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://muse.jhu.edu/article/654408
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Guy Assaker & Wassim Shahin, 2022. "What Drives Faculty Publication Citations in the Business Field? Empirical Results from an AACSB Middle Eastern Institution," Publications, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-29, November.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Diversification; Internal Capital Markets; Board Independence; Sarbanes-Oxley Act;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • G3 - Financial Economics - - Corporate Finance and Governance
    • G34 - Financial Economics - - Corporate Finance and Governance - - - Mergers; Acquisitions; Restructuring; Corporate Governance
    • G38 - Financial Economics - - Corporate Finance and Governance - - - Government Policy and Regulation

    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:jda:journl:vol.51:year:2017:issue1:pp:309-328. 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: Abu N.M. Wahid (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cbtnsus.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.