David Yermack

Bio: David Yermack is an academic researcher from New York University. The author has contributed to research in topics: Executive compensation & Corporate governance. The author has an hindex of 46, co-authored 110 publications receiving 22374 citations. Previous affiliations of David Yermack include University of Western Australia & National Bureau of Economic Research.

Managerial Entrenchment and Capital Structure Decisions

Abstract: We test the prediction that leverage is inversely associated with managerial entrenchment. We examine leverage levels and year-to-year changes for several hundred firms between 1984 and 1991. We find that leverage levels are positively related to CEO stock ownership and CEO stock option holdings, and negatively related to CEO tenure and board of directors size. While generally consistent with less entrenched CEOs pursuing more leverage, these results are subject to alternative interpretations. We therefore analyze year-to-year changes in leverage around exogenous shocks to corporate governance variables. We find that leverage increases after unsuccessful tender offers and â¬Sforcedâ¬? CEO replacements, and under certain conditions after the arrival of major stockholders. These relations have greater magnitude when the sample is restricted to low-leverage firms, even when 80% of firms are defined as low-leverage. The results are consistent with decreases in entrenchment leading to increases in leverage, and with the majority of firms having less debt than optimal.

Managerial entrenchment and capital structure decisions

Abstract: We study associations between managerial entrenchment and firms' capital structures, with results generally suggesting that entrenched CEOs seek to avoid debt. In a cross-sectional analysis, we find that leverage levels are lower when CEOs do not face pressure from either ownership and compensation incentives or active monitoring. In an analysis of leverage changes, we find that leverage increases in the aftermath of entrenchment-reducing shocks to managerial security, including unsuccessful tender offers, involuntary CEO replacements, and the addition to the board of major stockholders.

CEO Involvement in the Selection of New Board Members: An Empirical Analysis

Abstract: We study whether CEO involvement in the selection of new directors influences the quality of appointments to the board. When the CEO serves on the nominating committee or no nominating committee exists, firms appoint fewer independent outside directors and more gray outsiders with conflicts of interest. Stock price reactions to independent director appointments are significantly lower when the CEO is involved in director selection, and independent appointees are more likely to serve on large numbers of other boards, a practice disfavored by investor activists. Our evidence may illuminate a mechanism used by CEOs to reduce pressure from active monitoring, and we find a recent trend of companies removing CEOs from involvement in director selection.

CEO Involvement in the Selection of New Board Members: An Empirical Analysis

Abstract: We study whether CEO involvement in the selection of new directors influences the nature of appointments to the board. When the CEO serves on the nominating committee or no nominating committee exists, firms appoint fewer independent outside directors and more gray outsiders with conflicts of interest. Stock price reactions to independent director appointments are significantly lower when the CEO is involved in director selection. Our evidence may illuminate a mechanism used by CEOs to reduce pressure from active monitoring, and we find a recent trend of companies removing CEOs from involvement in director selection.

A Survey of Corporate Governance

Abstract: This paper surveys research on corporate governance, with special attention to the importance of legal protection of investors and of ownership concentration in corporate governance systems around the world.

A Survey of Corporate Governance

Abstract: This article surveys research on corporate governance, with special attention to the importance of legal protection of investors and of ownership concentration in corporate governance systems around the world. CORPORATE GOVERNANCE DEALS WITH the ways in which suppliers of finance to corporations assure themselves of getting a return on their investment. How do the suppliers of finance get managers to return some of the profits to them? How do they make sure that managers do not steal the capital they supply or invest it in bad projects? How do suppliers of finance control managers? At first glance, it is not entirely obvious why the suppliers of capital get anything back. After all, they part with their money, and have little to contribute to the enterprise afterward. The professional managers or entrepreneurs who run the firms might as well abscond with the money. Although they sometimes do, usually they do not. Most advanced market economies have solved the problem of corporate governance at least reasonably well, in that they have assured the flows of enormous amounts of capital to firms, and actual repatriation of profits to the providers of finance. But this does not imply that they have solved the corporate governance problem perfectly, or that the corporate governance mechanisms cannot be improved. In fact, the subject of corporate governance is of enormous practical impor

Founding-Family Ownership and Firm Performance: Evidence from the S&P 500

Abstract: We investigate the relation between founding-family ownership and firm performance. We find that family ownership is both prevalent and substantial; families are present in one-third of the S&P 500 and account for 18 percent of outstanding equity. Contrary to our conjecture, we find family firms perform better than nonfamily firms. Additional analysis reveals that the relation between family holdings and firm performance is nonlinear and that when family members serve as CEO, performance is better than with outside CEOs. Overall, our results are inconsistent with the hypothesis that minority shareholders are adversely affected by family ownership, suggesting that family ownership is an effective organizational structure. FOUNDING-FAMILYOWNERSHIPAND CONTROL in public U.S. firms is commonly perceived as a less efficient, or at the very least, a less profitable ownership structure than dispersed ownership. Fama and Jensen (1983) note that combining ownership and control allows concentrated shareholders to exchange profits for private rents. Demsetz (1983) argues that such owners may choose nonpecuniary consumption and thereby draw scarce resources away from profitable projects. Shleifer and Vishny (1997) observe that the large premiums associated with superiorvoting shares or control rights provide evidence that controlling shareholders seek to extract private benefits from the firm. More generally, firms with large, undiversified owners such as founding families may forgo maximum profits because they are unable to separate their financial preferences with those of outside owners.1 Families also often limit executive management positions to family