Governance and Finance
In recent decades, corporate governance no longer focuses on maximizing shareholder value but on balancing all stakeholders' interests. Corporate governance is then viewed more broadly as the nexus of rules, practices, and processes that determine the objective of a firm. Absent good governance, shareholders might realise inferior returns, creditors might lose interest payments, business partners might suffer from contract breaches, and employees might lose their future career opportunities (e. g., managers that used to work for Enron). High-quality governance ensures that all stakeholders' capital is effectively managed. Firms benefit from good governance in various ways, such as a higher valuation, a lower cost of capital, better talent attraction, and higher customer loyalty, for example.
The research group “Governance and Finance” studies traditional and modern views of corporate governance in financial markets and contributes to the literature in two ways. First, it contributes to understanding the effectiveness of different governance mechanisms' roles in talent selection, incentive, and retention. Individuals carry out corporate objectives, and good governance must ensure that the most qualified talent is allocated to the optimal position, exerts optimal effort, and stays with the firm. For example, the most important duty of the board of directors is to select, incentive, and retain the most talented/suitable CEO.
Second, this group also investigates how various forces in credit market impact corporate governance. Various stakeholders seek to influence corporate strategy differently with recent advances in the financial market. For example, the rise of common ownership might reduce firms' incentives to compete, the increase of active ownership might suddenly switch firms' investment strategies (i. e., shareholder activism), and the participation of shareholders in the credit market provides opportunities to internalise the shareholder-creditor conflicts. This group's research seeks to advance the knowledge of different stakeholders' methods and their effectiveness in influencing governance objects.
Workpackage 1: Talent Selection, Incentive, and Retention
Workpackage 2: Stakeholders and Governance
Research Cluster
Financial Resilience and RegulationYour contact

- Department Financial Markets
Refereed Publications

The Effects of Antitrust Laws on Horizontal Mergers: International Evidence
in: Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, No. 7, 2024
Abstract
This study examines how antitrust law adoptions affect horizontal merger and acquisition (M&A) outcomes. Using the staggered introduction of competition laws in 20 countries, we find antitrust regulation decreases acquirers’ five-day cumulative abnormal returns surrounding horizontal merger announcements. A decrease in deal value, target book assets, and industry peers' announcement returns are consistent with the market power hypothesis. Exploiting antitrust law adoptions addresses a downward bias to an estimated effect of antitrust enforcement (Baker (2003)). The potential bias from heterogeneous treatment effects does not nullify our results. Overall, antitrust policies seem to deter post-merger monopolistic gains, potentially improving customer welfare.

Non-Standard Errors
in: Journal of Finance, No. 3, 2024
Abstract
In statistics, samples are drawn from a population in a datagenerating process (DGP). Standard errors measure the uncertainty in sample estimates of population parameters. In science, evidence is generated to test hypotheses in an evidencegenerating process (EGP). We claim that EGP variation across researchers adds uncertainty: non-standard errors. To study them, we let 164 teams test six hypotheses on the same sample. We find that non-standard errors are sizeable, on par with standard errors. Their size (i) co-varies only weakly with team merits, reproducibility, or peer rating, (ii) declines significantly after peer-feedback, and (iii) is underestimated by participants.

Disentangling Stock Return Synchronicity From the Auditor's Perspective
in: Journal of Business Finance and Accounting, No. 5, 2024
Abstract
<p>This paper investigates a firm's stock return asynchronicity through the auditor's perspective to distinguish whether this asynchronicity can proxy for the company's firm-specific information or the quality of its information environment. We find a significant and positive association between asynchronicity and audit fees after controlling for auditor quality and other factors that affect audit fees, suggesting that stock return asynchronicity is more likely to capture a company's firm-specific information than its information environment. We also find that asynchronous firms are more likely to receive adverse opinions on their internal controls over financial reporting, but are associated with lower costs of capital and auditor litigation, providing further evidence in support of the firm-specific information argument. Asynchronicity's positive association with audit fees is driven by firms with higher accounting reporting complexity, suggesting stock return asynchronicity captures a firm's complexity, resulting in more significant efforts by the auditor.</p>

Regulation and Information Costs of Sovereign Distress: Evidence from Corporate Lending Markets
in: Journal of Corporate Finance, October 2023
Abstract
We examine the effect of sovereign credit impairments on the pricing of syndicated loans following rating downgrades in the borrowing firms' countries of domicile. We find that the sovereign ceiling policies used by credit rating agencies create a disproportionately adverse impact on the bounded firms' borrowing costs relative to other domestic firms following their sovereign's rating downgrade. Rating-based regulatory frictions partially explain our results. On the supply-side, loans carry a higher spread when granted from low-capital banks, non-bank lenders, and banks with high market power. We further document an operating demand-side channel, contingent on borrowers' size, financial constraints, and global diversification. Our results can be attributed to the relative bargaining power between lenders and borrowers: relationship borrowers and non-bank dependent borrowers with alternative financing sources are much less affected.

Compensation Regulation in Banking: Executive Director Behavior and Bank Performance after the EU Bonus Cap
in: Journal of Accounting and Economics, No. 1, 2023
Abstract
The regulation that caps executives’ variable compensation, as part of the Capital Requirements Directive IV of 2013, likely affected executive turnover, compensation design, and risk-taking in EU banking. The current study identifies significantly higher average turnover rates but also finds that they are driven by CEOs at poorly performing banks. Banks indemnified their executives by off-setting the bonus cap with higher fixed compensation. Although our evidence is only suggestive, we do not find any reduction in risk-taking at the bank level, one purported aim of the regulation.
Working Papers

Censored Fractional Response Model: Estimating Heterogeneous Relative Risk Aversion of European Households
in: IWH Discussion Papers, No. 11, 2015
Abstract
This paper estimates relative risk aversion using the observed shares of risky assets and characteristics of households from the Household Finance and Consumption Survey of the European Central Bank. Given that the risky share is a fractional response variable belonging to [0, 1], this paper proposes a censored fractional response estimation method using extremal quantiles to approximate the censoring thresholds. Considering that participation in risky asset markets is costly, I estimate both the heterogeneous relative risk aversion and participation cost using a working sample that includes both risky asset holders and non-risky asset holders by treating the zero risky share as the result of heterogeneous self-censoring. Estimation results show lower participation costs and higher relative risk aversion than what was previously estimated. The estimated median relative risk aversions of eight European countries range from 4.6 to 13.6. However, the results are sensitive to households’ perception of the risky asset market return and volatility.