|
||||
|
||||
Management Turnover and Corporate Governance Changes Following the Revelation of Fraud
Anup Agrawal University of Alabama - Culverhouse College of Commerce & Business Administration Jeffrey F. Jaffe University of Pennsylvania - Finance Department Jonathan M. Karpoff University of Washington - Michael G. Foster School of Business Journal of Law and Economics, April 1999 Abstract: Anecdotal evidence suggests that top managers of firms that are investigated for fraud lose their jobs. Fraud scandals plausibly create incentives to change managers, in an attempt to improve the firm's performance, recover lost reputational capital, or limit the firm's exposure to liabilities that arise from the fraud. It also is possible that fraud creates incentives to change the composition of the firm's board, to improve the external monitoring of managers or to rent new directors' valuable reputational or political capital. Despite such claims, we find little systematic evidence that firms suspected or charged with fraud have unusually high turnover among senior managers or directors. In univariate comparisons, there is some evidence that firms committing fraud have higher managerial and director turnover. But in multivariate tests that control for other firm attributes, such evidence disappears. These findings indicate that the revelation of fraud does not, in general, increase the net benefits to changing managers or the firm's leadership structure.
Note: Correction: This reprinted abstract corrects the affiliation for co-author Anup Agrawal. Accepted Paper SeriesDate posted: December 02, 1998 ; Last revised: March 08, 2001Suggested CitationContact Information
|
|
||||||||||||||||
© 2009 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Terms of Use Privacy Policy
This page was served by apollo3 in 0.125 seconds.