From 2013 onwards, the Chinese central government has subjected the largest state-owned enterprises (SOEs) to ‘disciplinary inspections’ to weed out and punish graft and other corruption. While this policy has been somewhat successful in punishing corruption—over 160 top SOE officials have been indicted—we show that the principal economic impact of these inspections has been to significantly cut investment by targeted firms, leading to a major decline in profitability, innovation and Tobin’s Q. Expenditures on R&D, entertainment, and travel also decline dramatically. The most obvious explanation is that the fear induced in SOE managers, who have limited risk-promoting equity holdings or incentive compensation and few external employment options, deterred them from taking risky but value-enhancing investments post-audit.

We examine the effect of board members with venture capital experience (i.e., VC directors) on executive incentives at publicly listed firms. VC directors serving on the compensation committee are associated with greater CEO risk-taking incentives (i.e., vega) and greater pay-for-performance sensitivity (i.e., delta). These effects are more substantial if VC directors are from highly reputable VC firms. Using Regulation S-K requirements to disclose attributes of nominated directors as an instrument, we show that these results are causal. We also document that prior finding of greater research intensity and innovation when VC directors serve on boards of public firms are in part explained by the presence of increased risk-taking incentives of the CEO instilled by such directors. Lastly, we find that having VC directors on nominating and/or governance committees is associated with a higher likelihood of forced CEO turnover.

This study examines how corporate governance influences short-term and long-term bidder returns from China’s domestic mergers and acquisitions during 2001-2010. We examine a range of corporate governance measures covering ownership structure, board structure, insider ownership and managerial incentives while controlling for bidder and deal characteristics. Our initial results from events analyses show that market responses differ in ways which suggest a difference in how the market’s assessment of share price from the perspectives of short run and long run. Bidders obtain significant positive abnormal returns over the five-day event period but suffer significant wealth losses for two years following the deal completion. Our further analyses on factors driving the price difference show that executive ownership (positive) and state ownership (negative) exert opposite effects on the announcement period returns. The returns further differ by way of payments with positive (negative) effects from stock (cash) financing. Our long-term regression analyses show that the positive impact of executive ownership remains. Independent directors record a negative effect on abnormal returns. Nevertheless, board independence measured by the composite corporate governance index exerts a significant, positive effect on shareholder wealth. Our study highlights the need for the state to accelerate the share structure reform and formulate policies that encourage executive ownership and sound corporate governance.

This study proposes an incentive alignment hypothesis of corporate spin-off activities, in which executive compensation contracts tie the interests of CEOs with those of shareholders and the reduction of agency problems enhances firm value through corporate spin-offs. Consistent with this hypothesis, CEOs with a high level of equitybased compensation are more likely to initiate a spin-off. The announcements of such corporate restructurings are reacted positively by the market. Firms engaging in spin-offs provide greater operating growth in the years following the restructurings compared with their size- and industry-matched control firms. Also consistent with this hypothesis, high incentive CEOs yield more personal gains by selling shares and exercising options following spin-offs.