Abstract:We examine whether takeover threats affect the importance of board size using the passage of state antitakeover laws enacted in mid-to-late 1980s as our empirical setting. While the Complement Hypothesis predicts that board size matters more before the passage of the laws, the Substitute Hypothesis predicts the opposite. For a sample of 350 Forbes 500 firms over the period 1984–1991, we find a significant association between smaller boards and better firm performance before passage of antitakeover laws, but a much weaker relation (reduced by more than one-third) after the takeover restrictions were in place. Consistent with the Complement Hypothesis , this finding suggests that decreasing board size is more valuable when the market for corporate control is more active.

Board Size and Firm Performance: the Moderating Effects of the Market for Corporate Control