Abstract:the past two decades, increasing the influence of common shareholders has become a touchstone of good governance and shareholder democracy across the globe. Institutional activism combined with major regulatory overhauls has led shareholders to play a more active role in corporate decision-making. Yet, there are only a handful of studies that examine the role of corporate governance on a CEO’s opportunity costs to sell her holdings. In this paper, we provide evidence that quality of governance helps to explain a significant amount of variation in CEO ownership and the compensation structure. We argue that exogenous improvements in governance standards reduce the CEO’s costs to sell her shares because the market puts a higher weight on liquidity-related sales relative to private information-related sales. We find that CEO ownership level is strongly negatively related to the quality of corporate governance. Further, we argue that higher liquidation of shareholdings lowers the CEO’s wealth-performance sensitivity; hence, the compensation committee needs to give more incentive compensation to keep the wealth-performance sensitivity at the optimal level. We find that CEO incentive intensity is positively associated with the quality of corporate governance. Thus, we find that CEOs get more stakes in the firm, but CEOs choose to hold a lower stake in their portfolio. We use the passage of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (henceforth, SOX) as a quasi-natural experiment to mitigate the causality concern between corporate governance, CEO’s stick ownership, and compensation structure. As a robustness test, we check that CEOs, under good governance, have higher yearly share sales. This effect is positively related to CEOs' tenure and negatively related to the size of the firm. However, we show that even if they earn higher incentive compensation, CEOs with lower stock ownership have lower wealth-performance sensitivity compared to CEOs with higher stock ownership. Our results have important implications for contracting mechanisms related to mitigating agency problems.

Governance in the Executive Suite and Board Independence

Governance in Executive Suites

The Independent Board Requirement and CEO Connectedness

Executive Suite Independence: is It Related to Board Independence?

Unintended Consequences of the Independent Board Requirement on CEO Power

On the Moderating Effects of Country Governance on the Relationships between Corporate Governance and Firm Performance

Quality of Governance, Opportunity Costs, and CEO Compensation Structure

Differences in Board Independence’s Impact on ESG with Respect to Power Constraints: Evidence from a Heterogeneity Perspective

Figureheads or potentates? CEO power and board oversight in the context of Sarbanes Oxley

CEO Ownership, External Governance, and Risk-taking

Executive Board Chairs: Examining the Performance Consequences of a Corporate Governance Hybrid

Board Leadership Structure and Corporate Governance—Evidence from CEO Turnovers in China' s Listed Firms

Government Regulation, Corporate Board, and Firm Value: Evidence from China

Board Independence, Ownership Concentration and Corporate Performance - Chinese Evidence

Does Independence of the Board Affect Firm Performance?

Does Board Monitoring Substitute for External Corporate Governance? Evidence from Private Firms

Independent Directors: One Head, Two Hats - A Mismatch between Delaware Corporate Law and Federal Securities Law

Board Network,Governance Role of Independent Directors and Executive Incentives

The Structural Elaboration of Board Independence: Executive Power, Institutional Logics, and the Adoption of CEO-Only Board Structures in U.S. Corporate Governance

Count on Subordinate Executives: Internal Governance and Innovation

The Independence of Independent Directors:Evidence from Board Voting Behavior