Classified boards actually benefit firms that have low monitoring costs and greater needs for advisory services. Previous literature has emphasized the entrenchment effect of classified boards. However, we find that this adverse impact of classified boards can be offset or even superseded by the potential benefits of board classification for firms who hope to benefit from the advisory services of their independent directors. We show that firms with greater advising needs appoint more outside directors with diverse attributes and expertise, qualifications that enhance the ability to provide useful advice to managers. Furthermore, in such firms, board classification is associated with higher performance sensitivity of forced CEO turnover and better acquisition performance. Conversely, in firms with high monitoring costs, board classification hurts managerial equity-based incentives and risk-taking incentives. These findings suggest how and through which channels classified boards engender the differential effects on firm value.

Using firm‐level data from 23 developed markets, we document a positive association between overall firm‐level governance quality and the informativeness of earnings announcements measured by abnormal stock return variance. This finding is robust after controlling for the potential endogeneity of firm‐level corporate governance. Further analyses reveal that firms with strong governance show little evidence of earnings management, appoint Big 4 auditing firms, and attract analyst following, implying a positive link between strong corporate governance and the information quality of earnings announcements. Finally, there is some evidence that the relation between firm‐level governance and market reactions around the announcements exists only in countries characterized by a transparent information environment and strong legal investor protection.

This paper examines the dynamics of administered interest rate changes in response to changes in the benchmark money market rate in Singapore. Our results show that the administered rates’ adjustment speed differs across both financial institutions and financial products. The financial institutions’ administered (lending and deposit) rates, moreover, are more rigid when they are below their equilibrium level than when they are above. Our finding, hence, implies that the speed of monetary transmission is not uniform across all sectors of the economy and that a tightening monetary policy takes a longer time to impact the economy than an expansionary monetary policy.