On theoretical grounds, monitoring of top executives by the (supervisory) board is expected to be value relevant. The empirical evidence is ambiguous and we analyze three non-competing explanations for this ambiguity: (i) The positive effect on firm value of board monitoring is hidden in stock price effects due to the simultaneous occurrence of the positive real effect of monitoring and the opposing information effect. (ii) The combination of board monitoring and monitoring by other parties prevents assessing the value relevance of board monitoring in isolation. (iii) The confounding effect of a simultaneous successor appointment typically generates an upward biased estimate. Based on an analysis of price effects and trading volumes at announcement, we conclude that monitoring by the supervisory board is valued by investors: Forced departures of executive directors, also without a successor appointment, are value relevant in the Netherlands where external control mechanisms and shareholder control were virtually absent in the period studied (1991–2000).

Most U.S. public companies have a single class of voting common shares: voting power is proportional to economic ownership. Linking votes to shares is often thought to be desirable, because, as residual claimants, shareholders have an incentive to exercise voting power well. The linkage also facilitates the market for corporate control. On the other hand, decoupling is efficient in some situations. Equity derivatives and other capital market developments now allow shareholders to readily decouple voting rights from economic ownership of shares, often without public disclosure. Hedge funds are prominent users of decoupling. Sometimes they hold more votes than economic ownership (a situation we term “empty voting”). Sometimes they hold undisclosed economic ownership without votes, but often with the de facto ability to acquire votes if needed (a situation we term ‘‘hidden (morphable) ownership”). This Article analyzes empty voting and hidden (morphable) ownership, which we term the “new vote buying.” We offer a framework for unpacking its functional elements and assess its potential benefits and costs. Two companion legal articles (Hu, Henry T.C., and Bernard S. Black, 2006a. The New Vote Buying: Empty Voting and Hidden (Morphable) Ownership, Southern California Law Review 79, 811–908#, and Hu, Henry T.C., and Bernard S. Black, 2006b. Empty Voting and Hidden Ownership: Taxonomy, Implications and Reforms, Business Lawyer 61, 1011–1069.) provide more details on current disclosure rules and offer a disclosure reform proposal.