There are competing theories as to whether managers learn from stock prices. Dye and Sridhar (2002), for example, argue that capital markets can be better informed than the firm itself, while Roll [Roll, R., 1986, “The hubris hypothesis of corporate takeovers,” Journal of Business 59, 97–216.] argues managers may ignore market signals due to hubris. In this paper, we examine whether managers listen to the market in making major corporate investments, and whether agency costs and corporate governance mechanisms help explain managers' propensity to listen. We find that, on average, managers listen to the market: they are more likely to cancel investments when the market reacts unfavorably to the related announcement. Further, we find mixed evidence consistent with the notion that managers' propensity to listen is related to agency costs. We find that firms tend to listen to the market more when more of their shares are held by large blockholders, and when their CEOs have higher pay-performance sensitivities.

Prior research suggests that the effectiveness of corporate directors depends on their qualifications. We investigate whether directors' qualifications affect the roles they perform on the board (board functions) and their compensation. On average, directors that are more qualified handle more board functions, resulting in higher pay, but this is not true for “co-opted” directors (joined the board after the CEO). However, co-opted directors are assigned more functions and receive higher pay on boards where the CEO's influence is high. We also find that some firms award directors “discretionary compensation” (compensation that is unrelated to board functions), and that the likelihood of such compensation is correlated with CEO power. Overall, our evidence generates new insights into how director roles and financial incentives are allocated across directors, and the extent to which this allocation depends on CEO power.