We provide causal evidence on the effects of mandated board independence. We compare firms that replace existing non-independent directors to firms that retain these directors by reclassifying them as independent. Reclassification eligibility, being largely predetermined, offers quasi-exogenous variation in compliance strategies. We show that firms required to replace insiders perform worse post-mandate, driven by increased operational costs and reduced labor efficiency. Boards of non-reclassifying firms retain fewer former employees and replace them with directors more likely to join monitoring-focused committees, emphasizing the shift from advising to monitoring. Overall, these findings suggest that firm-specific director expertise contributes materially to performance and is consistent with pre-mandate board compositions optimized to balance benefits of enhanced monitoring against costs of reduced advisory capacity. We rule out alternative explanations, including adjustment costs due to director turnover and co-option. Our study underscores the importance of allowing firms’ flexibility in governance structures and cautions against uniform mandates.

Active mutual funds supply liquidity when demanding it becomes uneconomical. They tilt toward cheaper buy trades after inflows deplete their trading ideas, when trading ideas in general run low, and when they have more stocks to supply liquidity to, and their cheaper trades perform worse. Their largest trades are more likely to supply liquidity, explaining why they were not broken up. Funds perform better when they pay more for their buys and perform worse when they pay more for their sells, consistent with the implied value of the trades and the correlation between what a fund trades and what it holds.