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.

We exploit an exogenous change in basis risk in the oil and gas industry to analyze the channels through which hedging affects firm value. Using a difference-in-differences framework, we find that firms affected by a basis risk shock reduce investment, have lower valuations, sell assets, and reduce debt. Our findings are driven by firms with ex ante high leverage. Overall, our results provide evidence that reducing the probability of financial distress and underinvestment risk are first-order channels through which hedging affects firm value. Received October 5, 2015; editorial decision December 22, 2016 by Editor David Denis.