An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.

This paper examines the impact of local competition and local firm market power on misconduct by analyzing the investment adviser market. The study is based on an extensive sample of more than 3.8 million employee-year observations of investment advisers resulting in 709,416 firm-county-year observations over 12 years. The findings show that a firm's county-level market power and county market competition have a negative influence on investment adviser misconduct. The result is robust to a battery of empirical tests. We show that a firm exhibits lower levels of misconduct in counties in which it has greater local market power. We also identify the effect of local competition and market power on misconduct using two exogenous shocks, mergers and acquisitions (M&As) and the end of a local monopoly. We establish adviser employment stability as a novel channel for explaining the impact of local competition and firm market power on misconduct.

This paper examines whether board gender diversity affects the decision to cross-list firms. The study is based on an extensive sample of 131,022 company-year observations consisting of 15,751 unique companies across 66 industries in 83 countries with different levels of institutional development from 1999 to 2018. Analysis reveals that cross-listing is not rare phenomena, but rather a very attractive strategy that is widely used by corporations seeking financial internationalization. The findings show that greater gender diversity on the board reduces the probability of cross-listing, and are robust to a battery of endogeneity tests including IV of gender grammatical marking, propensity score matching and reverse causality. In addition, we find that stronger institutional context will offset part of the negative effect that having women on the board has on cross-listing.

We examine the impact of board gender diversity on equity-based compensation in executive pay. We show that the presence of female directors is associated with lower equity-based compensation in executive pay—particularly when female directors serve on compensation committees or when boards are dominated by insiders. Our findings support the view that female directors serve as effective monitors, potentially substituting for other corporate governance mechanisms, such as incentive-based pay and board independence. Our results are not driven by lower pay-for-performance sensitivity induced by poor stock performance. We do not find evidence consistent with risk-aversion on the part of female directors.