[We provide new evidence linking board characteristics and performance. Using manually collected governance data from the mutual fund industry, we find an inverse relation between board size and fund performance. We also find evidence that organizational form plays an important role in determining operational performance. Overall, the results are consistent with the notion that there may not be a single optimal board structure that is applicable to all funds, that attempts to regulate board attributes should be considered with caution, and that sponsor-level factors are important board structure considerations.]

We examine the impact of CEO turnover announcements on bondholder wealth, stockholder wealth, and overall firm value. Using publicly traded data for the period from 1973 to 2000, we find evidence consistent with both the wealth transfer and signaling hypotheses. Specifically, we find that CEO turnover events are associated with lower bondholder values, higher stockholder values, and that net changes in firm value are a function of turnover type (forced vs voluntary and outside vs inside firm replacements) and the riskiness of the firm’s debt (investment vs non-investment grade). Overall, the results contribute to the understanding of the effects of corporate governance mechanisms, of which CEO turnover is an extreme form, on bondholders.

We provide new evidence linking board characteristics and performance. We employ a sample of index funds to isolate the operational component of performance, thereby minimizing investment policy effects in our performance measures. Using manually collected governance data from the mutual fund industry covering the period from 1998 to 2007, we find an inverse relation between board size and fund performance. We also find evidence supporting our hypotheses that organizational form (whether the fund sponsor is publicly or privately held) plays an important role in determining operational performance. Specifically, we find that board size, the presence of fund sponsor officers, and boards comprised of all independent directors are related to operational performance when the sponsor is publicly held. For privately held firms, board structure is insignificantly related to performance. Overall, the results are consistent with the notion that there may not be a single optimal board structure that is applicable to all funds, attempts to regulate board attributes should be considered with caution, and sponsor level factors are important board structure considerations. (JLE G34, G32, G20)

The recent surge in the use of team-managed funds in the mutual fund industry suggests that the benefits of team management might outweigh its costs. However, extant empirical evidence is not consistent with the view that team-managed funds generate superior returns relative to individual-managed funds. We argue that the benefits of team management are likely to be manifested in the presence of strong board monitoring because the potential free-rider problems within team-managed funds are alleviated. Our findings, that smaller boards and boards with a higher proportion of independent directors are positively associated with performance in team but not individual-managed funds, are consistent with this view. Our results suggest that in team-managed fund structures, where the potential free-riding problems exist, the presence of strong board monitoring improves fund performance.

There is a long running debate over whether competition in the mutual fund industry limits the ability of investment advisors to charge fees that are disproportionate to the services they provide. We posit that disproportionately high fees are prevalent in funds with multiple share classes and those with weak governance structures. Using a comprehensive sample of index mutual funds for the from 1998 to 2007, we find that internal governance mechanisms matter primarily for funds with relatively small share classes where investors often face increased search costs and/or restricted access to competitive mutual funds. Additionally, we find that funds managed by publicly held sponsors are associated with disproportionately higher fee spreads (about 28 basis points). The results are robust to the inclusion of board characteristics, share class structure, and investment objectives. Overall, our findings suggest that competition and agency considerations are important determinants in the pricing of mutual funds.