Motivated by recent changes to corporate governance standards around the world, we use a regulatory shock that substantially altered the governance structure for some firms to shed light on the long-term impact of mandates that are of global interest. Firms affected by this shock had lower values and non-mandated governance practices that were less shareholder friendly before the mandates were in effect when compared to unaffected matched peers. In the post-mandate period, we document a 48% tightening of the relative value gap, and show that this gap relates to the continued use of less shareholder friendly non-mandated governance practices. Our results suggest that governance mandates can tighten, but not eliminate, the value gap between poorly and well governed firms, and that firms affected by the shock continue to have less shareholder friendly governance cultures long after regulatory intervention.

This paper asks whether dissent votes in uncontested director elections have consequences for directors. We show that contrary to popular belief based on prior studies, shareholder votes have power and result in negative consequences for directors. Directors facing dissent are more likely to depart boards, especially if they are not lead directors or chairs of important committees. Directors facing dissent who do not leave are moved to less prominent positions on boards. Finally, we find evidence that directors facing dissent face reduced opportunities in the market for directors. We also find that the effects of dissent votes go beyond those of proxy advisor recommendations.