Building upon the premise that, under certain conditions, the ability of the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) to pressure the Chief Financial Officer (CFO) is limited, we develop a measure of CFO resistance that captures the ability of the CFO to resist undue pressure from the CEO to manage earnings. In doing so, we consider various sources of power for both the CEO and CFO, and a market setting where CFO resistance is perceived to be high. We find that firms with resistant CFOs are less likely to engage in earnings management than firms with non-resistant CFOs, ceteris paribus. Additionally, while confirming prior evidence that CEOs with strong incentives are more likely to manage earnings, we show that this effect is significantly less pronounced in the presence of resistant CFOs. Overall, our findings suggest that firms can improve the quality of financial reporting by creating conditions that enable CFO resistance.

This paper examines the extent to which Chief Financial Officers (CFOs) affect corporate cash holding policies. We construct an index (CFO index) that enables us to distinguish between “strong” and “weak” CFOs based on their ability to influence firm outcomes. We find that firms with strong CFOs hold substantially less cash than firms with weak CFOs, ceteris paribus. Importantly, the CFO effect documented in our study goes beyond the effect caused by the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) on cash holdings. Our findings provide the first direct empirical evidence that firms with strong CFOs are well positioned to hold less cash due to their relatively weak precautionary motive and superior ability to raise external financing during periods of financial stress. Consistent with an agency explanation, our results also show that strong CFOs fulfill a monitoring role in firms with higher agency costs.

This study examines the effect of Chief Financial Officers (CFOs) on mergers and acquisitions using a newly constructed CFO Influence Index. Because the perceived influence of CFOs is high in U.K. firms, we use that market for our analysis. We find that influential CFOs as measured by experience, stature, and pay are associated with more deal completions and the pursuit of smaller, domestic targets. High influence CFOs require less time to complete a deal and are able to identify higher quality targets for which they pay less. We also discover that firms with high influence CFOs enjoy greater long-term operating and financial performance post-merger. We conclude that influential CFOs are effective in creating shareholder value during M&A.

We examine how sovereign rating downgrades affect firms' environmental, social, and governance (ESG) policies, leveraging the sovereign “ceiling” rule as a quasi-natural experiment that generates exogenous variation in corporate credit ratings. Under this rule, firms originally rated at or above the sovereign rating (bound firms) face a higher likelihood of downgrade following a sovereign downgrade. Using a difference-in-differences (DiD) setting, we find that bound firms experience a decline in ESG performance following a sovereign downgrade. This decline occurs only after the downgrade, not before, validating the parallel trends assumption. Our analysis further indicates that this effect is not driven by financing frictions and is concentrated in countries with a shareholder-centric orientation, and among firms with low institutional ownership from countries with strong social norms. Additional evidence suggests that affected firms experience an increase in ESG-related incidents, damaging their reputation post-downgrade. Overall, our findings underscore the crucial role of sovereign risk in shaping corporate sustainability practices.