IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/mgtdec/v26y2005i1p15-23.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Proxy contest, board reelection, and managerial turnover-yes, the proxy contest outcome matters

Author

Listed:
  • Gili Yen

    (Department of Business Administration, Chaoyang University of Technology, Taiwan)

  • Ching-Lung Chen

    (National Yunlin University of Science and Technology, Taiwan)

Abstract

In a previous study based on a matched sample analysis, it is found that in Taiwan top management turnover rate for the listed firms in the presence of a proxy contest is much higher than the ones without a proxy contest. In other words, the hypothesis of job security has gained empirical support. Taking account of the proxy contest outcomes, the present study extends the sample years, i.e. 1994-1999, to further examine the impact of proxy contest on managerial turnover. In conformity with expectations, the major empirical findings can be summarized as follows: the highest turnover rate of top management is observed in the firms of which the dissidents win majority seats; the second highest turnover rate is observed in the firms of which the dissidents win some seats; whereas the lowest turnover rate is observed in the firms of which the dissidents win no seats. Empirical findings of this kind provide further support to the view that proxy contest has played an effective monitoring role in disciplining incumbent management. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Suggested Citation

  • Gili Yen & Ching-Lung Chen, 2005. "Proxy contest, board reelection, and managerial turnover-yes, the proxy contest outcome matters," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(1), pages 15-23.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:mgtdec:v:26:y:2005:i:1:p:15-23
    DOI: 10.1002/mde.1186
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1002/mde.1186
    File Function: Link to full text; subscription required
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/mde.1186?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Yen, Gili, 1987. "Merger proposals, managerial discretion, and magnitude of shareholders' wealth gains," Journal of Economics and Business, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 251-266, August.
    2. Martin J. Conyon, 1998. "Directors' Pay and Turnover: An Application to a Sample of Large UK Firms," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 60(4), pages 485-507, November.
    3. Henry G. Manne, 1965. "Mergers and the Market for Corporate Control," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 73(2), pages 110-110.
    4. Agrawal, Anup & Walkling, Ralph A, 1994. "Executive Careers and Compensation Surrounding Takeover Bids," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 49(3), pages 985-1014, July.
    5. Jensen, Michael C. & Ruback, Richard S., 1983. "The market for corporate control : The scientific evidence," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 11(1-4), pages 5-50, April.
    6. Henry G. Manne, 1965. "Mergers and the Market for Corporate Control," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 73(4), pages 351-351.
    7. Denis, David J. & Serrano, Jan M., 1996. "Active investors and management turnover following unsuccessful control contests," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(2), pages 239-266, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ana I. Fernández & Silvia Gómez-Ansón, 1999. "Un estudio de las Ofertas Públicas de Adquisición en el mercado de valores español," Investigaciones Economicas, Fundación SEPI, vol. 23(3), pages 471-495, September.
    2. Peter M Clarkson & Shams Pathan & Andrew Tellam, 2016. "Do private equity target firms exhibit less effectual governance structures?," Australian Journal of Management, Australian School of Business, vol. 41(2), pages 244-270, May.
    3. Agrawal, Anup & Knoeber, Charles R., 1998. "Managerial compensation and the threat of takeover," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(2), pages 219-239, February.
    4. Shleifer, Andrei & Vishny, Robert W, 1997. "A Survey of Corporate Governance," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 52(2), pages 737-783, June.
    5. Carline, Nicholas F. & Linn, Scott C. & Yadav, Pradeep K., 2014. "Corporate governance and the nature of takeover resistance," CFR Working Papers 14-01, University of Cologne, Centre for Financial Research (CFR).
    6. Jay Dahya & Ronan Powell, 1998. "Ownership Structure, Managerial Turnover and Takeovers: Further U.K. Evidence on the Market for Corporate Control," Multinational Finance Journal, Multinational Finance Journal, vol. 2(1), pages 62-83, March.
    7. Maurizio Zollo, 1998. "Strategies or Routines ? Knowledge Codification, Path-Dependence and the Evolution of Post-Acquisition Integration Practices in the U.S. Banking Industry," Center for Financial Institutions Working Papers 97-10, Wharton School Center for Financial Institutions, University of Pennsylvania.
    8. Sang V. Nguyen & Michael Ollinger, 2006. "Mergers and Acquisitions and Productivity in the U.S. Meat Products Industries: Evidence from the Micro Data," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 88(3), pages 606-616.
    9. Pak Hung Au & Yuk‐Fai Fong & Jin Li, 2020. "Negotiated Block Trade And Rebuilding Of Trust," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 61(2), pages 901-939, May.
    10. Matthias Kiefer & Edward Jones & Andrew Adams, 2016. "Principals, Agents and Incomplete Contracts: Are Surrender of Control and Renegotiation the Solution?," CFI Discussion Papers 1603, Centre for Finance and Investment, Heriot Watt University.
    11. Dennis Mueller, 1996. "Antimerger policy in the United States: History and lessons," Empirica, Springer;Austrian Institute for Economic Research;Austrian Economic Association, vol. 23(3), pages 229-253, October.
    12. Ollinger, Michael & Nguyen, Sang V., 2003. "Empirical Evidence On The Motives For Mergers And Acquisitions In Eight Food Industries," 2003 Annual meeting, July 27-30, Montreal, Canada 22176, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    13. Grossman, Sanford J. & Hart, Oliver D., 1988. "One share-one vote and the market for corporate control," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(1-2), pages 175-202, January.
    14. R. Abdul Rahman & R.J. Limmack, 2004. "Corporate Acquisitions and the Operating Performance of Malaysian Companies," Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(3‐4), pages 359-400, April.
    15. Tunyi, Abongeh A. & Ntim, Collins G. & Danbolt, Jo, 2019. "Decoupling management inefficiency: Myopia, hyperopia and takeover likelihood," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 1-20.
    16. Abe De Jong & Philip T. Fliers, 2020. "Predicting Takeover Targets: Long-Run Evidence from the Netherlands," De Economist, Springer, vol. 168(3), pages 343-368, September.
    17. Ollinger, Michael & Nguyen, Sang V. & Blayney, Donald P. & Chambers, William & Nelson, Kenneth B., 2006. "Food Industry Mergers and Acquisitions Lead to Higher Labor Productivity," Economic Research Report 7246, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    18. Dickerson, Andrew P. & Gibson, Heather D. & Tsakalotos, Euclid, 2002. "Takeover risk and the market for corporate control: the experience of British firms in the 1970s and 1980s," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 20(8), pages 1167-1195, October.
    19. David Gindis, 0. "On the origins, meaning and influence of Jensen and Meckling’s definition of the firm," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 72(4), pages 966-984.
    20. Martin Hellwig, 2005. "Market Discipline, Information Processing, and Corporate Governance," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2005_19, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:mgtdec:v:26:y:2005:i:1:p:15-23. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/7976 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.