Skip to main content

The Impact of Board Gender Composition on Dividend Payouts

Academics have been devoting more and more attention to board gender diversity and its effects over the last two decades. However, most of that literature has a relatively narrow focus as it limits itself to studying the effects of female directors on firm performance and firm value as well as risk taking. Nevertheless, recent literature has adopted a much broader perspective by studying the impact of female directors on various aspects of corporate decision making. This literature tends to concur that female directors and managers have a significant influence on corporate decisions. For example, firms with female directors tend to focus more on corporate social responsibility (CSR) than firms with male directors only. Female directors are also less likely to downsize their workforce. They are also more likely to hire female top executives. Female directors also differ from their male colleagues in other ways: they tend to make fewer acquisitions and for those acquisitions they make they typically offer a lower premium to the target shareholders. They also make less risky financing and investment choices, such as taking out less debt. Finally, companies with female directors have also been found to subject their insider directors to greater pay-performance sensitivity and CEO turnover is also more sensitive to performance.
Importantly, some of the literature also suggests that female directors change behavioral boardroom dynamics. For example, female directors have a better attendance rate at board meetings and, they also improve the attendance rate of their male colleagues. They are also less conformist, and more vocal and activist than male directors. The quality of boardroom discussions of complex decision problems is also significantly improved by the presence of female directors. Such quality improvement in discussions stems from the different and sometimes conflicting points of view that female directors bring into the boardroom. Hence, more diverse boards of directors are less likely to suffer from so called groupthink. Apart from improving boardroom deliberations via an enriched information set, female directors also tend to have a greater focus on the monitoring function of the board. For example, they are more likely to be members of board committees—such as the audit, nomination and corporate governance committee—that relate to monitoring.
While board monitoring is an important governance device to ensure that managers do not waste shareholder funds on perks and empire building, there are other such devices. One such device is dividend policy. Subjecting managers to high dividend payouts will reduce free cash flow within the company, thereby limiting any wastage of shareholder funds. However, while higher dividends reduce the so called agency costs they also increase transaction costs. The increase in transaction costs stems from the company’s greater reliance on external funding, given that internal funds are now much lower and unlikely to be sufficient to sustain the company’s investment activities. This would then suggest that there is an optimal dividend payout, which minimizes the sum of agency costs and transaction costs. A slightly different spin on the governance role of high dividends turns the greater reliance on external funding into a virtue, and not just a source of transaction costs. The argument goes as follows. Each time the company returns to the stock market to raise additional funding, it subjects itself to the scrutiny of potential investors, the financial press, financial analysts, etc. Additional financing will only be provided if the company has performed well in recent years. Hence, managers are under constant pressure to perform well and to pursue shareholder interests.
In our study, The Impact of Board Gender Composition on Dividend Payouts, we combine the greater emphasis of female directors on monitoring with the governance role of dividends. We expect that companies with female directors have higher dividend payouts. We expect this result to hold mainly in companies with weak governance and high governance needs. We find strong support for our hypothesis for a sample of 1,691 companies from the S&P1500 for the period of 1997-2011, amounting to 12,050 firm-year observations. We find a positive and statistically significant relationship between board gender composition and the level of dividend payout. This effect is economically significant as an increase of 10 percentage points in the fraction of female directors is associated with a 1.67 percentage point increase in the firm’s dividend payout (the average dividend payout for our sample is 22.9%).
We qualify companies as having poor governance quality if their management is entrenched, the CEO is also the chairman of the board of directors, the percentage of independent directors is low or product market competition is weak. In addition, we expect that high-technology companies are less reliant on the monitoring role of the board of directors and more reliant on its advisory role whereas the opposite is the case for low-technology companies. Hence, we expect that the latter have higher governance needs than the former. As expected, we only observe the positive impact of the female directors on the dividend payout for companies with weak governance as well as those with high governance needs.
Our study makes an important contribution to the ongoing debate about board gender diversity. It suggests that gender diversity may be more important as well as more desirable in companies with weak governance and high governance needs.
The full paper is available for download here.

Legal disclaimer: This blog reflects my personal opinion and not necessarily that of my employer. Any links to external websites are provided for information only and I am neither responsible nor do I endorse any of the information provided by these websites. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The private equity deals that fail to justify 'fast buck' strategiesBy Marc Goergen, Cardiff University; Geoffrey Wood, University of Warwick, and Noel O'Sullivan, Loughborough UniversityThere is an ongoing and very heated debate between the unconditional supporters of private equity and their opponents. It’s not hard to see why. On the surface, these investors can often buy fragile companies, load on debt to fund strategic change and sack workers in a bid for efficiency. It can look ruthless, but the industry claims it simply works.The British Private Equity & Venture Capital Association (BVCA), preach what they deem to be the undeniable benefits of private equity. For example, the trade lobby group wrote in 2010 that:Private equity investment has been demonstrated to contribute significantly to companies’ growth. Private equity backed companies outperform leading UK businesses.In contrast, Ed Miliband in his speech at the 2011 annual Labour Party conference accused p…

CORPORATE GOVERNANCE – MODULE OUTLINE

This module is intended for advanced undergraduates in business and management, accounting, finance, or economics, and Master students. The module is delivered over a total of 24 hours of lectures with a flexible format including traditional lectures, class discussions of the end-of-chapter questions in Goergen (2018) and the multiple choice questions (see below).  AIMS OF THE MODULE This module aims to introduce you to recent developments in the theory and practice of corporate governance. The module adopts an international perspective by comparing the main corporate governance systems across the world.  LEARNING OUTCOMES OF THE MODULE On completion of the module you should be able to: Evaluate the current state of corporate governance in an international context; describe differences in corporate control and managerial power across the world; assess the potential conflicts of interests that may arise in various corporate governance environments; critically evaluate the effectivene…

Too Much of a Good Thing Is Not Necessarily Better

Starting with the 1992 Cadbury Report in the UK, the emphasis of most codes of best practice has been on ensuring a sufficient number of independent directors on corporate boards. Successive codes of best practice have then attempted to increase the number of independent directors even further. It is then no surprise that Spain's Iberdrola has won successive prizes for its corporate governance. Indeed, nine of Iberdrola's 14 members of its board of directors are independent directors with another three being external directors and the remaining two being executives.


So does having more independent directors on a board always mean better corporate governance? Well, not necessarily. First, the academic literature on the value consequences of board independence – with board independence typically measured by the percentage of independent directors on the board – has found little or no evidence of an effect of board independence on firm performance and value. Still, this literature…