2022
DOI: 10.1007/s10551-022-05127-9
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Are All Directors Treated Equally? Evidence from Director Turnover Following Opportunistic Insider Selling

Abstract: This study investigates the likelihood of director turnover following opportunistic insider selling. Given that opportunistic insider selling may be costly to a firm due to potential legal risk and firm legitimacy concerns, we hypothesize that directors engaging in this type of transactions have a higher likelihood of subsequently leaving the board. Using archival data of 11,409 directors in 2280 US firms from 2005 to 2014, univariate comparisons show that directors engaging in opportunistic insider selling ar… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4
1

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 109 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In contrast, opportunistic trades and occasional large trades are usually flagged as suspicious targets and could trigger an investigation from the SEC. For example, De Groote et al (2022) find that opportunistic insider trading increases director replacement. Therefore, opportunistic and infrequent traders are likely to avoid large profits from selling their inside ownership to reduce the likelihood of replacement when higher enforcement of non‐compete agreements limits their outside employment opportunities.…”
Section: Additional Analysesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In contrast, opportunistic trades and occasional large trades are usually flagged as suspicious targets and could trigger an investigation from the SEC. For example, De Groote et al (2022) find that opportunistic insider trading increases director replacement. Therefore, opportunistic and infrequent traders are likely to avoid large profits from selling their inside ownership to reduce the likelihood of replacement when higher enforcement of non‐compete agreements limits their outside employment opportunities.…”
Section: Additional Analysesmentioning
confidence: 99%