We investigate whether bank executive directors appointed from outside the bank ("outsiders") improve post-succession performance and whether some outsiders are better predisposed than others to turn around a bank's performance. In the case of banks, this question is highly relevant because regulatory authorities may regard the replacement of the management team as a chance to clean up financially distressed banks. Our sample compromises all universal banks for the period 1993 to 2014.
ContributionFirst, the results of our study contribute to the existing literature on the post-succession effects of executive turnovers by documenting a performance differential between outsiders with strong and poor managerial abilities in the years following their appointment. Second, we add to the literature examining managerial ability by extracting managerial ability from the risk-return efficiency of executive directors' previous banks. Third, we add to the literature dealing with the financial crisis by measuring the performance effects separately for the pre-and post-crisis period.
ResultsOur study documents the negative performance effects in the years following the appointment of an outsider on banks making such appointments. We find that executives with poor managerial abilities ("bad outsiders") underperform at their new banks during the post-appointment period whereas executives with strong managerial abilities ("good outsiders") do so only at the very beginning of the post-appointment period. Thus, not all executive directors appointed from outside are equally capable of improving bank performance. Our results further suggest that the performance differential between good and bad outsiders strengthens in the post-crisis period. We systematically rule out that these performance differentials following external appointments are driven by appointing good outsiders to boards of banks with a low risk exposure. Banks in bad financial shape are more likely to appoint executive directors from the outside than those in good shape. It is, however, not clear whether all of these appointments necessarily lead to the desired turnaround. We analyze the performance effects of new board members with external boardroom experience (outsiders) by distinguishing between good and bad managerial abilities of executives based on either ROA or risk-return efficiency of their previous employers. Our results show that banks appointing bad outsiders underperform other banks while those appointing good outsiders do so to a lesser extent. The performance differentials are highly pronounced in high-risk banks and in the post-crisis period.