Manuscript Type: EmpiricalResearch Question/Issue: This study examines the relevance of currently accepted best practice recommendations regarding board structure on the survival likelihood of new economy initial public offering companies. We argue that industry context determines governance outcomes.Research Findings/Insights: We study 125 Australian new economy firms listed between 1994 and 2002. Each firm is tracked until the end of 2007 for monitoring their survival. We find that board independence is associated with an increase in the likelihood of corporate survival. We also find that the benefits of board independence increase at a decreasing rate.Theoretical/Academic Implications: The standard best practice recommendation of board independence stems from the monitoring role of directors and is based on agency theory. The results from our study suggest that the recommendation regarding board independence does not work well for new economy firms. While the agency theory based model implies a monotonic relation between board independence and performance, our research suggests that the relationship is nonlinear. This variation occurs because of increased monitoring costs faced by outsiders due to higher information asymmetry and complexity of new economy firms. Our empirical results suggest that inside directors play a complementary role to outsiders in mitigating firm failure.Practitioner/Policy Implications: Our research offers insights to policy makers who are interested in setting best practice standards regarding board structure. Our research suggests that firm/industry characteristics play a crucial role in determining the optimal board structure. In firms/industries where outsiders face significantly higher information processing costs, insiders can play a valuable complementary role to outsiders in enhancing the effectiveness of the board. Thus future hard or soft regulations related to board structure should consider industry context.

We analyse the impact of firm-level corporate governance practices on the riskiness of a firm’s stock returns in a setting that can be considered as less conducive to managerial risk-taking. Our empirical evidence, based on a comprehensive sample of New Zealand firms, shows that firms with large boards are associated with lower levels of risk-taking, ceteris paribus. Furthermore, our results indicate that multiple large shareholders facilitate higher levels of risk-taking by the firm. Finally, our results also show that concentrated shareholdings of inside directors have a negative relation to risk-taking. Our findings are robust to controls for the three potential sources of endogeneity. Since prior work documents results consistent with the view that institutional and market environments largely determine governance outcomes, our work has implications for managers, investors and policy makers, particularly in less developed capital markets with weaker corporate takeover regimes and less performance-oriented managerial compensation.