This study investigates the effect of co-CEO structure on asymmetric cost behavior. A firm’s cost behavior reflects managers’ decision making about resources, which can be influenced by various factors. One of them relates to a manager’s decision to inefficiently reallocate their company’s resources when sales decline in pursuit of their incentives for empire-building and disincentives for downsizing. These inefficient resource allocations may result in asymmetric cost behavior, and ultimately be harmful to a firm’s sustainability. We consider the co-CEO structure as an alternative corporate governance mechanism that prevents managers from making inappropriate decisions. By doing so, we investigate whether the degree of cost stickiness differs between co-CEO and single-CEO structures, and whether the former complements external governance mechanisms, particularly foreign ownership, in mitigating cost stickiness. We analyze data from Korean listed companies for 2000–2013, and find that the cost stickiness is lower in the co-CEO structure than in the single-CEO structure. Thus, the co-CEO structure works as an alternative corporate governance mechanism to control the agency problem by inducing mutual monitoring among co-CEOs. Furthermore, the reduction in cost stickiness is greater for firms with higher foreign ownership, indicating that the co-CEO structure complements external governance mechanisms.

This study investigates the effects of governance structure on the relationship between disclosure quality and credit ratings. Firms with greater control-ownership divergence are more likely to pursue their private interests because controlling shareholders obtain the benefit of managerial decision in accordance with controlling interest and they bear the related risk only to the shareholding value. The greater divergence decreases the level of disclosure, thereby increasing the information asymmetry and agency problems, and, ultimately may be harmful to the firms’ sustainability. We analyze data from the listed Korean companies belonging to a large business group that issued corporate bonds for the period 2003–2015, and find that there is a positive relationship between fair disclosure and credit ratings; however, it is weakened as the control-ownership divergence increases. These results suggest that firms with a high quality of disclosure are assigned better credit ratings. However, if their governance structures are poor, the capital market may penalize the reliability of the released information.

Although managerial ability is important for credit risk assessment, it is unclear whether local credit rating agencies consider it an independent risk factor. We examine how Korean agencies evaluate the impact of managerial ability on bond rating depending on controlling shareholders’ ownership structure. We identify controlling shareholders using family-owned businesses (chaebols). The results show that the positive effect of managerial ability on bond rating is diminished in chaebol firms, especially those with a high control–ownership wedge, compared to non-chaebol firms. These findings suggest that managerial ability carries higher weight in the rating process for firms with better ownership structure.