نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 استاد گروه حسابداری دانشگاه تهران،تهران،ایران

2 گروه حسابداری، مؤسسه آموزش عالی کار، قزوین، ایران.

10.22054/qjma.2025.84732.2661

چکیده

کارایی از مهم‍ترین معیارهایی است که سرمایه گذاران برای پیدا کردن فرصت‍های مناسب سرمایه گذاری به دنبال عوامل تأثیرگذار بر آن هستند. ازآنجاکه مدیران نقش مؤثری در اتخاذ تصمیمات شرکت دارند ممکن است از تصمیمات مطلوب سرمایه گذاری منحرف شوند؛ بنابراین، هدف این پژوهش، بررسی رابطه بین قدرت مدیرعامل و سرمایه‌گذاری بیش‌ازحد است. در این راستا، 123 شرکت پذیرفته‌شده در بورس اوراق بهادار تهران در بازه زمانی 1395 تا 1401 بررسی شدند. نتایج نشان می‍دهد بین قدرت مدیرعامل و ناکارایی سرمایه‍گذاری (سرمایه گذاری بیش‌ازحد) رابطه منفی و معناداری وجود دارد. همچنین، این ارتباط غیرخطی نیست. یافته‍ها نشان می‍دهد مدیران عامل قدرتمند در سرمایه‍گذاری‍های بیش‌ازحد که می‍تواند منافع شخصی بیشتری برای آنان ایجاد کند، مشارکت نمی‍کنند. درواقع، به دلیل اثرات ریسک‍گریزی و توانایی، منافع خصوصی مدیران عامل قدرتمند با منافع سهامداران همسو و احتمال سرمایه‍گذاری بیش‌ازحد آن‌ها کمتر است.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات

عنوان مقاله [English]

Chief Executive Officer Power and Overinvestment: Linear and Non-linear Approach

نویسندگان [English]

  • Shokrollah Khajavi 1
  • Soraya Weysihesar 2

1 Professor of Accounting Faculty of Commerce and Finance University of Tehran,Tehran,Iran

2 Department of Accounting, KAR Higher Education Institute, Qazvin, Iran.

چکیده [English]

Efficiency is one of the most important criteria that investors consider when evaluating influencing factors to identify suitable investment opportunities. Since managers play an effective role in company decisions, they may deviate from optimal investment choices. Therefore, the purpose of this research is to investigate the relationship between CEO power and overinvestment. In this regard, 123 companies listed on the Tehran Stock Exchange were examined between 2016 and 2022. The results show that there is a negative and significant relationship between CEO power and investment inefficiency (overinvestment). Furthermore, this relationship is not nonlinear. The findings indicate that powerful CEOs do not engage in excessive investments that could create more personal benefits for them. Indeed, because of risk aversion and ability effects, the private benefits of powerful CEOs are aligned with shareholders’ interests, making them less likely to overinvest
Introduction
Efficiency is one of the most important criteria that investors consider when evaluating influencing factors to identify suitable investment opportunities. Since managers play an effective role in company decisions, they may deviate from optimal investment choices. Therefore, the purpose of this research is to investigate the relationship between CEO power and overinvestment. To explain this relationship, three different effects are discussed: the discretion effect, the risk aversion effect, and the ability effect.
Under the discretion effect, CEO power is positively related to overinvestment, because powerful CEOs have more freedom of action and may use overinvestment decisions to create personal benefits. Through empire building and expropriation, they pursue self-interest that can increase their rewards, wealth associated with stock ownership, and job security because they control capital allocation. Furthermore, CEOs can create personal bonuses through overinvestment because they influence the choice of performance measures associated with their bonuses. Under the risk aversion effect, CEO power has a negative relationship with overinvestment, because powerful CEOs are more risk-averse than shareholders who can reduce their risk through diversified portfolios. Overinvestment may increase the risk of the company. Since most of the CEO's rewards and human capital depend on their company, it is difficult for them to diversify work and wealth risks. Therefore, powerful CEOs who do not diversify and are often considered the main planners of the company's long-term strategy are more likely to make investments based on risk aversion. As a result, they are less likely to overinvest. Under the ability effect, powerful CEOs with greater management ability can make investment decisions more effectively and efficiently, and therefore are less likely to overinvest. CEOs with stronger expertise can better manage the company's external uncertainties through their experience and knowledge. Hence, powerful CEOs make more efficient investment decisions. Accordingly, the main goal of this research is to investigate the effect of CEO power on overinvestment. From the perspective of economic studies, weak supervision over CEOs, in the shadow of weak management structures and opportunities to secure personal benefits, can encourage powerful managers to choose projects with a negative net present value (NPV), thereby reducing company value. On the other hand, greater CEO power leads to more appropriate investment in valuable projects and greater investment efficiency. Factors such as risk aversion, motivation to maintain reputation and credibility, and stronger management abilities make powerful managers perform better in evaluating investment opportunities and increase investment efficiency, which aligns with organizational research.

Research Question

According to the research objective, this study seeks to answer the question of whether CEOs with higher decision-making power overinvest.

Methods

The current research is of an applied type; in terms of its goal, it is analytical, quasi-experimental, and correlational. From the time dimension of the data, it is retrospective and post-event. In line with the purpose of the research, 123 companies listed on the Tehran Stock Exchange were examined between 2016 and 2022. The residuals of Richardson's (2006) model were used to measure overinvestment. CEO power was measured using the principal component analysis method and the criteria of CEO duality, the percentage of independent directors on the board of directors, CEO tenure, and CEO ownership percentage. The information required to measure the variables and test the research hypotheses was extracted from the Rahavard Novin database, audited financial statements, and other reports published on company websites, Codal, and the Stock Exchange Organization. After data collection, Excel software was used for summarizing and calculations. Since the dependent variable, overinvestment, is not continuous and has only one of the two values (zero and one), the logistic regression (logit) model was used to test the research hypothesis with this variable. In addition, a multiple regression model was used to test the research hypothesis with the investment inefficiency variable. Finally, the analysis was performed using EViews software.

Results

The results show that as CEO power increases, investment inefficiency (overinvestment) decreases. In addition, there is no significant nonlinear relationship between CEO power and investment inefficiency (overinvestment).

Discussion and Conclusion

The findings of the research show that powerful CEOs, who have more authority than shareholders in making company decisions, do not engage in excessive investments that could create personal benefits for them. Indeed, because of the risk aversion and ability effects, the private benefits of powerful CEOs are naturally aligned with shareholders’ interests, making them less likely to overinvest. Under the risk aversion effect, since most of a CEO's rewards and human capital depend on their company, it is difficult for them to diversify work and wealth risks. Therefore, powerful CEOs who do not diversify and are often considered the main planners of the company's long-term strategy are more likely to make investments based on risk aversion. As a result, they are less likely to overinvest. Under the ability effect, powerful CEOs have higher management abilities and therefore make more efficient investment decisions. Because strong CEOs with greater managerial ability possess better knowledge and judgment than their peers, making them more capable of predicting future changes, they do not waste capital on negative NPV projects. Therefore, more powerful CEOs are less likely to overinvest. These results are in line with Lo and Shiah‑Hou's (2022) research and are also consistent with organizational theory. According to this theory, the greater the power of the CEO, the more appropriate the investment in valuable projects and the greater the investment efficiency. Factors such as managers' risk aversion, motivation to maintain reputation, and stronger management abilities lead powerful managers to use better strategies for the optimal use of company resources, thereby increasing transparency and securing the interests of all stakeholder groups. Therefore, powerful CEOs make more efficient investment decisions.
 
 

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • CEO Power
  • Investment Inefficiency
  • Overinvestment
  1. ابراهیمی، آیت­اله، سلگی، محمد، وجودی نوبخت، آرمین و موسوی، سید مجید. (1401). بیش‌اطمینانی مدیران و کارایی تصمیمات سرمایه­گذاری و تأمین مالی. پژوهش­های راهبردی بودجه و مالی، 3(3)، 103-135. https:/‌/‌dor.isc.ac/‌dor/‌20.1001.1.27171809.1401.3.3.5.2
  2. اخگر، محمد امید و زاهد دوست، حمزه. (1397). بررسی تأثیر نفوذ مدیرعامل بر رابطه بین عملکرد شرکت و گردش مدیرعامل. حسابداری مالی، 10(39)، 60-81. http:/‌/‌qfaj.mobarakeh.iau.ir/‌article-1-1493-fa.html
  3. بادآورنهندی، یونس و تقی­زاده خانقاه، وحید. (1393). ارتباط بین برخی مکانیزم­های حاکمیت شرکتی و کارایی سرمایه­گذاری در مراحل چرخه عمر. دانش حسابداری، 5(18)، 113-140. https:/‌/‌dor.isc.ac/‌dor/‌20.1001.1.20088914.1393.5.18.6.2
  4. برادران حسن‌زاده، رسول، بادآور نهندی، یونس و نگهبان، لیلا. (1393). تأثیر محدودیت‌های مالی و هزینه‌های نمایندگی بر کارایی سرمایه‌گذاری. پژوهش‌های حسابداری مالی، 6(1)، 89-106. https:/‌/‌dor.isc.ac/‌dor/‌20.1001.1.23223405.1393.6.1.8.8
  5. برزگری خانقاه، جمال و قائدی، سلیمه. (1397). تأثیر پاداش و ساختار هیئت مدیره بر سرمایه­گذاری در تحقیق و توسعه. دانش حسابداری مالی، 5(3)، 99-116. https:/‌/‌doi.org/‌10.30479/‌jfak.2018.1514
  6. بنابی قدیم، رحیم و مجیدی، حامد. (1401). تأثیر خودشیفتگی و قدرت مدیرعامل بر کارایی سرمایه­گذاری و رشد پایدار سود. راهبرد مدیریت مالی، 10(38)، 203-224. https:/‌/‌doi.org/‌10.22051/‌jfm.2020.30811.2354
  7. پورحیدری، امید و فروغی، عارف. (1398). بررسی تأثیر نفوذ مدیرعامل بر کیفیت افشای اطلاعات حسابداری. مطالعات تجربی حسابداری مالی، 16(61)، 27-53. https:/‌/‌doi.org/‌10.22054/‌qjma.2019.38013.1928
  8. پورحیدری، امید، رحمانی، علی و غلامی، رضا. (1392). بررسی تأثیر مدیریت واقعی سود بر رفتار سرمایه­گذاری شرکت­های پذیرفته شده در بورس اوراق بهادار تهران. پیشرفت­های حسابداری دانشگاه شیراز، 5(1)، 55-85. https:/‌/‌doi.org/‌10.22099/‌jaa.2013.1653
  9. تقی‌زاده خانقاه، وحید، بادآور نهندی، یونس، متقی، علـی اصـغر و تقـی‌زاده، هوشـنگ. (1398). ارائـه مـدل سـنجش کـارایی سرمایه‌گذاری شرکت در بورس اوراق بهادار تهران. تحقیقات مالی، 21(2)، 237-264. https:/‌/‌doi.org/‌10.22059/‌frj.2019.273838.1006806
  10. ثقفی، علی، بولو، قاسم و محمدیان، محمد. (1390). کیفیت اطلاعات حسابداری، سرمایه­گذاری بیش از حد و جریان نقد آزاد. پیشرفت­های حسابداری دانشگاه شیراز، 3(2)، 37-63. https:/‌/‌doi.org/‌10.22099/‌jaa.2012.505
  11. خواجوی، شکراله و ویسی حصار، ثریا. (1402). تأثیر قدرت مدیرعامل بر احتمال پرداخت سود تقسیمی: نقش سودآوری و نوسان جریان وجه نقد. مطالعات تجربی حسابداری مالی، 20(79)، 1-44. https:/‌/‌doi.org/‌10.22054/‌qjma.2023.75096.2484
  12. خواجوی، شکراله، جهاندوست مرغوب، مهران و ویسی حصار، ثریا. (1400). ارتباط غیرخطی بین قدرت مدیرعامل و ساختار سرمایه با تأکید بر نقش اندازه شرکت­ها. تحقیقات مالی، 23(1)، 40-63. https:/‌/‌doi.org/‌10.22059/‌frj.2020.301393.1007015
  13. دیدار، حمزه، حیدری، مهدی و پوراسد، سعید. (1397). تأثیر کوتاه­بینی مدیریتی بر کارایی شرکت‌ها با نقش تعدیل کننده کیفیت حاکمیت شرکتی در شرکت­های بورس اوراق بهادار تهران. دانش حسابداری، 9(1)، 147-169. https:/‌/‌doi.org/‌10.22103/‌jak.2018.9750.2306
  14. رشیدی، محسن، مردانی طلائی، میلاد و امیری، محمد. (1399). نقش پاداش مدیریت در تغییر ارتباط بین استراتژی­های تجاری و سرمایه­گذاری بیش (کمتر) از حد. مطالعات تجربی حسابداری مالی، 17(67)، 177-201. https:/‌/‌doi.org/‌10.22054/‌qjma.2020.44534.2030
  15. فلاح، هاجر، حمیدیان، محسن و نوراله­زاده، نوروز. (1400). ارتقای سطح کارایی سرمایه­گذاری بر اساس کاهش تورش رفتاری مدیرعامل: رویکرد تحلیل ویکور خاکستری و تحلیل راف. بورس اوراق بهادار، 14(53)، 5-40. https:/‌/‌doi.org/‌10.22034/‌jse.2021.11209
  16. محمدی، یادگار، محمدی، اسفندیار و اسماعیلی کیا، غریبه. (1398). اعتماد به نفس بیش از حد مدیران، سیاست‌های تأمین مالی و کارایی سرمایه­گذاری. بررسی مسائل اقتصاد ایران، 6(2)، 195-231. https:/‌/‌doi.org/‌10.30465/‌ce.2020.5422
  17. مرانی، فاطمه، صالحی، اله‌کرم؛ جرجرزاده، علیرضا و کعب عمیر، احمد. (1400). بررسی تأثیر قدرت مدیرعامل، ارتباطات سیاسی و مسئولیت­پذیری اجتماعی بر حساسیت سرمایه­گذاری به وجه نقد در شرکت­های پذیرفته شده در بورس اوراق بهادار تهران. اقتصاد مالی، 15(4)، 285-307. https:/‌/‌doi.org/‌10.30495/‌fed.2021.687931
  18. نیکبخت، محمدرضا، جهاندوست مرغوب، مهران و ویسی حصار، ثریا. (1400). قدرت مدیرعامل، کیفیت حسابرسی و معیارهای ارزیابی عملکرد مالی شرکت‌ها. دانش حسابرسی، 21(85)، 454-486. http:/‌/‌danesh.dmk.ir/‌article-1-2492-fa.html
  19. Adams, R. B., Almeida, H., & Ferreira, D. (2005). Powerful CEOs and their impact on corporate performance. Review of Financial Studies, 18(4), 1403-1432. https:/‌/‌doi.org/‌10.1093/‌rfs/‌hhi030
  20. Aggarwal, R., & Samwick, A. (2006). Empire-builders and shirkers: Investment, firm performance, and managerial incentive. Journal of Corporate Finance, 12(3), 489–515. https:/‌/‌doi.org/‌10.1016/‌j.jcorpfin.2006.01.001
  21. Amihud, Y., & Lev, B. (1981). Risk reduction as a managerial motive for conglomerate mergers. The Bell Journal of Economics, 12(2), 605–617. https:/‌/‌doi.org/‌10.2307/‌3003575
  22. Anderson, RW., Bustamante, MC., Guibaud, S., & Zervos, M. (2018). Agency, firm growth, and managerial turnover. The Journal of Finance, 73(1), 419–464. https:/‌/‌doi.org/‌10.1111/‌jofi.12583
  23. Baldenius, T., Melumad, N., & Meng, X. (2014). Board composition and CEO power. Journal of Financial Economics, 112(1), 53–68. https:/‌/‌doi.org/‌10.1016/‌j.jfineco.2013.10.004
  24. Bebchuk, L., & Grinstein, Y. (2006). Firm expansion and CEO pay. Working paper, Cornell University. https:/‌/‌www.nber.org/‌papers/‌w11886
  25. Beck, M.J., & Mauldin, E.G. (2014). Who’s really in charge? Audit committee versus CFO power and audit fees. The Accounting Review, 89(6), 2057–2085. http:/‌/‌dx.doi.org/‌10.2308/‌accr-50834
  26. Berger, PG., & Hann, R. (2003). The impact of SFAS 131 on information and monitoring. Journal of Accounting Research, 41(2), 163–223. https:/‌/‌doi.org/‌10.1111/‌1475-679X.00100
  27. Berger, R., Dutta, S., Raffel, T., & Samuels, G. (2008). Innovating at the Top: How Global CEOs Drive Innovation for Growth and Profit. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. https:/‌/‌doi.org/‌10.1111/‌j.1540-5885.2010.00727_1.x
  28. Biddle, G., & Hilary, G. (2006). Accounting quality and firm-level capital investment. The Accounting Review, 81(5), 963–982. http:/‌/‌dx.doi.org/‌10.2308/‌accr.2006.81.5.963
  29. Biddle, G., Hilary, G., & Verdi, R. (2009). How does financial reporting quality relate to investment efficiency? Journal of Accounting and Economics, 48(2-3), 112–131. https:/‌/‌doi.org/‌10.1016/‌j.jacceco.2009.09.001
  30. Broussard, J.P., Buchenroth, S.A., & Pilotte, E.A. (2004). CEO incentives, cash flow, and investment. Financial Management, 33(2), 51–70. https:/‌/‌www.jstor.org/‌stable/‌3666158
  31. Chen, H. J., & Chen, S. J. (2012). Investment–cash flow sensitivity cannot be a good measure of financial constraints: evidence from the time series. Journal of Financial Economics, 103(2), 393–410. https:/‌/‌doi.org/‌10.1016/‌j.jfineco.2011.08.009
  32. Chen, L., Liu, C., & Wang, G. (2013). Financial constraints, investment efficiency and corporate governance: Empirical evidence from China. Service Systems and Service Management (ICSSSM). 10th International conference. https:/‌/‌doi.org/‌10.1109/‌ICSSSM.2013.6602546
  33. Chowdhury, M.R.U., Xie, F., & Hasan, M.M. (2023). Powerful CEOs and investment efficiency. Global Finance Journal, 58, 100886. https:/‌/‌doi.org/‌10.1016/‌j.gfj.2023.100886
  34. Chung, K.H., & Pruitt, S.W. (1996). Executive ownership, corporate value, and executive compensation: a unifying framework. Journal of Banking & Finance, 20(7), 1135–1159. https:/‌/‌doi.org/‌10.1016/‌0378-4266(95)00039-9
  35. Degryse, H., & DeJong, A. (2001). Investment spending in the Netherlands: Asymmetric information or managerial discretion? working paper, Erasmus University Rotterdam. https:/‌/‌ideas.repec.org/‌p/‌ete/‌ceswps/‌ces0114.html
  36. Demerjian, P., Lev, B., & McVay, S. (2012). Quantifying managerial ability: a new measure and validity tests. Management Science, 58(7), 1229–1248. https:/‌/‌doi.org/‌10.1287/‌mnsc.1110.1487
  37. Fama, E., & Jensen, M. (1983). Separation of ownership and control. Journal of Law and Economics, 26(2), 301–326. https:/‌/‌dx.doi.org/‌10.2139/‌ssrn.94034
  38. Finkelstein, S. (1992). Power in top management teams: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 35(3), 505-538. https:/‌/‌doi.org/‌10.2307/‌256485
  39. Gan, H. (2019). Does CEO managerial ability matter? Evidence from corporate investment efficiency. Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, 52(4), 1085–1118. https:/‌/‌doi.org/‌10.1007/‌s11156-018-0737-2
  40. Glaser, M., Lopen-De-Silanes, F., & Sautner, Z. (2013). Opening the black box: Internal capital markets and managerial power. The Journal of Finance, 68(4), 1577–1631. https:/‌/‌doi.org/‌10.1111/‌jofi.12046
  41. Goel, A.M., & Thakor, A.V. (2008). Overconfidence, CEO selection, and corporate governance. Journal of Finance, 63(6), 2737–2784. https:/‌/‌doi.org/‌10.1111/‌j.1540-6261.2008.01412.x
  42. Gormley, T.A., & Matsa, D.A. (2016). Playing it safe? Managerial preferences, risk and agency conflicts. Journal of Financial Economics, 122(3), 431–455. https:/‌/‌doi.org/‌10.1016/‌j.jfineco.2016.08.002
  43. Hamori, M., & Kakarika, M. (2009). External labor market strategy and career success: CEO careers in Europe and the United States. Human Resource Management, 48(3), 355–378. https:/‌/‌doi.org/‌10.1002/‌hrm.20285
  44. Hamori, M., & Koyuncu, B. (2015). Experience matters? The impact of prior CEO experience on firm performance. Human Resource Management, 54(1), 23–44. https:/‌/‌doi.org/‌10.1002/‌hrm.21617
  45. Harford, J. (1999). Corporate cash reserves and acquisitions. The Journal of Finance, 54(6), 1969–1997. https:/‌/‌doi.org/‌10.1111/‌0022-1082.00179
  46. He, Y., Chen, C., & Hu, Y. (2019). Managerial overconfidence, internal financing, and investment efficiency: Evidence from China. Research in International Business and Finance, 16(8), 110-132. https:/‌/‌doi.org/‌10.1016/‌j.ribaf.2018.09.010
  47. Holmstrom, B. (1999). Managerial incentives problems: a dynamic perspective. The Review of Economic Studies, 66(1), 169–182. https:/‌/‌doi.org/‌10.1111/‌1467-937X.00083
  48. Jensen, M. C. (1986). Agency costs of free cash flow, corporate finance and takeovers. American Economic Review, 76(2), 323-329. https:/‌/‌dx.doi.org/‌10.2139/‌ssrn.99580
  49. Jensen, M.C, & Murphy, KJ. (1990). Performance pay and top-management incentives. Journal of Political Economy, 98(2), 225–264. https:/‌/‌dx.doi.org/‌10.2139/‌ssrn.94009
  50. Kaiser, H. F. (1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 141-151. https:/‌/‌psycnet.apa.org/‌doi/‌10.1177/‌001316446002000116
  51. Kim, S., Lee, K., & Ho, K. (2018). The moderating role of CEO narcissism on the relationship between uncertainty avoidance and CSR. Tourism Management, 67, 203-213. https:/‌/‌doi.org/‌10.1016/‌j.tourman.2018.01.018
  52. Koga, M., & Kato, H. (2017). Behavioral Biases in Firms Growth Expectations. Bank of Japan Working Paper Series, Nihonbashi-Hongokucho, Chuo-ku, Tokyo 103-0021, Japan. https:/‌/‌ideas.repec.org/‌p/‌boj/‌bojwps/‌wp17e09.html
  53. Lehn, K., & Poulsen, A. (1989). Free cash flow and stockholders gains in going private transactions. The Journal of Finance, 44(3), 771-787. https:/‌/‌doi.org/‌10.2307/‌2328782
  54. Li, T., Munir, Q., & Karim, M.R.A. (2017). Nonlinear Relationship between CEO Power and Capital Structure: Evidence from China's Listed SMEs. International Review of Economics and Finance, 47, 1-21. https:/‌/‌doi.org/‌10.1016/‌j.iref.2016.09.005
  55. Liu, Y., & Jiraporn, P. (2010). The effect of CEO power on bond ratings and yields. Journal of Empirical Finance, 17(4), 744-762. https:/‌/‌doi.org/‌10.1016/‌j.jempfin.2010.03.003
  56. Liu, Y., Gan, H., & Karim, K. (2021). The effectiveness of chief financial officer board membership in improving corporate investment efficiency. Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, 57(2), 487–521. https:/‌/‌link.springer.com/‌article/‌10.1007/‌s11156-020-00953-2
  57. Lo, H-C., & Shiah‑Hou, S-R. (2022). The effect of CEO power on overinvestment. Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, 59(1), 23-63. DOI: 10.1007/‌s11156-022-01060-0
  58. Malmendier, U., & Tate, G. (2005). Does overconfidence affect corporate investment? CEO overconfidence measures revisited. European financial management, 11(5), 649-659. https:/‌/‌doi.org/‌10.1111/‌j.1354-7798.2005.00302.x
  59. May, D. O. (1995). Do managerial motives influence firm risk reduction strategies? The Journal of Finance, 50(4), 1291–1308. https:/‌/‌doi.org/‌10.1111/‌j.1540-6261.1995.tb04059.x
  60. McNichols, M.F., & Stubben, S.R. (2008). Does earnings management affect firms’ investment decisions? The Accounting Review, 83(6), 1571–1603. http:/‌/‌dx.doi.org/‌10.2308/‌accr.2008.83.6.1571
  61. Pathan, S. (2009). Strong boards, CEO power and bank risk-taking. Journal of Banking and Finance, 33(7), 1340-1350. https:/‌/‌doi.org/‌10.1016/‌j.jbankfin.2009.02.001
  62. Pikulina, E., Renneboog, L., & Tobler, P.N. (2017). Overconfidence and investment: An experimental approach. Journal of Corporate Finance, 43, 175-192. https:/‌/‌doi.org/‌10.1016/‌j.jcorpfin.2017.01.002
  63. Richardson, SA. (2006). Over-investment of free cash flow. Review of Accounting Studies, 11, 159–189. https:/‌/‌ssrn.com/‌abstract=884229
  64. Sheikh, S. (2019). CEO power and corporate risk: the impact of market competition and corporate governance. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 27(5), 358–377. https:/‌/‌doi.org/‌10.1111/‌corg.12285
  65. Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R.W. (1989). Management entrenchment: The case of manager-specific investments. Journal of Financial Economics, 25(1), 123-139. https:/‌/‌doi.org/‌10.1016/‌0304-405X(89)90099-8
  66. Smith, C. W., & Stulz, R. M. (1985). The determinants of firms’ hedging policies. The Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 20(4), 391–405. https:/‌/‌doi.org/‌10.2307/‌2330757
  67. Veprauskaitė, E., & Adams, M. (2013). Do powerful chief executives influence the financial performance of UK firms? British Accounting Review, 45(3), 229-241. https:/‌/‌doi.org/‌10.1016/‌j.bar.2013.06.004
  68. Victoravich, L. M., Buslepp, W. L., Xu, T., & Grove, H. (2011). CEO power, equity incentives, and bank risk-taking. Working paper, University of Denver. https:/‌/‌dx.doi.org/‌10.2139/‌ssrn.1909547
  69. Wan, H., Zhu, K., & Chen, X. (2015). Career concerns, shareholder monitoring and investment efficiency: From the perspective of compensation contract rigidity in Chinese SOEs. China Journal of Accounting Research, 8, 59-73. https:/‌/‌doi.org/‌10.1016/‌j.cjar.2015.01.003
  70. Wang, Y., Chen, C. R., Chen, L., & Huang, Y. S. (2016). Overinvestment, inflation uncertainty, and managerial overconfidence: Firm level analysis of Chinese corporations. North American Journal of Economics and Finance, 38, 54–69. https:/‌/‌doi.org/‌10.1016/‌j.najef.2016.07.001
  71. Wang, Y., Zhou, W., & Chang, K. C. (2013). Effect of decision makers' education level on their corporate risk taking. Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal, 41(7), 1225-1229. https:/‌/‌doi.org/‌10.2224/‌sbp.2013.41.7.1225