Please wait a minute...
金融研究  2025, Vol. 540 Issue (6): 189-206    
  本期目录 | 过刊浏览 | 高级检索 |
董事高管责任保险与大股东掏空
王正文, 韩子涵, 李委铮, 耿志祥
武汉大学经济与管理学院, 湖北武汉 430072
Directors' and Officers' Liability Insurance and Major Shareholders' Tunneling Behavior
WANG Zhengwen, HAN Zihan, LI Weizheng, GENG Zhixiang
School of Economics and Management, Wuhan University
下载:  PDF (756KB) 
输出:  BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)      
摘要 我国资本市场独特的“一头大、一头小”(少数大股东持有大部分股权,广大小股东仅持有少部分股权)的特点容易诱发以大股东掏空为代表的委托代理问题,董事高管责任保险能否缓解这一问题一直以来都是学术界关注的焦点。本文根据2013—2022年上市公司数据,实证检验了董事高管责任保险对大股东掏空的影响。研究发现,企业购买董事高管责任保险可以有效抑制大股东掏空行为。机制检验发现,企业购买董事高管责任保险可以通过提高企业信息披露质量和内部控制水平抑制大股东掏空行为。本文研究为以大股东掏空问题为代表的委托代理问题研究提供了新的视角和解决方案。
服务
把本文推荐给朋友
加入引用管理器
E-mail Alert
RSS
作者相关文章
王正文
韩子涵
李委铮
耿志祥
关键词:  董事高管责任保险  大股东掏空  委托代理问题  信息不对称    
Summary:  This paper investigates the relationship between the purchase of Directors' and Officers' Liability Insurance (D&O insurance) and tunneling behavior by major shareholders in Chinese listed companies, focusing on the second type of agency problem, known as “tunneling”, which occurs in markets with a concentrated ownership structure. In such markets, major shareholders often have substantial control over the company, enabling them to engage in misappropriation of company resources that harm the interests of minority shareholders. The paper explores whether D&O insurance can serve as an effective mechanism to mitigate the opportunistic behavior of controlling shareholders and protect the interests of minority shareholders.
Tunneling behavior is a significant issue in emerging markets, where large shareholders, who often hold a controlling stake, may use various mechanisms such as related-party transactions and asset stripping to transfer wealth from the company to themselves. Previous studies have primarily focused on internal governance mechanisms, such as the role of independent directors and the supervisory board, to address this issue. However, this paper expands the literature by introducing D&O insurance as a potential solution to constrain tunneling behavior by improving corporate governance and strengthening external oversight.
Drawing on a dataset of Chinese A-share listed companies from 2013 to 2022, the study empirically examines the impact of purchasing D&O insurance on the level of tunneling behavior, measured by related-party transactions. The empirical results indicate that companies that purchase D&O insurance experience a 4.2% reduction in tunneling levels, suggesting that this insurance serves as an effective tool to reduce major shareholders' ability to exploit the company for personal gain. This finding aligns with the hypothesis that D&O insurance, by providing coverage for directors and officers against potential lawsuits, helps mitigate the risk of opportunistic behavior by controlling shareholders.
The paper further explores the mechanisms through which D&O insurance exerts its influence. The analysis reveals that D&O insurance leads to improvements in the quality of information disclosure and strengthens the internal control systems of the company. By enhancing transparency and accountability, D&O insurance reduces the likelihood of misconduct by directors and officers, including collusion with major shareholders to engage in tunneling behavior. This finding underscores the importance of D&O insurance as an external governance mechanism, complementing traditional internal governance practices.
In addition, the study investigates the heterogeneity of the effect of D&O insurance across different types of companies. It is found that the effectiveness of D&O insurance in curbing tunneling behavior is more pronounced in companies located in regions with well-established rule of law environment and higher levels of marketization. The impact is also more significant in non-state enterprises. These findings suggest that the context in which a company operates, including the legal and regulatory environment, plays a crucial role in determining the effectiveness of D&O insurance as a governance tool.
Another key aspect of the paper is the exploration of the impact of tunneling behavior on company performance. The study demonstrates that tunneling behavior has a negative effect on the financial performance of companies, particularly in terms of profitability and stock performance. However, the purchase of D&O insurance mitigates these negative effects by reducing the extent of tunneling and improving the overall governance structure of the company. This highlights the dual role of D&O insurance in both preventing tunneling and enhancing corporate performance.
This research contributes to the growing body of literature on corporate governance by providing a novel perspective on addressing tunneling behavior. The study offers empirical evidence supporting the idea that D&O insurance can serve as an effective tool in reducing the agency problem posed by major shareholders, thus improving governance practices in companies with concentrated ownership structures. Furthermore, the findings have important policy implications. They suggest that encouraging the adoption of D&O insurance in Chinese listed companies could help enhance corporate governance and protect the interests of minority shareholders, thereby fostering more sustainable and transparent business practices in the long term.
In conclusion, the paper enriches the understanding of how external governance mechanisms like D&O insurance can complement traditional internal governance mechanisms to mitigate agency problems, particularly in markets with concentrated ownership. The study's findings provide practical insights for regulators, policymakers, and corporate managers seeking to improve governance frameworks and reduce the prevalence of tunneling. The results suggest that promoting the use of D&O insurance could play a key role in strengthening corporate governance, protecting investors, and ultimately contributing to the stability and sustainability of the market.
Keywords:  Directors' and Officers' Liability Insurance    Tunneling    Principal-Agent Problem    Information Asymmetry
JEL分类号:  G22   G30   G18  
基金资助: *本文感谢国家社会科学基金一般项目(24BJY069)的资助。感谢匿名审稿人的宝贵意见,文责自负。
通讯作者:  耿志祥,经济学博士,副教授,武汉大学经济与管理学院,E-mail:zqge66@163.com.   
作者简介:  王正文,经济学博士,副教授,武汉大学经济与管理学院,E-mail:wzw13@whu.edu.cn.
韩子涵,硕士研究生,武汉大学经济与管理学院,E-mail:Han_Nov21@163.com.
李委铮,硕士研究生,武汉大学经济与管理学院,E-mail:2021201050163@whu.edu.cn.
引用本文:    
王正文, 韩子涵, 李委铮, 耿志祥. 董事高管责任保险与大股东掏空[J]. 金融研究, 2025, 540(6): 189-206.
WANG Zhengwen, HAN Zihan, LI Weizheng, GENG Zhixiang. Directors' and Officers' Liability Insurance and Major Shareholders' Tunneling Behavior. Journal of Financial Research, 2025, 540(6): 189-206.
链接本文:  
http://www.jryj.org.cn/CN/  或          http://www.jryj.org.cn/CN/Y2025/V540/I6/189
[1] 侯青川、靳庆鲁和苏玲,2017,《放松卖空管制与大股东“掏空”》,《经济学(季刊)》第3期,第1143~1172页。
[2] 胡国柳、赵阳和胡珺,2019,《D&O保险、风险容忍与企业自主创新》,《管理世界》第8期,第121~135页。
[3] 姜付秀、马云飙和王运通,2015,《退出威胁能抑制控股股东私利行为吗?》,《管理世界》第5期,第147~159页。
[4] 姜国华和岳衡,2005,《大股东占用上市公司资金与上市公司股票回报率关系的研究》,《管理世界》第9期,第119~126+157+171~172页。
[5] 江艇,2022,《因果推断经验研究中的中介效应与调节效应》,《中国工业经济》第5期,第100~120页。
[6] 赖黎、唐芸茜、夏晓兰和马永强,2019,《董事高管责任保险降低了企业风险吗?——基于短贷长投和信贷获取的视角》,《管理世界》第10期,第160~171页。
[7] 李从刚和许荣,2020,《保险治理与公司违规——董事高管责任保险的治理效应研究》,《金融研究》第6期,第188~206页。
[8] 李欢、郑杲娉和徐永新,2014,《家族企业“去家族化”与公司价值——来自我国上市公司的经验证据》,《金融研究》第11期,第127~141页。
[9] 凌士显,2022,《董事高管责任保险与违约风险——基于中国上市公司A股数据的经验研究》,《保险研究》第6期,第67~82页。
[10] 刘少波和马超,2016,《经理人异质性与大股东掏空抑制》,《经济研究》第4期,第129~145页。
[11] 潘敏、刘红艳和程子帅,2022,《极端气候对商业银行风险承担的影响——来自中国地方性商业银行的经验证据》,《金融研究》第10期,第39~57页。
[12] 千茜倩、钟宜文和寇宗来,2023,《评级、担保与债券发行成本——基于中国非公开发行债券经验的理论分析》,《经济研究》第1期,第99~116页。
[13] 唐跃军,2011,《审计质量VS. 信号显示——终极控制权、大股东治理战略与审计师选择》,《金融研究》第5期,第139~155页。
[14] 王小鲁、樊纲和李爱莉,2025,《中国分省份市场化指数报告(2024)》,中国经济出版社。
[15] 王正文、李委铮、但钰宛和耿志祥,2023,《全面风险管理与企业融资约束》,《经济评论》第5期,第144~164页。
[16] 叶康涛、陆正飞和张志华,2007,《独立董事能否抑制大股东的“掏空”?》,《经济研究》第4期,第101~111页。
[17] 袁蓉丽、文雯和谢志华,2018,《董事高管责任保险和财务报表重述》,《会计研究》第5期,第21~27页。
[18] Beck, T., R. Levine, and A. Levkov, 2010, “Big Bad Banks? The Winners and Losers From Bank Deregulation in the United States,” The Journal of Finance, 65(5), pp.1637~1667.
[19] Burke, M., S. M. Hsiang, and E. Miguel, 2015, “Global Non-linear Effect of Temperature on Economic Production,” Nature, 527(7577), pp.235~239.
[20] Chen, X., F. Wen, J. Xiao, and G. G. Tian, 2024, “Weathering the Risk: How Climate Uncertainty Fuels Corporate Fraud,” Journal of Business Ethics, pp.1~29.
[21] Chen, Z., O. Z. Li, and H. Zou, 2016, “Directors and Officers Liability Insurance and the Cost of Equity,” Journal of Accounting and Economics, 61(1), pp.100~120.
[22] Chiang, Y. M. and P. R. Chang, 2022, “Overinvestment, Ownership Structure, and Directors' and Officers' Liability Insurance,” International Review of Economics & Finance, 78, pp.38~50.
[23] Claessens, S., S. Djankov, J. Fan, and L. Lang, 1999, “Expropriation of Minority Shareholders in East Asia,” Working paper, World Bank.
[24] Dahya, J., O. Dimitrov, and J. J. McConnell, 2006, “Dominant Shareholders, Corporate Boards, and Corporate Value: A cross-country Analysis,” Journal of Financial Economics, 87(1), pp.73~100.
[25] Guo, Kun, Qiang Ji, and Dayong Zhang, 2024, “A Dataset to Mmeasure Global Climate Physical Risk,” Data in Brief, 54, No.110502
[26] Jiang, G., C. M. C. Lee, and H. Yue, 2010, “Tunneling Through Intercorporate Loans: The China Experience,” Journal of Financial Economics, 98(1), pp.1~20.
[27] La Porta, R., F. Lopez-de-Silanes, A. Shleifer, and R. Vishny, 2002, “Investor Protection and Corporate Valuation,” The journal of finance, 57(3), pp.1147~1170.
[28] Li, T., T. Yang, and J. Zhu, 2022, “Directors' and Officers' liability Lnsurance: Evidence From Independent Directors' Voting,” Journal of Banking & Finance, 138, No.106425.
[29] Lin, C., M. S. Officer, R. Wang, and H. Zou, 2013, “Directors' and Officers' Liability Insurance and Loan Spreads,” Journal of Financial Economics, 110(1), pp.37~60.
[30] Stott, P., 2016, “How Climate Change Affects Extreme Weather Events,” Science, 352(6293), pp.1517-1518.
[1] 邓国营, 李欣媛, 颜镜洲, 邓启运. 媒体ESG报道情绪与公司债券风险溢价——基于信息传导视角的证据[J]. 金融研究, 2025, 539(5): 133-151.
[2] 钱爱民, 肖亦忱, 吴春天. 国有股东委派董事能否改善民营企业信息不对称?[J]. 金融研究, 2024, 530(8): 132-149.
[3] 徐枫, 吕纤, 郑耀东. 银行竞争、卖空机制与企业融资约束[J]. 金融研究, 2024, 528(6): 132-150.
[4] 林志帆, 张浩然. 科创板注册制如何提升IPO定价效率?——来自双重差分模型的因果识别证据[J]. 金融研究, 2024, 527(5): 188-206.
[5] 蔡庆丰, 刘昊, 舒少文. 政府产业引导基金与域内企业创新:引导效应还是挤出效应?[J]. 金融研究, 2024, 525(3): 75-93.
[6] 叶永卫, 张静堃, 何凡. 常态化财会监督与企业资本市场定价[J]. 金融研究, 2024, 532(10): 169-187.
[7] 钱先航, 刘芸, 王营. 高管媒体从业经历与股价大跌风险——基于上市公司的实证研究[J]. 金融研究, 2023, 513(3): 150-168.
[8] 王勇, 窦斌, 宋培睿, 何昕晟. 管理层语调偏离会影响投资者决策吗?——基于我国上市公司文本与财务数据的经验研究[J]. 金融研究, 2023, 513(3): 169-187.
[9] 许晓芳, 陆正飞. 股权质押融资存在“柠檬现象”吗?——来自股价崩盘风险的证据[J]. 金融研究, 2023, 522(12): 56-73.
[10] 李倩, 程昱, 程新生. 产业链企业上市是否影响企业创新投资?[J]. 金融研究, 2023, 521(11): 153-169.
[11] 申丹琳, 江轩宇. 社会信任与企业劳动投资效率[J]. 金融研究, 2022, 507(9): 152-168.
[12] 郭照蕊, 黄俊. 高铁时空压缩效应与公司权益资本成本——来自A股上市公司的经验证据[J]. 金融研究, 2021, 493(7): 190-206.
[13] 宫汝凯. 信息不对称、过度自信与股价变动[J]. 金融研究, 2021, 492(6): 152-169.
[14] 陈关亭, 连立帅, 朱松. 多重信用评级与债券融资成本——来自中国债券市场的经验证据[J]. 金融研究, 2021, 488(2): 94-113.
[15] 杜立, 屈伸, 钱雪松, 金芳吉. 地理距离、契约设计与企业内部资本市场借贷风险防控——来自中国企业集团内部借贷交易的证据[J]. 金融研究, 2020, 482(8): 130-148.
[1] 潘敏, 刘红艳, 程子帅. 极端气候对商业银行风险承担的影响——来自中国地方性商业银行的经验证据[J]. 金融研究, 2022, 508(10): 39 -57 .
[2] 谭莹, 王盼, 张勋. 数字金融发展的劳动力迁移效应——来自中国家庭追踪调查的微观证据[J]. 金融研究, 2024, 532(10): 39 -57 .
[3] 许楠, 毛奕欢, 刘浩. 经营预算信息链式传递与供应链长鞭效应——基于信息溢出与风险自治的视角[J]. 金融研究, 2024, 533(11): 38 -56 .
[4] 马理, 张人中, 马威, 牛慕鸿. 能源结构有序调整与绿色信贷政策调控[J]. 金融研究, 2023, 511(1): 94 -112 .
[5] 郭杰, 饶含. 商业银行债券融资与货币政策传导[J]. 金融研究, 2023, 515(5): 38 -57 .
[6] 田素华, 谢煜, 沈红波. 中国地方政府外资鼓励政策的同群效应[J]. 金融研究, 2024, 527(5): 150 -168 .
[7] 莫万贵, 袁佳, 魏磊, 高海燕. 中国结构性通缩中的周期性与结构性问题[J]. 金融研究, 2019, 465(3): 37 -52 .
[8] 易纲. 中国的利率体系与利率市场化改革[J]. 金融研究, 2021, 495(9): 1 -11 .
[9] 周颖刚, 潘骏, 刘岩. 商业银行股权结构特征与银行系统脆弱性水平[J]. 金融研究, 2025, 536(2): 39 -57 .
[10] 胡军, 王甄. 微博、特质性信息披露与股价同步性[J]. 金融研究, 2015, 425(11): 190 -207 .
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
版权所有 © 《金融研究》编辑部
本系统由北京玛格泰克科技发展有限公司设计开发 技术支持:support@magtech.com.cn
京ICP备11029882号-1