Comment on “Regulating Gender Diversity: Evidence from California Senate Bill 826”

Published Online:https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2023.01986

References

  • Ahern KR, Dittmar AK (2012) The changing of the boards: The impact on firm valuation of mandated female board representation. Quart. J. Econom. 127(1):137–197.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Allen A, Wahid AS (2024) Regulating gender diversity: Evidence from California senate bill 826. Management Sci. 70(4):2023–2046.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Carhart MM (1997) On persistence in mutual fund performance. J. Finance 52(1):57–82.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Corrado CJ (1989) A nonparametric test for abnormal security-price performance in event studies. J. Financial Econom. 23(2):385–395.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Corrado CJ, Zivney TL (1992) The specification and power of the sign test in event study hypothesis tests using daily stock returns. J. Financial Quant. Anal. 27(3):465–478.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Cowan AR (1992) Nonparametric event study tests. Rev. Quant. Finance Accounting 2(4):343–358.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Dai R (2020) Notes for empirical finance (presentation slides). Preprint, submitted July 30, https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3658557.Google Scholar
  • Eckbo BE, Nygaard K, Thorburn KS (2022) Valuation effects of Norway’s board gender-quota law revisited. Management Sci. 68(6):4112–4134.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Fama EF, French KR (1993) Common risk factors in the returns on stocks and bonds. J. Financial Econom. 33(1):3–56.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Gertsberg M, Mollerstrom J, Pagel M (2025) Gender quotas and support for women in board elections. Working paper, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
  • Greene D, Intintoli VJ, Kahle KM (2020) Do board gender quotas affect firm value? Evidence from California Senate Bill No. 826. J. Corporate Finance 60:101526.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Greene D, Intintoli VJ, Kahle KM (2026) How deep is the labor market for female directors? Evidence from mandated director appointments. Working paper, Clemson University, Clemson, SC.Google Scholar
  • Grundfest J (2018) Mandating gender diversity in the corporate boardroom: The inevitable failure of California’s SB 826. Working paper, Rock Center for Corporate Governance at Stanford University, Stanford, CA.Google Scholar
  • Hou K, Mo H, Xue C, Zhang L (2019) Which factors? Rev. Finance 23(1):1–35.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Hwang S, Shivdasani A, Simintzi E (2021) Mandating women on boards: Evidence from the United States. Working paper, Korea University, Seoul, South Korea.Google Scholar
  • Jaffe JF (1974) The effect of regulation changes on insider trading. Bell J. Econom. Management Sci. 5(1):93–121.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Kaspereit T (2022) EVENTSTUDY2: Stata module to perform event studies with complex test statistics. Statistical Software Components S458086, Boston College, Department of Economics, Boston.Google Scholar
  • Kolari JW, Pynnönen S (2010) Event study testing with cross-sectional correlation of abnormal returns. Rev. Financial Stud. 23(11):3996–4025.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Kolari JW, Pynnönen S (2011) Nonparametric rank tests for event studies. J. Empirical Finance 18(5):953–971.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Kothari SP, Warner JB (2007) Econometrics of event studies. Handbook of Corporate Finance: Empirical Corporate Finance (Elsevier, Amsterdam), 3–36.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Lambert M, Fays B, Hübner G (2020) Factoring characteristics into returns: A clinical study on the SMB and HML portfolio construction methods. J. Banking Finance 114:105811.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Patell JM (1976) Corporate forecasts of earnings per share and stock price behavior: Empirical test. J. Accounting Res. 14(2):246–276.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Tian MH (2021) Firm characteristics and empirical factor models: A model-mining experiment. Rev. Financial Stud. 34(12):6087–6125. Google Scholar
  • von Meyerinck F, Niessen-Ruenzi A, Schmid M, Solomon S (2025) As California goes, so goes the nation? Board gender quotas and shareholders’ distaste of government interventions. Working paper, University of Zurich, Zurich.Google Scholar
  • Wilcoxon F (1945) Individual comparisons by ranking methods. Biometrics Bull. 1(6):80–83.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
INFORMS site uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some are essential to make our site work; Others help us improve the user experience. By using this site, you consent to the placement of these cookies. Please read our Privacy Statement to learn more.