CEOs Face More Accountability When a Board Member Has Military Experience
New study finds that CEOs are more likely to be fired for company underperformance if a director has served in the military.
2 min
Chief executives at poorly performing companies are more likely to be fired if at least one of the company’s board members has a military background.
The odds of dismissal for underperformance are even higher if multiple directors on the board have served in the military, according to a recently published study.
The researchers behind the study analyzed 865 publicly listed companies in the U.S. between 2010 and 2020, identifying companies with board members who had served in either the U.S. Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, National Guard or a foreign equivalent. A little more than a quarter of the companies in the sample had such a board member.
The researchers then measured company performance by looking at return on assets, a metric often used to determine how efficiently organizations are using their assets to generate profits.
Shape up or ship out
Across the entire sample, about 2.1% of CEOs were fired when their company was underperforming its peers—that is, its return on assets was two standard deviations from the industry mean. Having a military director on the board raised the dismissal probability to 2.9% compared with companies that had no directors with military experience, two directors increased it to 3.9% and three directors amplified it to 5.2%, the researchers found.
“When firm performance falls below the 20th percentile in an industry, the influence of military directors on CEO dismissal becomes noticeable,” says Stevo Pavicevic , an associate professor at Frankfurt School of Finance and Management in Germany and one of the study’s authors.
To better understand their findings, the researchers interviewed 20 corporate directors with military backgrounds. In the interviews, the researchers found that these board members often place a high premium on personal accountability. “It’s part of the discipline we grew up with in the military,” said one of the directors they interviewed.
The interviews suggest this focus on personal accountability translates into concrete action, such as being more inclined to conduct formal CEO evaluations and blame company-performance shortfalls on the CEO. “It seems that directors with military backgrounds have a different approach to accountability,” says Pavicevic.
Does tenure matter?
In another part of the paper, the researchers explored whether their initial findings would hold up if a CEO were entrenched in the company, meaning the executive had a long tenure, held a lot of stock or also served as board chairman.
They found that CEOs were still more likely to be dismissed for poor performance even when they had long tenures or held a lot of stock when a member of the board had a military background. However, in cases where the CEO was also chairman, the relationship disappeared. Those CEOs weren’t more likely to be dismissed if a member of the board had military experience.
“Being both the CEO and chairman of the board gives the executive a very powerful position and even with the presence of military directors on the board, dismissals won’t be that easy,” says Pavicevic.
Copyright 2020, Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved Worldwide. LEARN MORE
For Central Element, the start of work at Pearl represents another step in the company’s growing eastern suburbs pipeline.
All three vehicles will form part of a broader charitable initiative benefiting Big Brothers Big Sisters of America, the American Red Cross and Starlight Children’s Foundation
Overall, the season showed that share prices react less to whether profits rose or fell than to the gap between results and expectations
5 min
Reporting season has once again reminded investors that a strong profit does not guarantee a rising share price, and a large loss does not always trigger a sell-off. What matters most is how each result compares with expectations and, increasingly, what management says about the year ahead. During the August 2026 season, companies offering credible turnarounds or unexpectedly strong guidance were rewarded handsomely, while those flagging weaker margins, slowing demand or greater uncertainty were punished.
The following ranking draws on Morningstar’s review of 164 ASX-listed companies and measures each company’s share-price movement on the day it reported. This captures the market’s immediate response to the earnings announcement, before subsequent economic developments, dividends and company-specific news cloud the picture. Here are the five biggest winners, and the five hardest-hit losers, of the season so far.
The five winners
1. Bapcor (ASX:BAP): +41.0%
Bapcor delivered reporting season’s largest relief rally after presenting early evidence that its troubled automotive-parts business was stabilising. Although underlying revenue fell 1.8% to $1.92 billion and underlying NPAT collapsed 85% to $10.8 million, underlying EBITDA of $152.5 million exceeded guidance.
More importantly, working-capital initiatives released $68.5 million in the second half, lifting cash conversion to 109.4% and reducing net debt by 63% to $135 million. The statutory loss was $431.6 million, largely because of non-cash impairments. Investors focused on improving operational momentum, stronger liquidity and management’s expectation of modest FY27 revenue growth.
2. Zip Co (ASX:ZIP): +18.2%
Zip comfortably surpassed its FY26 targets, sending the buy-now-pay-later provider’s shares sharply higher. Transaction volume rose 23% to $16.7 billion, while cash earnings before tax, depreciation and amortisation jumped 58% to a record $268.9 million. Statutory profit climbed 46% to $116.4 million, and the cash operating margin expanded by 4.2 percentage points to 20%.
The strongest signal was guidance for FY27 cash earnings of $340 million—around 26% growth and above analysts’ forecasts. US transaction volume increased 42.5% and now represents three-quarters of group volume, offsetting weaker customer activity in Australia.
3. CSL (ASX:CSL): +17.3%
CSL’s result was hardly spectacular in isolation, but it cleared a market bar that had fallen dramatically following earlier downgrades and restructuring announcements. Underlying NPATA was US$3.1 billion, down 2% in constant-currency terms, while operating cash flow reached US$3.51 billion.
CSL maintained its full-year dividend at US$2.92 per share and completed a A$1 billion buyback. The real catalyst was FY27 guidance for approximately 5% underlying profit growth, compared with market expectations closer to 2%. After an extended period of earnings disappointments, investors interpreted the outlook as evidence that CSL’s core plasma business was approaching a sustainable recovery.
4. Judo Capital (ASX:JDO): +16.9%
Judo Capital demonstrated strong operating leverage as its specialist business-lending franchise expanded. Full-year profit before tax rose 34% to $168.1 million, while pre-provision profit increased 42%. Gross loans and advances grew 18% to $14.7 billion, reaching the top of the bank’s guidance range and comfortably exceeding broader system growth.
Deposits increased 24% to $12.2 billion, return on equity improved by 1.1 percentage points to 6.4%, and earnings per share rose 29% to 9.9 cents. Reaffirmation of the FY27 outlook gave investors confidence that loan growth could continue without sacrificing margins or credit quality.
5. Super Retail Group (ASX:SUL): +15.8%
The owner of Supercheap Auto, rebel, BCF and Macpac reported record sales of $4.2 billion, up 3.2%, despite cautious discretionary spending. Profitability went backwards: normalised profit before tax fell 7% to $306 million and normalised NPAT declined 2.8% to $226 million as transformation spending weighed on margins. Nevertheless, the result exceeded subdued expectations, online sales grew 5.3% and membership across the group’s loyalty programs reached 13.1 million. Investors were also encouraged by positive early FY27 trading, stable gross margins and continued market-share gains. A fully franked 33-cent final dividend added to the appeal.
The five losers
1. Hansen Technologies (ASX:HSN): –21.2%
Hansen’s historic result met expectations, but investors recoiled from its outlook. The utility and communications software provider achieved an underlying EBITDA margin of 31%, exceeding its 30% target, while generating strong cash flow. However, management designated FY27 an “investment and transition year”, signalling a roughly five-percentage-point margin contraction as spending on products, sales capabilities and organisational changes increased.
Revenue had already been broadly flat, leaving investors concerned that the investment program would depress earnings before new growth appeared. Leadership changes, including the chief executive’s departure, added uncertainty. Management expects revenue growth and margins above 30% to return in FY28, but the market was unwilling to wait.
2. Life360 (ASX:360): –19.4%
Life360’s headline growth was impressive: quarterly revenue rose 38% to US$159 million, subscription revenue increased 31%, and adjusted EBITDA climbed 53% to US$31.1 million. Monthly active users reached 102.4 million and paying circles grew 27% to 3.2 million. The sell-off reflected expectations rather than a collapsing business.
Net income fell 18%, the net margin contracted from 6% to 3%, hardware shipments dropped 18%, and full-year EBITDA guidance was merely maintained. After a strong valuation run, investors wanted a larger upgrade and clearer evidence that heavy investment in advertising, international expansion and artificial intelligence would generate additional earnings.
3. PEXA Group (ASX:PXA): –17.0%
PEXA reported a 7% increase in continuing-operations revenue and 12% EBITDA growth to $152 million, accompanied by a two-percentage-point margin expansion. Free cash flow increased 39%, suggesting the core Australian electronic-conveyancing platform remained highly profitable. Investors instead concentrated on management’s warning that property-transfer volumes could decline, alongside regulatory uncertainty surrounding the fees PEXA can charge.
The company is also continuing to invest heavily in its loss-making international expansion. Morningstar considered the market reaction excessive, arguing that structural transfer-volume assumptions had not materially changed, but the combination of softer near-term activity and regulatory risk overwhelmed the respectable headline numbers.
4. SEEK (ASX:SEK): –14.3%
SEEK produced solid FY26 figures, including 10% revenue growth to $1.20 billion, a 15% rise in EBITDA and 28% growth in adjusted earnings per share. It also lifted its fully franked annual dividend by 13% to a record 52 cents. Those achievements were overshadowed by falling paid job-ad volumes and cautious FY27 assumptions.
The statutory accounts included a $201 million loss from the SEEK Growth Fund and $377 million of significant items, making the headline result considerably less attractive. Investors were particularly concerned that economic weakness could limit volumes while the company continued investing in platform integration and artificial-intelligence products.
5. JB Hi-Fi (ASX:JBH): –12.3%
JB Hi-Fi’s full-year result was broadly respectable, with group sales rising 5% to $11.1 billion and underlying earnings per share increasing 6% to $4.48. The damage came from its current-trading update. Australian sales were almost flat during the June quarter and deteriorated further in July, while earnings in the core Australian electronics business fell 3.6%.
Housing-related categories were particularly weak as higher living costs and interest rates constrained household budgets. With JB Hi-Fi entering the season on a demanding valuation, an in-line historic result was not sufficient: the loss of sales momentum prompted investors to rapidly reduce their expectations for FY27.
Overall, the season showed that share prices react less to whether profits rose or fell than to the gap between results and expectations. Bapcor was rewarded for being less troubled than feared, while several fundamentally profitable companies were punished because their outlooks failed to justify elevated valuations.
A luxury lifestyle might cost more than it used to, but how does it compare with cities around the world?
BMW has unveiled the Neue Klasse in Munich, marking its biggest investment to date and a new era of electrification, digitalisation and sustainable design.
