Ownership Concentration,Corporate Control Activity,and Firm Value: Evidence from the Death of Inside Blockholders

We analyze how ownership concentration affects firm value and control of public companies by examining effects of deaths of inside blockholders. We find shareholder wealth increases, ownership concentration falls, and extensive corporate control activity ensues. Share price responses are related to the deceased's equity stake. Control group holdings fall for two-thirds of the firms due to either the estate's dispersal or inheritors selling stock. A majority of firms become targets of control bids: three-quarters of bids are successful; one-third are hostile. Our evidence is broadly consistent with Stulz's (1988) model of the relationship between ownership concentration and firm value.     

Family ownership and performance in Korean conglomerates

We review the ownership structure of 15 Korean chaebols (conglomerates) using data from published combined financial statements to determine whether, as commonly believed, controlling family ownership in private firms is higher compared with public firms within the same chaebol. We then examine whether firms with high family ownership and lower outside investor participation shift wealth from firms with lower family ownership, which would support the assumption that private firms outperform public firms. Our results do not support either assumption. First, we show that the simple average of family ownership is lower for the private firms than the public firms within the same chaebol. Second, we find no relation between controlling family ownership and the performance of a firm.     

Heterogeneous beliefs and optimal ownership in entrepreneurial financing decisions

Our setting comprises one entrepreneurial firm with a growth opportunity seeking for external funding from a venture capitalist, where the entrepreneur and venture capitalist have homogeneous or heterogeneous beliefs about its growth prospects. We developed a real options model to determine the optimal ownership structure that triggers the simultaneous exercise of the growth option on the entrepreneurial firm by entrepreneurs and venture capitalists. Our results show that the more optimistic any of the parties is, the lower the post-money firm ownership that party will retain. However, optimism leads parties to delay their decision to invest in the entrepreneurial firm, by demanding higher profit triggers and investing only in more valuable entrepreneurial firms. The combination of these two effects leaves perceived returns on investment unchanged and not dependent on their own optimism.     

Public Equity and Audit Pricing in the United States

To what degree are audit fees for U.S. firms with publicly traded equity higher than fees for otherwise similar firms with private equity? The answer is potentially important for evaluating regulatory regime design efficiency and for understanding audit demand and production economics. For U.S. firms with publicly traded debt, we hold constant the regulatory regime, including mandated issuer reporting and auditor responsibilities. We vary equity ownership and thus public securities market contextual factors, including any related public firm audit fees from increased audit effort to reduce audit litigation risk and/or pure litigation risk premium (litigation channel effects). In cross‐section, we find that audit fees for public equity firms are 20–22% higher than fees for otherwise similar private equity firms. Time‐series comparisons for firms that change ownership status yield larger percentage fee increases (decreases) for those going public (private). Results are consistent with litigation channel effects giving rise to substantial incremental audit fees for U.S. firms with public equity ownership.     

Stock‐Based Compensation in a Concentrated Ownership Setting: An Empirical Investigation

Stock‐based compensation has been viewed as an important mechanism for tying managers’ wealth to firm performance, and thus alleviating the agency conflict between the shareholders and the managers when ownership is diffused. However, in a concentrated ownership structure, controlling owners are usually the management of the firm; they can engage in self‐dealing activities to the detriment of minority shareholders’ interests. Yet, outside investors may anticipate the problem and discount the share price for the entrenchment behaviors they observe. In this study, we investigate how controlling owners trade off the benefits and the costs of using stock‐based compensation. Based on a sample of Taiwanese firms, our evidence shows that stock‐based compensation is negatively related to the agency problem embedded in a concentrated ownership structure. This relationship is evident among firms with more frequent equity offerings. Overall, our empirical evidence suggests that controlling owners consider the negative price effects of stock‐based compensation and trade off these costs with the benefits of expropriating minority shareholders’ interests, particularly when firms seek more external equity capital. Our results hold after controlling for selection bias and share collateral by controlling owners.     

Governance Structure and Firm Performance in Private Family Firms

Although a large proportion of firms are family owned and most family firms are private, our understanding of private family firms is limited. Using confidential information on family relationships between board members, CEOs, and shareholders, this is the first study to provide large‐scale evidence on the association between governance structure and firm performance in family‐controlled private firms. Our sample is unique as it covers almost all private limited liability firms in Norway, spans 11 years, traces firm ownership to ultimate owners, and identifies family relationship using data on kinship, marriage, and adoption. The results show a U‐shaped relationship between family ownership and firm performance. Higher ownership of the second largest owner, higher percentage of family members on the board, stronger family power, and smaller boards are associated with higher firm performance. In addition, the positive association between the ownership of the second largest owner and firm performance also occurs when the second largest owner is a member of the controlling family, but the association is stronger when the second largest owner is a non‐family member. We further test the relative importance of these test variables and find that ownership structure is more associated with firm performance than board structure.     

Managerial ownership dynamics and firm value

From 1988 to 2003, the average change in managerial ownership is significantly negative every year for American firms. We find that managers are more likely to significantly decrease their ownership when their firms are performing well and more likely to increase their ownership when their firms become financially constrained. When controlling for past stock returns, we find that large increases in managerial ownership increase Tobin's q. This result is driven by increases in shares held by officers, while increases in shares held by directors appear unrelated to changes in firm value. There is no evidence that large decreases in ownership have an adverse impact on firm value. We rely on the dynamics of the managerial ownership/firm value relation to mitigate concerns in the literature about the endogeneity of managerial ownership.     

Do Leverage,Dividend Payout,and Ownership Concentration Influence Firms' Value Creation? An Analysis of Brazilian Firms

This study uses a sample of 213 Brazilian firms listed between 1995 and 2004 to examine the effect of the presence or absence of growth opportunities on the subsequent effect of leverage, dividend payout, and ownership concentration on firm value. First, we find that leverage plays a dual role: whereas it negatively affects the value of firms with growth opportunities (i.e., underinvestment theory), it positively affects the value of firms without growth opportunities (i.e., overinvestment theory). Second, we find that dividends play a disciplinary role in firms with fewer growth opportunities by reducing free cash flow under managerial control. Finally, the results show that ownership structure has a nonlinear effect—that is, ownership concentration initially improves the value of most firms. However, after a certain threshold, in firms with growth opportunities, the risk increases that large shareholders expropriate wealth at the expense of minority shareholders.     

MANAGERIAL OWNERSHIP CHANGE AND FIRM VALUE: EVIDENCE FROM DUAL-CLASS RECAPITALIZATIONS AND INSIDER TRADING

We explore the relation between managerial ownership and firm value by examining a sample of firms that announce dual-class recapitalizations and the insider trading activity that precedes these announcements. Insider trading activity, unlike recapitalization, requires managers to commit their personal wealth and therefore serves as an indicator of the motivation behind the recapitalization. The recapitalization, in effect, allows managers to magnify the increase in vote ownership that results from insider buying and offsets the decrease in vote ownership that results from insider selling. This study adds to our understanding of dual-class recapitalizations by linking the wealth effects and changes in ownership concentration with ***manager-shareholder agency issues that follow from recapitalization and insider trading activity. Results show a positive relation between the change in firm value and ownership for recapitalizations before the 1984 New York Stock Exchange moratorium on delisting dual-class firms when ownership was high and control was firmly established. Results show a negative relation for recapitalizations since 1984 when ownership levels were lower and voting control was not assured. These results support the notion that more recent recapitalizations entrench managers.     

Insider ownership, ownership concentration and investment performance: An international comparison

This article makes two important contributions to the literature on the incentive effects of insider ownership. First, it presents a clean method for separating the positive wealth effect of insider ownership from the negative entrenchment effect, which can be applied to samples of companies from the US and any other country. Second, it measures the effects of insider ownership using a measure of firm performance, namely a marginal q, which ensures that the causal relationship estimated runs from ownership to performance. The article applies this method to a large sample of publicly listed firms from the Anglo-Saxon and Civil law traditions and confirms that managerial entrenchment has an unambiguous negative effect on firm performance as measured by both Tobin's (average) q and our marginal q, and that the wealth effect of insider ownership is unambiguously positive for both measures. We also test for the effects of ownership concentration for other categories of owners and find that while institutional ownership improves the performance in the USA, financial institutions have a negative impact in other Anglo-Saxon countries and in Europe.     

Separation of Ownership from Control and Acquiring Firm Performance: The Case of Family Ownership in Canada

Abstract:   This study investigates the relationship between ownership structure and acquiring firm performance. A large proportion of Canadian public companies have controlling shareholders (families) that often exercise control over voting rights while holding a small fraction of the cash flow rights. This is achieved through the concurrent use of dual class voting shares and stock pyramids. Many suggest that these ownership structures involve larger agency costs than those imposed by dispersed ownership structures and that they distort corporate decisions with respect to investment choices such as acquisitions. We find that average acquiring firm announcement period abnormal returns for our sample of 327 Canadian transactions are positive over the 1998–2002 period. Cash deals, acquisitions of unlisted targets and cross‐border deals have a positive impact on value creation. Governance mechanisms (outside block‐holders, unrelated directors and small board size) also have a positive influence on the acquiring firm performance. Further, the positive abnormal returns are greater for family firms. We do not find that separation of ownership and control has a negative impact on performance. These results suggest that, contrary to other jurisdictions offering poor minority shareholder protection or poor corporate governance, separation of control and ownership is not viewed as leading to value destroying mergers and acquisitions, i.e., market participants do not perceive families as using M&A to obtain private benefits at the expense of minority shareholders. We do find a non‐monotonic relationship between ownership level and acquiring firm abnormal returns. Ownership of a majority of the cash flow rights has a negative impact on announcement returns. This is consistent with the view that large shareholders may undertake less risky projects as their wealth invested in the firm increases.     

Founding-Family Ownership and Firm Performance: Evidence from the S&P 500

We investigate the relation between founding‐family ownership and firm performance. We find that family ownership is both prevalent and substantial; families are present in one‐third of the S&P 500 and account for 18 percent of outstanding equity. Contrary to our conjecture, we find family firms perform better than nonfamily firms. Additional analysis reveals that the relation between family holdings and firm performance is nonlinear and that when family members serve as CEO, performance is better than with outside CEOs. Overall, our results are inconsistent with the hypothesis that minority shareholders are adversely affected by family ownership, suggesting that family ownership is an effective organizational structure.     

EXCHANGEABLE DEBT CALLS AND SECURITY RETURNS

Exchangeable calls are not convertible into the calling firm's common stock but into the common stock of a target firm in which the calling firm has an ownership position. In addition to reducing leverage, exchangeables change the asset composition of the calling firm through the divestiture of the calling firm's ownership stake in the target firm. In contrast to the evidence on convertible calls, our findings indicate that announcements of exchangeable debt calls are not associated with an abnormal capital loss for the calling firm shareholders. For target firms, announcements of exchangeable calls reduce shareholder wealth. A lower probability of takeover resulting from diffusion of ownership concentration of the target firm's common stock may contribute to this result.     

Are Multiple Directorships Beneficial in East Asia?

We posit that the benefits and costs of multiple directorships are conditional on firm characteristics. We find firm valuation is positively associated with multiple directorships in (i) firms with high advising needs and (ii) firms with high external financing needs. These beneficial effects of multiple directorships are generally stronger in countries with weak shareholder rights and in firms that are widely held. However, when controlling shareholder hold high voting‐rights to cash‐flow rights, multiple directorships reduce firm valuation, especially in countries with weak shareholder rights and in closely held firms. As multiple directorships increases, cash holdings (capital expenditures) contribute less to shareholder value. The negative association between value of cash (capital expenditure) and busy boards is mitigated in firms with (i) high advising needs, (ii) high external financing needs and (iii) less entrenched ownership structures.     

Agency conflicts and auditing in private firms

We are interested in understanding how agency conflicts in private firms arise through ownership structures and family relationships. Specifically, we analyze auditors’ increase of effort and firms’ choice of auditors in situations with higher level of agency conflicts. For a large sample of private firms, we use unique and confidential data (obtained through special permission by the government) to measure direct and ultimate ownership for each shareholder as well as extended family relationships (based on marriage and blood lines, going back four generations and extending out to fourth cousin) among all shareholders, board members, and CEOs. We first find that audit fees, our proxy for audit effort, vary as hypothesized with firm-level characteristics related to ownership structures and family relationships. Second, we find evidence that firms in higher agency cost settings respond by having their financial statements audited by a higher-quality auditor (i.e., a Big 4 firm). However, for CEO family-related settings (i.e., where the CEO is related to the major shareholder or as the number of board members related to the CEO increases), we find no evidence of a greater demand for a Big 4 auditor.     

It Takes Two: The Incidence and Effectiveness of Co‐CEOs

This study examines the phenomenon of co‐CEOs within publicly traded firms. Although shared executive leadership is not widespread, it occurs within some very prominent firms. We find that co‐CEOs generally complement each other in terms of educational background or executive responsibilities. Our results show that firms most likely to appoint co‐CEOs have lower leverage, a more limited firm focus, less independent board structure, fewer advising directors, lower institutional ownership, and greater levels of merger activity. The governance structure of co‐CEO firms suggests that co‐CEOships can serve as an alternative governance mechanism, with co‐CEO mutual monitoring substituting for board or external monitoring and co‐CEO complementary skills substituting for board advising. An event study indicates that the market reacts positively to appointments of co‐CEOs while a propensity score analysis shows that the presence of co‐CEOs increases firm valuation.     

Managerial ownership and firm valuation: Evidence from Japanese firms

We study the relation between managerial ownership and Tobin's q (Q) for 123 Japanese firms from 1987 to 1995. Managers in Japanese firms own a smaller stake in their firms relative to their US counterparts. Our initial analyses using an Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regression model show a negative (positive) relation between Q and managerial ownership at low (high) levels of ownership. However, we argue that this finding is most likely a statistical artifact. When we control for firm fixed effects, suggested by recent literature, we reach a different conclusion. Specifically, we find that Q increases monotonically with managerial ownership. Our findings, therefore, suggest that as ownership increases, there is a greater alignment of managerial interests with those of stockholders. This conclusion remains when both managerial ownership and Q are treated as endogenous variables in a simultaneous equation system.     

State ownership,soft-budget constraints,and cash holdings: Evidence from China’s privatized firms

We study the relation between state ownership and cash holdings in China’s share-issue privatized firms from 2000 to 2012. We find that the level of cash holdings increases as state ownership declines. For the average firm in our sample, a 10 percentage-point decline in state ownership leads to an increase of about RMB 55 million in cash holdings. This negative relation can be attributable to the soft-budget constraint (SBC) inherent in state ownership. The Chinese financial system is dominated by the state-owned banks, an environment very conducive for the SBC effect. We further examine and quantify the effect of state ownership on the value of cash and find that the marginal value of cash increases as state ownership declines. The next RMB added to cash reserves of the average firm is valued at RMB 0.96 by the market. The marginal value of cash in firms with zero state ownership is RMB 0.36 higher than in firms with majority state ownership. The SBC effect exacerbates agency problems inherent in state-controlled enterprises, contributing to their lower value of cash.     

Fund ownership,wealth, and risk-taking: Evidence on private equity managers

Private equity (PE) managers are required to invest their own money in the funds they manage. We examine the incentive effects of this ownership on the delegated acquisition decision. A simple model shows that PE managers select less risky firms and use more debt, the higher their ownership. We test these predictions for a sample of Norwegian PE funds, using managers’ wealth to capture their relative risk aversion. As predicted, the target company’s cash-flow risk decreases and leverage increases with the manager’s ownership scaled by wealth. Moreover, the overall portfolio risk decreases with ownership, mitigating widespread concerns about excessive risk-taking.     

Managerial ownership and firm performance: A re-examination using productivity measurement

The role of productivity in firm performance is of fundamental importance to the US economy. Consistent with the corporate finance approach, this paper uses the ownership stake of a firm's managers as an argument in estimating the firm's production function. Accordingly, this paper brings together the corporate finance and productivity literature. Using a large sample of randomly selected manufacturing firms that does not suffer from any survivorship or large firm size biases, we find that managerial ownership changes are positively related to changes in productivity. We also find a higher sensitivity of changes in managerial ownership to changes in productivity for firms who experience greater than the median change in managerial ownership. These results are robust to including lagged estimates of production inputs, year dummies and separate dummies for each firm to control for unobservable firm characteristics. In addition, we find that the stock market rewards firms with increases in firm value when these firms increase their level of productivity.