Is the diversification discount caused by the book value bias of debt?

We analyze whether the diversification discount is driven by the book value bias of corporate debt. Book values of debt may be a more downward biased proxy of the market value of debt for diversified firms, relative to undiversified firms, as diversification leads to lower firm risk. Thus, measures of firm value based on book values of debt undervalue diversified firms relative to focused firms. Our paper complements recent literature which uses market values to test the risk reduction hypothesis for a subsample of firms for which debt is traded. Alternatively, we employ market value of debt estimates for the whole firm universe. Consistent with the above hypothesis, we show that the use of book values of debt underestimates the value of diversified firms. There is no discount for mainly equity financed firms and lower distress risk and equity volatility for diversified firms. More concentrated ownership increases firm valuation.     

Geographic diversification and firm value in the financial services industry

This paper investigates whether geographic diversification is value-enhancing or value-destroying in the financial services sector, broadly defined. Our dataset comprises approximately 3579 observations over the period from 1985 to 2004 and covers the entire range of U.S. financial intermediaries — commercial banks, investment banks, insurance companies, asset managers, and financial infrastructure services firms. We use two alternative measures of geographic diversification: (1) a dummy variable whether the firm reports more than one geographic segment and (2) the percentage of sales from non-domestic operations. Our results indicate that geographic diversification is not associated with a significant valuation discount in financial intermediaries. However, when accounting for the firms' main activity-areas, we find evidence of a significant discount associated with geographic diversification in securities firms and a premium in credit intermediaries and insurance companies. All these results are robust after taking into account functional diversification of the firms, a potential endogeneity of both functional and geographic diversification, and a potential value transfer from equity to debt holders by using estimates of the market value of debt.     

The impact of conglomeration on the option value of equity

Using contingent claims analysis, I quantify the effect of risk-reducing corporate diversification on the value of equity as a call option on firm assets. The impact of conglomeration on firm risk is heavily conditioned on firm size. In contrast to small firms, the risk of large firms does not decline with increasing conglomeration. Accounting for this effect, the expected equity discount is much lower than commonly assumed and can even turn into a premium if the path dependency of equity is incorporated. My results stand in direct contrast to those of Mansi and Reeb (2002) and caution against using asset substitution as a qualitative argument for explaining economy-wide value phenomena.     

Corporate Diversification: What Gets Discounted?

Prior literature finds that diversified firms sell at a discount relative to the sum of the imputed values of their business segments. We explore this documented discount and argue that it stems from risk–reducing effects of corporate diversification. Consistent with this risk–reduction hypothesis, we find that (a) shareholder losses in diversification are a function of firm leverage, (b) all equity firms do not exhibit a diversification discount, and (c) using book values of debt to compute excess value creates a downward bias for diversified firms. Overall, the results indicate that diversification is insignificantly related to excess firm value.     

Corporate use of derivatives and excess value of diversification

We provide a link between diversification discount and corporate use of financial derivatives. We show that diversified firms benefit from financial risk management. Our findings are consistent with the notion that derivative usage lowers information asymmetry and thereby reduces the negative valuation effects of diversification. Our evidence complements the earlier findings of both the risk management literature and diversification discount literature and is robust to controls for endogeneity and information asymmetry levels.     

Diversification and risk-adjusted performance: A quantile regression approach

The effect of diversification on firm performance has been debated. We reexamine the effect using a sample of 44,248 observations of non-financial US firms for the 1997–2009 period employing the quantile regression approach. Our empirical results show that the effect of diversification on firm performance is not homogeneous across various quantile levels: the diversification discount (premium) shows up in firms with high (low) RoE quantiles. Further, we find that diversification affects firm risk as well. Therefore, we consider a risk-adjusted performance measure and find that both diversification discount and premium disappear, which is consistent with the risk-return trade-off principle.     

Earnings management,market discounts and the performance of private equity placements

Private equity placement data allow us to determine whether sophisticated investors can uncover the true value of firms. This can be done by defining sophisticated investors as those who meet the stringent participation requirements of the private equity market. Our results show private equity issuing firms overstate their earnings in the quarter preceding private equity placement announcements and that sophisticated investors do not ask for a fair discount when purchasing the shares of the private issuing firms. We also find evidence showing that the reversal of the effects of pre-issue earnings management is a significant determinant of the long-term performance of private issues. Results further show that post-issue stock performance and operating performance of firms using “aggressive” earnings management significantly underperform those using more “conservative” earnings management.     

Value, Survival, and the Evolution of Firm Organizational Structure

We examine corporate product diversification as a dynamic process. Consistent with prior research, we find that the average diversification discount is about 8% when using the standard value-multiple approach. However, we find that a significant portion of the diversification discount arises from benchmark comparisons of value ratios of mature firms with those of very young firms that are more likely to have high value multiples. The magnitude of the diversification discount falls by 15% to 30% when we control for firm age. We also show that diversification reduces the mortality rate of firms, and we provide evidence that mature firms pursue diversification strategies partly as a means to exit stagnant business segments for industries that are more highly valued.     

The anatomy of bank diversification

We use panel data from nine countries over the period 1996–2008 to test how revenue diversification affects bank value. Relying on a comprehensive framework for bank performance measurement, we find robust evidence against a conglomerate discount, unlike studies concerned with industrial firms. Rather, diversification increases bank profitability and, as a consequence also market valuations. This indirect performance effect does not depend on whether diversification was achieved through organic growth or through M&A activity. We further demonstrate that previous results in the literature on the impact of diversification on bank value presumably differ due to the way diversification is measured, and the negligence of the indirect value effect via bank profitability. Our evidence against a conglomerate discount in banking remains robust also during the sub-prime crisis.     

The impact of geographic diversification on firm performance

This paper empirically examines the economic effects of both corporate industrial and geographic diversifications. Using a sample of 28,050 firm-year observations from 1990 to 1998, we find that industrial and geographic diversifications are associated with firm value decrease. Consistent with Denis et al. [Denis, D. J., Denis, D. K., and Yost, K. (2002). Global diversification, industrial diversification, and firm value. Journal of Finance, 57, 1951-1979], the costs of corporate diversification may outweigh the benefits of diversification. We find that geographically diversified firms have higher R&D expenditures, advertising expenses, operating income, ROE and ROA than industrially diversified firms. In addition, higher R&D expenditures create value for multi-segment global firms, but not for single-segment global firms. This result implies that there exists an interaction effect between industrial and geographic diversification. We also examine the effects of agency cost issues, as characterized by the diversification discount, on both industrial and geographic diversification. Consistent with the agency explanation, firms with high equity-based compensation are associated with higher firm value than firms with low equity-based compensation. Also, we find that firms with a higher insider ownership percentage are associated with higher excess value.     

Real Earnings Management,Liquidity Risk and REITs SEO Dynamics

We analyze how REITs managers use real earnin gs management to address issues of liquidity risk and increased cost of capital they face during seasoned equity offerings. We show that REITs managers engage in real earnings management instead of accrual earnings management to attract more uninformed trading in order to provide the liquidity service at a lower cost during seasoned equity offerings. We find REITs with higher liquidity risk are more likely to manipulate earnings prior to equity offerings and uninformed trading is higher following real earnings management. Firms set the offer price at a smaller discount after engaging in real earnings management and stock returns decline in the long run. The findings are consistent with real option and liquidity risk explanations for equity offerings.     

Liquidity dynamics across public and private markets

In this paper we investigate cross-asset liquidity between equity markets and REITs and between REITs and private real estate markets. While many studies have investigated REIT liquidity, and there is an emerging interest in liquidity in the private real estate markets, there appears to be little knowledge of the dynamics of cross-market liquidity. We find lower levels of liquidity for REITs compared to a set of control firms matched on size and book-to-market ratios. Commonality in liquidity is also lower for REITs than the controls and the overall market. However, we do find an important difference in share turnover for REITs, which appears to have a higher level of commonality than found in other studies. We suggest that this may be due to the financial crisis. Additionally we find evidence of similar time-series variation in liquidity for public and private real estate markets. We also find significant directional causality for most liquidity proxies from the public to private real estate markets. Finally our results show that there is strong contemporaneous correlation between both public and private real estate market liquidity and the term spread and real investment and consumption spending. REIT liquidity measures based on intraday data also appear to contain important information not found in measures constructed from daily returns.     

Governance and Performance Implications of Diversification Strategies: Evidence from Large U.S. Firms

Recent research focuses on explaining the diversification discount. However, there is little direct evidence regarding the relation among ownership structure, corporate governance, and corporate diversification. The results in this paper suggest that agency issues do not account for firms adopting a particular diversification strategy. Also, the performance consequences of the shift in the diversification strategy and the subsequent changes in institutional and block ownership structures are not related to agency issues. In fact, investors seem not to avoid diversified firms per se. We suggest that observed board and ownership differences between diversified and focused firms are due to their being at different stages of corporate evolution.     

Real effects of stock underpricing

This paper provides evidence for a causal effect of equity prices on corporate investment and employment. We use fire sales by distressed equity funds during the 2007–2009 financial crisis to identify substantial exogenous underpricing. Firms whose stocks are most underpriced have considerably lower investment and employment than industry peers not subject to any fire sale discount. The causal effect of underpricing on investment is found to be largely concentrated on the most financially constrained firms.     

Mean-Reversion in REITs Discount to NAV &; Risk Premium

REITs discount to NAV is a puzzling regularity. The sharp increase in volatility of REITs prices over the past few years has spurred a relatively new concern amongst academics, managers and investors about the consequences of, and causes of, property risk premium on discount to NAV. The two interrelated questions arising from the recent increase in volatility of REITs prices are: Is the increased volatility responsible for the observed widening in discount to NAV? What does the observed private and public risk premium tell us about discount to NAV? We attempt to address these questions by analysing risk premiums in private and public real estate markets. The analysis is conducted in the most recent years of high stock price volatility. Our analysis reveals two major results: a tendency for discount to NAV to revert to the long term mean value of 20% and, more significantly, a lower risk premium in equivalent yields in private market than in public market. These results suggest that investors in public market have a different conception of property risk and complexity of lease options than what is conveyed by private property valuation.     

Does Focus Really Matter? Specialized vs. Diversified REITs

REITs that limit their holdings to a single property type typically defend their lack of diversification by claiming the management possesses special investment expertise in that particular property type. This paper investigates whether property type specialized REITs outperform diversified REITs thus providing evidence of superior management expertise associated with specialized REITs. We compare the performance of specialized versus diversified REIT portfolios during 1997–2006 by examining abnormal returns using CAPM and the Fama-French three factor model with momentum. We find no evidence of superior performance associated with REITs specializing in a single property type. On the contrary, diversified REITs somewhat outperform specialized REITs, but not by a statistically significant margin. Also, consistent with theory, we find that specialized REITs have higher market risk than diversified REITs.     

DO TRACKING STOCKS REDUCE INFORMATION ASYMMETRIES? AN ANALYSIS OF LIQUIDITY AND ADVERSE SELECTION

A firm's announcement that it intends to restructure based on tracking stock is usually associated with a positive stock price reaction, at least in the short run. Typically, this reaction is attributed to expected reductions in a diversification discount, through reduced agency costs or information asymmetries. We reinvestigate this latter hypothesis by focusing on the liquidity provided by market makers before and after a firm issues a tracking stock. Our results suggest that such restructurings are not effective at reducing information asymmetries. Rather, firms that issue tracking stocks exhibit less liquidity and greater adverse selection than comparable control firms.     

Corporate governance and capital allocations of diversified firms

We examine how various aspects of corporate governance structures affect the capital allocation inefficiency that drives the value discounts of diversified firms. Diversified firms with more effective internal or external governance mechanisms experience more efficient investment allocations at both the firm and segment levels and show less of a diversification discount. The efficiency of the investment allocation process is better for diversified firms with high board independence, low board busyness, high institutional ownership, high outside director ownership, high CEO equity-based pay, high audit quality, and strong shareholder rights. The results hold after controlling for other potential influences. Our evidence suggests that corporate governance considerations are important in assessing the relation between investment efficiency and firm value for diversified firms.     

Diversification,Performance, and the Corporate Life Cycle

This paper investigates the relation between the extent of diversification in firms and their performance at different life cycle stages. To illustrate the joint endogeneity of diversification and performance, we treat both the extent of diversification and firm performance as endogenous variables in a simultaneous equation system. Empirical results reveal that corporate diversification erodes firm value. Overall, firms in their growing stages experience a significant diversification discount; however, mature firms do not show such findings. Although unrelated diversification leads to trading at a discount in all growing and mature firms, conversely, related diversification exhibits an evident premium in mature firms.     

Diversification,corporate governance and firm value in small markets: evidence from New Zealand

We find that diversified firms in New Zealand are associated with a value discount of 19–42 per cent relative to single‐segment (undiversified) firms. Although several competing explanations have been offered in the literature, we find that the strength of corporate governance explains between 15–21 per cent of this discount. Specifically, board size, busyness of directors, CEO ownership and whether or not compensation of directors includes equity‐based components collectively explain a large part of the reported discount. Our results from companies trading in New Zealand complement recent findings in the US by not only confirming the existence of a diversification discount but also emphasizing the role of poor governance in destroying shareholder wealth by pursuing a value‐destroying corporate strategy. All our results hold after controlling for potential endogeneity in the decision to diversify and the choice of corporate governance structure by employing two‐way fixed‐effects and dynamic‐panel generalized method of moments regression techniques.