Ownership, board structure, and performance in continental Europe

This study examines the empirical validity of claims that the composition of boards of directors and ownership structures affect firms' profitability ratios (ROE, ROA, MTB) using data from 87 European firms, which were foreign U.S. registrants during 2000-2001. Results indicate a strong positive relation between the level of relational ownership and profitability ratios, and between the portion of independent directors on the board and profitability ratios. No strong relation was found between the portion of inside directors or level of managerial ownership and profitability in continental European companies.     

The Effect of Managerial Ownership on Stock Split-Induced Abnormal Returns

This paper tests the proposition that split announcements are informative signals that play a greater information role for widely held firms. We present evidence for an inverse relationship between managerial ownership and the magnitude of stock split-induced abnormal returns. After controlling for industry and firm size, we find that splitting firms have lower managerial ownership, on average, than nonsplitting firms. We also find no evidence that managers trade on inside information prior to announcing splits.     

On-balance-sheet duration hedging and firm value

In this study we consider the determinants and effects of on-balance-sheet duration hedging for non-financial US firms. The difference between the duration of assets and liabilities, or duration gap, is negatively related to growth opportunities, and positively related to profitability, corporate cash holdings, and managerial ownership. We find that both a lower duration gap and a lower absolute value of duration gap are associated with higher firm values. Moreover, we find some evidence that firms with larger duration gaps performed worse during the market-wide liquidity shock accompanying the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy.     

Corporate performance, managerial ownership and endogeneity: A simultaneous equations analysis for the Athens stock exchange

This paper investigates the relationship between managerial ownership and firm performance by considering the endogenous nature of the ownership variables. We conducted our analysis by applying a simultaneous equations framework. We empirically controlled the direction and significance of this relationship, using a panel comprised of 146 firms quoted on the Athens Stock Exchange between 2000 and 2004. The main findings of our analysis indicated that when managerial ownership is treated as endogenous, there is a positive impact on corporate value. Given the particularly high degree of managerial ownership that is observed in the firms listed in the Athens Stock Exchange, we argue that the estimated positive relationship can be mainly explained by the existing high levels of managerial ownership.     

Cash holding and control-oriented finance

We critically reassess the notion that high liquid asset holding by firms faced with weak investor protection is evidence of managerial rent extraction. We show that firms facing agency problems may establish tight controls over management through concentrated ownership. Using data on Belgian listed firms between 1991 and 2006, we find a strong positive association between ownership concentration and cash holding. This indicates a precautionary motive on the part of the controlling shareholders who highly value control. We also find that firm market valuation is positively affected by the amount of cash held by firms. On the other hand, managerial ownership has no impact. These results are consistent with the hypothesis that firms' owners are pursuing a rational strategy to mitigate agency costs in the face of weak investor protections.     

Firm-Specific Determinants of Income Smoothing in Bangladesh: An Empirical Evaluation

The purpose of this chapter is to empirically examine the existence of income smoothing and determinants of smoothing behavior in Bangladesh. Using Eckel's (1981), Abacus (June), 28–40, “comparison of the variance of sales and profit” method, this study finds that a fair number of Bangladeshi firms engage in income smoothing. Particularly, 46 firms out of a sample of 107 firms with available data, engage in at least one type of income-smoothing behavior. Further, a logistic regression result indicates that firms characterized by sponsors having the largest ownership stake among all the equity holders and smaller firms engage more in income smoothing. Also, firms that have high debt to equity ratio engage more in smoothing behavior.     

The performance effect of managerial ownership: Evidence from China

By examining a sample of non-listed Chinese firms, we provide the first evidence from China for the effect of managerial ownership on firm performance. In matching-sample comparisons, we find that firms of significant managerial ownership outperform firms whose managers do not own equity shares. Our further results indicate the relation between firm performance and managerial ownership is nonlinear, and the inflection point at which the relation turns negative occurs at ownership above 50%. Compared with previous studies, our results are less likely to suffer from an endogeneity problem due to the non-list nature of our sample and the unique institutional environment in China.     

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.     

Managerial ownership and firm performance: Evidence from China's privatizations

We examine the relationship between managerial ownership and firm performance for a sample of Chinese State-owned enterprises (SOEs) privatized over the period 1992-2000. The results indicate that managerial ownership has a positive effect on firm performance. Although return on assets (ROA) and return on sales (ROS) decline post-privatization, firms with high managerial ownership and, specially, high CEO ownership, exhibit a smaller performance decline. The difference is highly significant, with or without controlling for residual state ownership and changes in the firm's operating environment. We also find that the influence on firm performance becomes less significant at higher levels of CEO ownership. In contrast, performance continues to increase with managerial ownership. This finding suggests that, beyond a certain point, the distribution of shares would be more effective if extended to the whole management team instead of being limited to the chief executive.     

EXTRAORDINARY ITEMS AND INCOME SMOOTHING: A POSITIVE ACCOUNTING APPROACH

This is an empirical study of single-period income smoothing which uses an incentives-based model to explain classificatory choices. An index is constructed to measure the smoothing effect of these choices. Weighted least squares regression results indicate that classificatory choices consistent with smoothing are more likely to be observed in firms with high earnings variability, high dividend payout, substantial managerial holdings of share options and diffuse share ownership. The existence of material scope for smoothing strengthens these findings. The model as a whole is statistically significant and, although the proportion of variability in smoothing explained is modest, it compares very favourably with other accounting choice studies. The relationship between smoothing and alternative earnings management strategies, including big bath accounting, is explored.     

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.     

Investment Opportunity Set and Voluntary Disclosure of Prospective Information: A Simultaneous Equations Approach

Abstract:   This paper examines empirically the relationship between the level of disclosure of prospective information and the investment opportunity set for firms in New Zealand. Using a systems (two‐stage least squares) approach that explicitly controls for potential endogeneity between disclosure and IOS, we find that the level of prospective information disclosure is significantly and positively related to IOS in both specifications in our simultaneous analysis. Further, we document that prospective information disclosure is positively related to firm size and new security offerings, and is not related to inside ownership and firm profitability. IOS is positively impacted by a firm's investments in fixed assets and its profitability. Finally, we find that forward looking disclosure levels are positively related to the proportion of outside directors on the board and negatively related to barriers to entry, but these findings are not robust across alternative model specifications.     

So far away from me: Firm location and the managerial ownership effect on firm value

We examine the relation between CEO delta, firm locality, and firm value for a sample of 7749 firm-year observations. We find that CEO delta is more value-enhancing for rural firms, those associated with exacerbated agency conflicts resulting from decreased observability of managerial investment decisions and higher levels of information asymmetry. Further, the positive relation between CEO delta and firm value is stronger for rural firms with higher levels of information asymmetry or in less religious areas. Our findings imply that managerial ownership is more effective in mitigating agency conflicts in rural areas with higher levels of information asymmetry and lower degrees of local trustworthy constituents. Our results are robust to alternative definitions of urban/rural firms, the inclusion of additional control variables, and various tests controlling the endogeneity between firm location and value. Finally, the results do not appear to be driven by reverse causality.     

The Endogeneity of Managerial Compensation in Firm Valuation: A Solution

Much of the empirical literature that has examined the functionalrelationship between firm value and managerial ownership levelsassumes that managerial ownership levels are exogenous and arethe only component of managerial compensation related to firmperformance. This assumption is contrary to the theoreticaland empirical literature wherein managerial compensation isendogenously determined and includes both shares and options.Using instruments for managerial compensation and panel datato control for unobservable heterogeneity in the firm's contractingenvironment, we estimate a system of simultaneous equations.We find that firms are in equilibrium when they endogenouslyset their chief executive officer's compensation.     

Managerial Ownership, the Method of Payment for Acquisitions, and Executive Job Retention

This study investigates how acquiring and target firm managers' preferences for control rights motivate the payment for corporate acquisitions. We expect that managers of target firms who value influence in combined firms will prefer to receive stock. One reason top managers desire influence is to enhance their chances of retaining jobs in the combined firm. Our analysis shows a strong, positive association between managerial ownership of target firms and the likelihood of acquisitions for stock. We also find that managers of target firms are more likely to retain jobs in combined firms when they receive stock rather than cash.     

The relationship between managerial ownership and firm performance in high R&D firms

Several studies have examined the relationship between managerial ownership and firm performance/value (e.g., [Journal of Financial Economics 20 (1988) 293; Journal of Financial Economics 27 (1990) 595; Journal of Corporate Finance 5 (1999) 79]). Using different samples, these studies provide general support for the argument that increases in managerial ownership create countervailing interest alignment and entrenchment effects, leading to a nonlinear relationship between managerial ownership and firm performance. However, the actual form of this nonlinear relationship differs across the studies.The present paper examines the relationship between managerial ownership and performance for high R&D firms that are listed on the NYSE, AMEX and NASDAQ. We find that Tobin's Q initially declines with managerial ownership, then increases, then declines again and, finally, increases again—a W-shaped relationship. The findings from our study point to the importance of industry effects in the relationship between managerial ownership and firm performance.     

The size,concentration and evolution of corporate R&D spending in U.S. firms from 1976 to 2010: Evidence and implications

The use of research and development (R&D) spending as an empirical proxy for managerial discretion, information asymmetry and growth opportunities, is pervasive in empirical corporate finance research. Underlying this is the implicit assumption that firms choose levels of R&D to maximize value, given firm and industry characteristics. An alternative framework views the level of R&D spending as subject to idiosyncratic behavior as managers myopically manipulate R&D expenditures to meet short-term earnings goals. Using aggregate firm and industry level data, we find evidence consistent with the view that R&D is determined by firm and industry characteristics. Time invariant firm and industry fixed effects explain most of the cross-sectional variation in observed R&D spending, while time-varying factors like size, profitability, or market-to-book explain little of the cross-sectional variation. We find that R&D spending continues to grow faster than advertising and capital expenditures. We also find no evidence of managerial myopia as corporate aggregate R&D expenditures are growing faster than aggregate profitability and the number of firms that undertake R&D has increased over the period from 1976 to 2010.     

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.     

Uncertainty about average profitability and the diversification discount

The diversification discount (multiple segment firm value below the value imputed using single segment firm multiples) is commonly thought to be generated by agency problems, a lack of transparency, or lackluster future prospects for diversified firms. If multiple segment firms have lower uncertainty about mean profitability than single segment firms, rational learning about mean profitability provides an alternative explanation for the diversification discount that does not rely on suboptimal managerial decisions or a poor firm outlook. Empirical tests which examine changes in firm value across the business cycle and idiosyncratic volatility are consistent with lower uncertainty about mean profitability for multiple segment firms.     

THE RISE IN MANAGERIAL STOCK OWNERSHIP

Despite the widespread view from Berle and Means onward that ownership of U.S. companies has become increasingly separated from managerial control, the authors report that managerial ownership of public corporations is markedly higher today than in 1935. Using a comprehensive sample of the 1,500 publicly traded firms in 1935 and a comparable sample of 4,200 firms in 1995, their study finds that managerial ownership increased from an average of 13% in 1935 to 21% in 1995. In terms of real (1995) dollar values, average managerial ownership increased from $18 million to $73 million over the same 60‐year period. One potential explanation for this increase is that greater reliance on managerial ownership has substituted for less reliance on other incentive alignment devices, such as pay‐for performance and the market for corporate control. The authors, however, report just the opposite. The use of such other corporate governance mechanisms has generally also increased over time, suggesting that the top managements of today's publicly traded corporations face greater pressure from investors and boards of directors than managements earlier in the century. An alternative explanation concern possible changes over time in the effects of certain company characteristics on the costs and benefits of using managerial ownership as a control device. While most of the characteristics the authors examined had the same relationship to managerial ownership in both periods, the role of volatility was different. In 1935, managerial ownership was inversely related to firm volatility; that is, higher volatility was associated with lower managerial ownership. In 1995, however, the relationship of managerial ownership to volatility was “nonlinear”; managerial ownership was positively related to firm volatility at low and moderate levels of volatility but the relationship turns negative when firm volatility is high. The overall lower level of volatility today, together with advances in capital markets and financial theory that have reduced the costs of hedging, appear to have reduced the costs of managers holding large stakes in their firms.