Risk abatement as a strategy for R&D investments in family firms

The behavioral agency model suggests family firms invest less in R&D than nonfamily firms to protect their socioemotional wealth. Studies support this contention but do not explain how family firms make R&D investments. We hypothesize that when performance exceeds aspirations, family firms manage socioemotional and economic objectives by making exploitative R&D investments that lead to more reliable and less risky sales levels. However, performance below aspirations leads to exploratory R&D investments that result in potentially higher but less reliable sales levels. Using a risk abatement model, our analyses of 847 firms over 10 years supports our hypotheses. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Situational and institutional determinants of firms' R&D search intensity

Our theory extends the situational considerations explaining firm R&D search intensity beyond the behavioral theory of the firm by including shifts in the focus of attention among bankruptcy, aspirations, and slack. We also allow that search can reflect institutionalized investment patterns within firms and industries. We find stable firm‐specific R&D investment patterns (i.e., institutionalized search) and variations in R&D intensity depending on firms' situations—including performance relative to aspirations, proximity to bankruptcy, and slack. Our empirical results evidence shifts in the focus of attention relevant to explaining R&D search intensity for subsamples of firms in different situations. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Do‐no‐harm versus do‐good social responsibility: Attributional thinking and the liability of foreignness

Research summary: The efforts of multinational corporations to be socially responsible do not always engender positive evaluations from overseas stakeholders. Drawing on attribution theory, we argue that two heuristics guide stakeholders in evaluating firms' social performance: foreignness and the valence of firms' social responsibility. We provide evidence from a field study of secondary stakeholders and an experimental study involving 129 non‐governmental organizations. Consistent with attribution theory, the liability of foreignness is minimized when firms engage in “do‐good” social responsibility (focused on proactive engagement creating positive externalities) but is substantial when firms engage in “do‐no‐harm” social responsibility (focused on attenuating negative externalities). In online supporting information, Appendix S1, we demonstrate that these evaluations have consequences for whether stakeholders subsequently cooperate, or sow conflict, with firms. Managerial summary: There is no guarantee that efforts to be socially responsible will improve multinational corporations' relations with overseas stakeholders, such as customers, governments, and activists. In a field study and an experiment, we unpack when foreign firms suffer from harsh stakeholder evaluations. Foreign firms especially suffer from harsh evaluations when they conduct “do‐no‐harm” CSR rather than “do‐good” CSR. Stakeholders attribute the motive for foreign firms' do‐no‐harm CSR to managerial interests and shareholder pressures, perceiving a wedge between managers and owners (who may be unmotivated to reduce the negative impacts of their business activities) and local stakeholders (who bear the social costs). A practical implication is that foreign firms gain more from highlighting do‐good rather than do‐(no)‐harm CSR initiatives. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

A Closer Look at Cross‐functional R&D Cooperation for Innovativeness: Innovation‐oriented Leadership and Human Resource Practices as Driving Forces

Because cross‐functional research and development (R&D) cooperation appears to drive innovation, many firms have invested considerably in it. However, despite substantial efforts to improve information and communication infrastructures or to bring departments in closer proximity with one another, structural investments often fail to produce the desired positive impact on cross‐functional R&D cooperation. This failure may arise because firms undertaking these structural investments do not manage their employees adequately. Extant research acknowledges the importance of motivating and enabling members of the R&D function to cooperate with other functions. Yet empirical studies investigating the relative importance of leadership and different human resource (HR) practices for enhancing cross‐functional R&D cooperation are scarce. Drawing on the resource‐based view and organizational support theory, this study investigates how innovation‐oriented leadership and HR practices might support members of the R&D function and encourage cross‐functional R&D cooperation, which enhances product program innovativeness. Specifically, members of the R&D function who are supported in their innovation efforts through innovation‐oriented leadership and HR practices should reciprocate for the support they receive by intensifying their cross‐functional cooperation to achieve greater product program innovativeness. Relying on multi‐informant data from 125 firms with assessments from marketing and R&D managers, this study shows that innovation‐oriented leadership and HR practices have different effects on cross‐functional R&D cooperation. A structural equation modeling‐based analysis of the hypothesized relationships reveals that innovation‐oriented leadership, rewards, and training and development have considerable positive effects. In contrast, recruitment does not drive cross‐functional R&D cooperation. Because firms usually operate in dynamic markets, and increasingly acquire relevant information from customers when generating innovations, this study also considers market‐related dynamism and customer integration as important contingency factors. For firms facing market‐related dynamism and those relying on customer integration, leadership and training and development are particularly effective for enhancing cross‐functional R&D cooperation. By integrating two theoretical perspectives, this study not only advances knowledge on the antecedents of cross‐functional R&D cooperation, but also helps explain differences in their relative effectiveness. Furthermore, it both adds to the discussion of whether monetary rewards are appropriate means to foster innovation and challenges existing assumptions about the role of recruiting for innovation.     

Knowing when to leap: Transitioning between exploitative and explorative R&D

A common perspective is that consistent R&D investment facilitates innovation, while volatile spending implies myopic decision making. However, the benefits to exploiting extant competencies eventually erode, so firms must disrupt their R&D function and explore for new competitive advantage. We suggest that high‐performing firms recognize when extant competencies decline and increase exploratory R&D to develop new competencies at the appropriate time. We find that changes in R&D expenditure away from the firm's historic trend, in either direction, are indicative of transitions between exploitative and exploratory R&D and are associated with increased firm performance. Increases in R&D expenditure above the trend are associated with an increased likelihood of highly cited patents, suggesting that firms are making the leap between R&D‐based exploitation and exploration. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Financing behaviour of R&D investment in the emerging markets: the role of alliance and financial system

This paper examines the financing behaviour of research and development (R&D) investments in emerging markets. Drawing on institutional theory and using panel data of generalized methods of moment estimation for a sample of 302 firms from 20 countries during the period 2003–2015, we find that emerging market firms tend to use internal funds for financing R&D investments. Interesting results emerged when the sample was divided as alliance and non‐alliance firms, and bank‐based and market‐based financial systems. The results show that R&D financing behaves differently for alliance and non‐alliance firms. Alliance firms use both internal and external funds for R&D investments, while non‐alliance firms do not use external funds. We also document that a country's financial system influences the choice of available sources of finance. Firms from countries that follow a bank‐based financial system tend to rely on external funds while firms from countries that follow a market‐based financial system depend more on internal funds for financing R&D investments. This study is important as it provides new evidence on financing R&D investments in emerging countries taking into account the institutional arguments of financing choices, and so should guide stakeholders about appropriate sources of R&D financing.     

New product introductions below aspirations,slack and R&D alliances: A behavioral perspective

We develop hypotheses based on behavioral theory that explain how high technology firms' new product introduction (NPI) performance below aspiration levels impact the number of R&D alliances, and how slack moderates this relationship. Using panel data of U.S. biopharmaceutical firms, we find that as firms' NPI performance below historical aspiration levels increases the number of R&D alliances they form increases and slack intensifies this relationship. We contribute to alliance research by providing theory and empirical evidence that increases in the distance of NPI below aspirations serve as a motivation for increases in R&D alliances, and empirically to behavioral theory by revealing that NPI goals act similarly to financial performance goals in their impact on firms' actions and slack intensifies this relationship. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Home Alone: The Effects of Lone‐Insider Boards on CEO Pay,Financial Misconduct,and Firm Performance

Research summary: Corporate scandals of the previous decade have heightened attention on board independence. Indeed, boards at many large firms are now so independent that the CEO is “home alone” as the lone inside member. We build upon “pro‐insider” research within agency theory to explain how the growing trend toward lone‐insider boards affects key outcomes and how external governance forces constrain their impact. We find evidence among S&P 1500 firms that having a lone‐insider board is associated with (a) excess CEO pay and a larger CEO‐top management team pay gap, (b) increased likelihood of financial misconduct, and (c) decreased firm performance, but that stock analysts and institutional investors reduce these negative effects. The findings raise important questions about the efficacy of leaving the CEO “home alone.” Managerial summary: Following concerns that insider‐dominated boards failed to protect shareholders, there has been a push for greater board independence. This push has been so successful that the CEO is now the only insider on the boards of more than half of S&P 1500 firms. We examine whether lone‐insider boards do in fact offer strong governance or whether they enable CEOs to benefit personally. We find that lone‐insider boards pay CEOs excessively, pay CEOs a disproportionately large amount relative to other top managers, have more instances of financial misconduct, and have lower performance than boards with more than one insider. Thus, it appears that lone‐insider boards do not function as intended and firms should reconsider whether the push towards lone‐insider boards is actually in shareholders' best interests. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Profitability Goals,Control Goals,and the R&D Investment Decisions of Family and Nonfamily Firms

Research and development (R&D) investments can help build sustainable competitive advantages and improve firm performance. Nevertheless, managers also acknowledge the difficulties associated with managing R&D and the low chances of success of innovation programs. For this reason, researchers have long been interested in understanding how managers make R&D investment decisions. Research grounded in the behavioral theory of the firm suggests that a primary driver of R&D investment decisions is profitability: when profitability goals have not been met, managers are more likely to initiate a problemistic search through increasing R&D investments. While emphasizing profitability goals and their relationship with R&D investments, prior research largely downplays the role of goals beyond profitability that exist in a significant number of firms (family firms) that are owned and managed by family members whose primary concern is preserving their control over the organization. Research indicates that these family‐centered noneconomic goals lead family managers to minimize R&D investments and that the coexistence of multiple goals produces highly variable R&D investment behavior. Yet, how family‐centered goals for control and profitability enter decision‐making in family firms is not fully understood. In this study, we propose that family managers form distinctive reference points that capture supplier bargaining power and are used to evaluate the degree of external obstruction to their managerial control. The empirical analysis of panel data on 431 private Spanish manufacturing firms observed over the period 2000–2006 shows that the importance of profitability and control goals follows a sequential logic in family firms, such that family firms react more strongly to increasing supplier bargaining power when their profitability reference points have been reached. This study extends current understanding of the distinctive organizational processes engendered by family management in business organizations leading to new research opportunities at the intersection of the innovation management and family business literatures.     

Well Known or Well Liked? The Effects of Corporate Reputation on Firm Value at the Onset of a Corporate Crisis

Research summary : We study how two dimensions of reputation (i.e., generalized favorability and being known) and attribution of crisis responsibility affect firm value at the onset of a crisis. Analyzing 126 corporate crises befalling publicly listed firms in China from 2008 to 2014, we find that generalized favorability serves as a buffer, while being known can be a burden, in influencing firm value. We also find that the buffering effect of generalized favorability is stronger when the attribution of crisis responsibility is low (vs. high). In addition, there is a negative interaction effect between the two dimensions of reputation such that the buffering effect of generalized favorability weakens when firms are better known. We discuss our contributions to research on corporate reputation and crisis management. Managerial summary : Corporate reputation is an intangible asset, especially at the onset of a corporate crisis. This research sheds light on the “double‐edged sword” of corporate reputation by examining the effects of two reputation dimensions (i.e., being liked and being known) on firm value. Our results suggest that well‐liked firms can leverage their generalized favorability among stakeholders to assuage firm value loss, whereas well‐known firms may have to better communicate with stakeholders to overcome the burden of stakeholders' attention that escalates firm value loss. To better cope with the onset of a crisis, firms should therefore enhance their generalized favorability and simultaneously avert stakeholders' excessive attention. In addition, well‐liked firms can further buffer against the loss in firm value by reducing the perceived intentionality of a crisis. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Cross‐border acquisitions by state‐owned firms: How do legitimacy concerns affect the completion and duration of their acquisitions?

Research summary: Cross‐border acquisitions may raise legitimacy concerns by host‐country stakeholders, affecting the acquisition outcomes of foreign firms. We propose that theorization by local regulatory agencies is a key mechanism that links legitimacy concerns with acquisition outcomes. Given that theorization is time consuming and its outcome is uncertain, we argue that state‐owned foreign firms experience a lower likelihood of acquisition completion and a longer duration for completing a deal than other foreign firms. Moreover, we introduce a set of firm characteristics (target public status, target R&D alliances, and acquirer acquisition and alliance experiences) that may affect the threshold level of legitimacy, thereby altering the proposed relationships. Our framework and findings provide useful implications for institutional theory on its core concept of legitimacy. Managerial summary: Cross‐border acquisitions by state‐owned foreign firms may lead to national security concerns and thus debates and discussions among local regulatory agencies. We argue that such institutional processes may reduce the likelihood of acquisition completion and prolong the duration of acquisition completion. Using cross‐border acquisitions in the United States, we find that acquisitions by state‐owned foreign firms are not less likely to be completed than acquisitions by other foreign firms, but they take more time to be completed. Moreover, state‐owned foreign firms are less likely to complete an acquisition when the target firm has more R&D alliances. However, their acquisition experience and alliance experience in the host country increase the likelihood of acquisition completion, whereas their alliance experience alone shortens the acquisition duration. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Skew and heavy‐tail effects on firm performance

Research summary : Most strategic management studies adopt an average‐centered view that uses the central tendency to explain between‐group variation in performance (i.e., performance differences between business units, firms, industries, and countries). In this study, we explain within‐group variation using a variance‐centered view that focuses on the peripheral characteristics of performance distributions as defined by skew and heavy tails (i.e., variance and kurtosis). Drawing on performance feedback theory, we hypothesize that successful firms tend to develop a positive skew in their performance distributions, which we call a “positive skew effect” in this study, and that heavy tails moderate this effect. Our analysis of the performance of a group of foreign affiliates provides general support for our hypotheses at both the firm and segment (industry and country) levels. Managerial summary : Managers of multi‐business firms use various approaches to improve the aggregate performance of their business units. Some expand the range of upper performance outliers (exploration) or reduce the range of lower outliers (downsizing); others improve the performance of current business units (exploitation). We find that firms with superior performance tend to have a balanced mix of the three approaches. We also find that segments (countries and industries) with higher mean performances provide environments that facilitate the entry of productive firms and the exit of unproductive firms and provide environments in which incumbents can further improve their performance by learning from others. We observe that successful firms and segments have a positive skew in their performance distributions, which we call a “positive skew effect.” Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Leveraging foreign institutional logic in the adoption of stock option pay among Japanese firms

Research summary : We investigate why Japanese firms have adopted executive stock option pay, which was developed with shareholder‐oriented institutional logic that was inconsistent with Japanese stakeholder‐oriented institutional logic. We argue that Japanese managers have self‐serving incentives to leverage stock ownership of foreign investors and their associated institutional logic to legitimize the adoption of stock option pay. Our empirical analyses with a large sample of Japanese firms between 1997 and 2007 show that when managers have elite education, high pay inequality with ordinary employees, and when firms experience poor sales growth, foreign ownership is more likely associated with the adoption of stock option pay. The study shows the active role of managers in facilitating the diffusion of a new governance practice embodying new institutional logic. Managerial summary : Why have Japanese firms adopted stock option pay for executives? Inconsistent with Japanese stakeholder‐oriented tradition in corporate governance, such pay has been believed to prioritize managerial attention to the interests of shareholders over those of other stakeholders. However, to the extent that shareholders' interests are legitimate in the Japanese context, executives who have self‐serving incentives to adopt such pay can leverage the need to look after shareholders' interest in their firms to legitimize their decisions. In a large sample of Japanese firms, we find that foreign ownership (representing shareholders' interests) is more likely to be associated with the adoption of stock option pay when managers are motivated to receive such pay, such as when they have elite education, high pay inequality with ordinary employees, or poor sales growth. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Board reform versus profits: The impact of ratings on the adoption of governance practices

Research summary: External stakeholders frequently attempt to influence organizations' adoption of new practices through the creation of public ratings. Based on the insights of performance feedback theory, we develop the theory of organizational reactions to external ratings to explain how firms' behaviors depend on their rating scores and their profitability. A central issue in our theory is the conflict between established internal goals and goals introduced by public ratings, with public ratings receiving lower priority than established profitability goals. Our theory suggests that, contrary to the expectations of the external stakeholders, firms targeted for criticism by ratings become less likely to adopt corresponding practices when their profitability is below aspirations. These arguments are supported in data on the diffusion of corporate governance practices in Canada. Managerial summary: Firms and their products are rated and ranked by external agencies ranging from Consumer Reports to magazine rankings of admired, environmental, or well‐governed companies. We investigate whether such ratings affect firm behaviors, and especially whether they can incentivize poorly rated firms to improve their ranking when these firms' profitability is also low. Using the leading corporate governance ranking in Canada, we find that rankings could have adverse effects: when firms have both poor governance ranking and poor profitability they are less likely to adopt governance practices, contrary to the ranking creators' intentions. The findings show that there is a hierarchy of firms' goals, where the goal of profitability comes ahead of other goals imposed by external agencies through ratings and rankings. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Cannibalization and option value effects of secondary markets: Evidence from the US concert industry

We examine how reducing search frictions in secondary markets affects the value appropriated by firms in primary markets. We characterize two effects on primary‐market firms caused by intermediaries entering secondary markets: the “cannibalization” and “option value” effects. Separation between primary and secondary markets can drive which of the two effects dominates. Firms selling valuable and scarce products are more likely to have separate primary and secondary markets, and will therefore appropriate more value when secondary markets thicken. Firms selling products that are not valuable and scarce will be hurt. Further, we hypothesize that firms have incentives to engineer scarcity by limiting supply when secondary markets thicken to separate primary and secondary markets. We find support for these hypotheses in the U.S. concert ticket industry. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Experience matters: The role of academic scientist mobility for industrial innovation

Research Summary: A learning‐by‐hiring approach is used to scrutinize scientists' mobility in relation to the recruiting firms' subsequent innovation output. Our starting point is that among firm hires, individuals with university research experience—hired from universities or firms—can be particularly valuable. However, conflicting institutional logics between academia and industry makes working with academic scientists challenging at times for firms. We suggest two solutions to this difficulty: hiring “ambidextrous” individuals with a mix of experience of university research and working for a technologically advanced firm, and a strong organizational research culture in the recruiting firm reflected by the presence of a scientist on the top management team. We track the mobility of R&D workers empirically using patent and linked employer‐employee data. Managerial Summary: An important way to make organizations more innovative is hiring individual researchers with the right types of skills and experience. We show that individuals with university research experience beyond their final degree are particularly likely to help boost firm‐level innovation output after hiring compared to R&D workers with other types of skills and experience. However, to obtain good returns to innovation from hiring such individuals, firms need a university research–friendly organizational culture when hiring individuals with university research experience, from either firms or academia.     

Family Ownership and R&D Intensity in Small‐ and Medium‐Sized Firms

Research was largely consistent in predicting a negative relationship between family ownership and research and development (R&D) intensity until Chrisman and Patel, using a behavioral agency model (BAM), called this general assumption into question. They argued that publicly owned family firms typically invest less in R&D than nonfamily‐owned firms. This behavior may however be reversed if economic performance levels are below family aspirations or if family long‐term goals, such as pursuing strong transgenerational family control, are highly valued. While most researchers, like Chrisman and Patel, primarily focused on large listed firms, more research on the relationship between family ownership and R&D intensity in privately held small‐ and medium‐sized enterprises (SMEs) is required. This is because firm size can play an important role in understanding the innovation management behavior of firms. Building on the BAM perspective, in the present paper it is argued that Chrisman and Patel's results can be extended to the context of SMEs, albeit with one important specification: the relationship between family ownership and R&D intensity is likely to be contingent on the way the family has invested its wealth. Specifically, it is contended that in the context of SMEs, where goals are more fluid and mixed, when there is a high overlap between family wealth and firm equity (i.e., most of the family's wealth is invested in the firm) the relationship between family ownership and R&D intensity is negative because of the family owners' greater desire to protect their socioemotional wealth (SEW). However, if the overlap between the family's total wealth and single firm equity is low (i.e., firm equity is just a small part of the total family wealth), the relationship between family ownership and R&D intensity is positive as the low overlap between family wealth and firm equity reduces the family's loss aversion propensity. In such a situation, family ownership is likely to foster R&D intensity because of the long‐term orientation of family owners that increases the family firm's propensity to bear the risk of investing in R&D activities. The hypothesis is tested and confirmed in a study of 240 small‐ and medium‐sized firms based in Italy. The paper contributes to the literature in several ways. First, adding to the literature on innovation management and R&D intensity, it increases the understanding of what drives or inhibits R&D investments in SMEs when a family is involved in the ownership of the firm. This is particularly important because research on innovation management, as well as research on R&D intensity in family firms, is primarily focused on large firms and much less on SMEs. Second, the study complements arguments from prior research on the correlates of R&D intensity in large listed firms, showing that the BAM and SEW perspective offer a theoretical framework that is also able to illustrate the complex nature of innovation management in the context of SMEs. Third, the study contributes to research on the effects of family ownership on the general functioning of a firm. In particular, it provides new insights into how family ownership may affect R&D intensity.     

Does a long‐term orientation create value? Evidence from a regression discontinuity

Research summary : In this paper, we theorize and empirically investigate how a long‐term orientation impacts firm value. To study this relationship, we exploit exogenous changes in executives' long‐term incentives. Specifically, we examine shareholder proposals on long‐term executive compensation that pass or fail by a small margin of votes. The passage of such “close call” proposals is akin to a random assignment of long‐term incentives and hence provides a clean causal estimate. We find that the adoption of such proposals leads to (1) an increase in firm value and operating performance—suggesting that a long‐term orientation is beneficial to companies—and (2) an increase in firms' investments in long‐term strategies such as innovation and stakeholder relationships. Overall, our results are consistent with a “time‐based” agency conflict between shareholders and managers. Managerial summary : This paper shows that corporate short‐termism is hampering business success. We show clear, causal evidence that imposing long‐term incentives on executives—in the form of long‐term executive compensation—improves business performance. Long‐term executive compensation includes restricted stocks, restricted stock options, and long‐term incentive plans. Firms that adopted shareholder resolutions on long‐term compensation experienced a significant increase in their stock price. This stock price increase foreshadowed an increase in operating profits that materialized after two years. We unpack the reasons for these improvements in performance, and find that firms that adopted these shareholder resolutions made more investments in R&D and stakeholder engagement, especially pertaining to employees and the natural environment. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Offshoring Pollution while Offshoring Production?

Research summary: We examine the role of firm strategy in the global effort to combat pollution. We find that U.S. plants release less toxic emissions when their parent firm imports more from low‐wage countries (LWCs). Consistent with the Pollution Haven Hypothesis, goods imported by U.S. firms from LWCs are in more pollution‐intensive industries. U.S. plants shift production to less pollution‐intensive industries, produce less waste, and spend less on pollution abatement when their parent imports more from LWCs. The negative impact of LWC imports on emissions is stronger for U.S. plants located in counties with greater institutional pressure for environmental performance, but weaker for more‐capable U.S. plants and firms. These results highlight the role of local institutions and firm capability in explaining firms' offshoring and environmental strategies. Managerial summary: Using confidential trade, production, and pollution data of more than 8,000 firms and 18,000 plants from the U.S. Census Bureau for years 1992–2009, we find that U.S. plants release less toxic emissions when their parent firm imports more from low‐wage countries (LWCs). In addition, goods imported by U.S. firms from LWCs are in more pollution‐intensive industries. U.S. plants shift production to less pollution‐intensive industries, produce less waste, and spend less on pollution abatement when their parent imports more from LWCs. However, not all U.S. firms choose to “offshore pollution.” U.S. plants located in counties with greater institutional pressure for environmental performance offshore more, but more‐capable U.S. plants and firms offshore less. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Corporate spinoffs and analysts' coverage decisions: The implications for diversified firms

Research summary: This paper investigates how spinoffs improve the quality of analysts' research about diversified firms, theorizing that these deals may induce analysts to revisit their earlier coverage decisions. The gains resulting from these shifts are expected to be more pronounced when a firm undertakes a legacy (rather than a non‐legacy) spinoff, which removes the business that may be constraining analysts' coverage decisions in the first place. Consistent with this argument, firms that undertake legacy spinoffs experience greater improvements in the composition and quality of their analyst coverage than their non‐legacy counterparts, and in their overall forecast accuracy and stock market performance. Taken together, these findings shed light on the relationships among the scope decisions, analyst coverage, and valuations of diversified firms. Managerial summary: Existing research has established that when companies undertake spinoffs, analysts produce more accurate forecasts about the divesting firms than they did prior to those deals, and the stock market performance of those firms also improves relative to pre‐spinoff levels. This paper explores the effects of legacy spinoffs (the spinoff of a firm's original or “legacy” business) for forecast accuracy and stock market performance. Firms that undertake legacy spinoffs are found to enjoy greater improvements in forecast accuracy and stock market performance than their non‐legacy counterparts. These findings are driven by the fact that legacy spinoffs induce analysts to revisit their existing coverage decisions to a greater extent than non‐legacy spinoffs, contributing significantly to the economic benefits of these deals for shareholders. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.