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.     

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.     

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 financial conglomerate discount: Insights from stock return skewness

Diversified banks (i.e. financial conglomerates) trade often at a discount compared to matched portfolios of specialized stand-alone banks. The existing research explains this evidence primarily with inefficiencies in the cash flow management of banks. This article analyzes the financial conglomerate discount by focusing on the role of expected returns approximated by measures of stock return skewness. Our empirical findings support the hypothesis that diversified banks have less skewed stock returns, i.e. they are more likely to perform badly than non-diversified banks. Due to the lower skewness exposure investors demand higher future returns, thereby lowering corporate value. Although the conglomerate puzzle is observed across industries, the previous literature examines banks separately, as the financial industry is hardly comparable to other sectors. We follow this field of research and show that huge banks quote at a discount as diversification into investment banking activities affects negatively the corporate performance.     

Credit ratings and excess value of diversification

We investigate the impact of credit ratings on the valuation of diversification. Our empirical results indicate that the existence and level of credit ratings are associated with a lower negative effect of diversification. Further analysis reveals that the mitigating effect of credit ratings on the diversification discount is more pronounced for firms with more severe information asymmetry. In addition, both a change in firm status from no rating to being rated and a change in rating level from low to high lead to a significant reduction in the diversification discount. An event study on diversification buttresses the findings by showing that the market has a less negative reaction to rated and higher-rated firms around the announcement of diversifying mergers. Our results are robust to alternative techniques used to control for potential endogeneity bias, to controlling for corporate governance, and to different sample periods. Overall, the evidence suggests that credit ratings reduce information asymmetry problems and thus mitigate the diversification discount.     

Risk and capital transfer in insurance groups

The aim of this paper is to analyze the effect of capital and risk transfer instruments (CRTIs) on a financial group's risk situation. In this respect, we extend previous literature by accounting for the conglomerate discount on firm value, which is a reduction in shareholder value due to diversification within the group. In general, CRTIs between parent and subsidiaries have a substantial effect on the diversification of risks, economic capital requirements, and default risk, which we study in detail for different types of CRTIs, including intra-group retrocession and guarantees. One main finding is that diversification effects within the group are much lower when taking into account conglomerate discount effects. We believe this aspect to be an important issue in the ongoing discussion on group solvency regulation and enterprise risk management.     

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.     

On the risk situation of financial conglomerates: does diversification matter?

In general, conglomeration leads to diversification of risk (the diversification benefit) and a decrease in shareholder value (the conglomerate discount). Diversification benefits in financial conglomerates are typically derived without explicitly accounting for reduced shareholder value. However, a comprehensive analysis requires competitive conditions within the conglomerate, i.e., shareholders and debt holders should receive risk-adequate returns on their investment. In this paper, we contribute to the literature on this topic by comparing the diversification effect in conglomerates with and without accounting for altered shareholder value. We derive results for a holding company, a parent-subsidiary structure, and an integrated model. In addition, we consider different types of capital and risk transfer instruments in the parent-subsidiary model, including intragroup retrocession and guarantees. We conclude that under competitive conditions, diversification does not matter to the extent frequently emphasized in the literature. The analysis contributes to the ongoing discussion on group solvency regulation and enterprise risk management, which is of relevance to insurance groups and other financial conglomerates.     

Is there a diversification discount in financial conglomerates?

This paper investigates whether the diversity of activities conducted by financial institutions influences their market valuations. We find that there is a diversification discount: The market values of financial conglomerates that engage in multiple activities, e.g., lending and non-lending financial services, are lower than if those financial conglomerates were broken into financial intermediaries that specialize in the individual activities. While difficult to identify a single causal factor, the results are consistent with theories that stress intensified agency problems in financial conglomerates engaged in multiple activities and indicate that economies of scope are not sufficiently large to produce a diversification premium.     

Bank Diversification and Overall Financial Strength: International Evidence

There are many studies in the finance and management literature that examine the impact of diversification on performance. Yet, the literature remains inconclusive as for the potential benefits in terms of risk and return. The present study aims to re‐examine this issue, while proposing a methodological framework that integrates various bank performance and risk indicators into a single measure of financial strength. Using an international sample of commercial banks, we find that diversification in terms of income, earning assets, and on‐ and off‐balance sheet activities influences positively their financial strength. We also find that income diversification can be more beneficial for banks operating in less developed countries compared to banks in advanced and major advanced economies. However, we observe the opposite in the case of diversification between off‐balance sheet and on‐balance sheet activities. Furthermore, the results reveal that income and earning assets diversification can mitigate the adverse effect of the financial crisis on bank financial strength. We continue to find a positive relationship between diversification and financial strength when we account for nesting effects, endogeneity, as well as when using an alternative approach for the construction of the financial strength indicator.     

How much of the diversification discount can be explained by poor corporate governance?

We investigate whether the diversification discount occurs partly as an artifact of poor corporate governance. In panel data models, we find that the discount narrows by 16% to 21% when we add governance variables as regression controls. We also estimate Heckman selection models that account for the endogeneity of diversification and dynamic panel generalized method of moments models that account for the endogeneity of both diversification and governance. We find that the diversification discount persists even with these controls for endogeneity. However, in selection models the discount disappears entirely when we introduce governance variables in the second stage, and in dynamic panel GMM models the discount narrows by 37% when we include governance variables.     

Corporate diversification and shareholder value: a survey of recent literature

We survey the recent developments in the literature on corporate diversification. This literature is voluminous, diverse, and quite old. To make the task more manageable, we focus our attention on recent contributions to that subset of the diversification literature that is in our judgment most influential in setting the agenda for financial research. The study of diversification at the corporate level can be grouped into one of two bodies of literature: cross-sectional studies of the link between corporate diversification and firm value (i.e., the diversification discount) and longitudinal studies of patterns in corporate diversification through time. The prevailing wisdom among financial economists throughout much of the last decade has been that diversified firms sell at a discount and that the level of corporate diversification has been trending downward. However, recent research questions both these tenets and a number of studies now suggest that the diversification discount is either not due to diversification at all, or may be a result of improper measurement techniques. Furthermore, some researchers are now beginning to argue that previous attempts to assess changes in the levels of corporate diversification through time is also flawed as a result of biases built into the compustat database in combination with the use of noisy proxies for corporate diversification.     

Valuation of diversified banks: New evidence

This paper reconsiders the effect of diversification on bank valuation. Our objective is to provide new evidence based on a unified estimation framework that places particular emphasis on separating the effects of diversification (specialised banks vs. diversified banks) from those of bank type (investment banks vs. commercial banks). Consistent with prior studies, we find a significant diversification discount at the end of the 1990s. Our main finding is that it decreases over time and practically vanishes after the financial crisis. We do not find support for the hypothesis that the diversification effect is influenced by geographical or regulatory factors. The valuation impact of bank characteristics varies over time, particularly in the financial crisis, but this structural break does not explain the observed decrease of the diversification discount. We show that the pre-crisis discount is considerably smaller in a robust regression, which in part is driven by banks with a large share of non-interest income.     

The coskewness puzzle

We propose a novel approach to testing non-linear stochastic discount factor (SDF) specifications that arise in rational representative investor models. Our approach does not require overly-restrictive assumptions about the shape of investors’ preferences, typically imposed by the extant literature, and is based instead on restrictions that rule out “good deals”, i.e., arbitrage opportunities as well as unduly large Sharpe ratios. We apply this framework to test the empirical admissibility of 3 and 4-moment versions of the CAPM. We find that, while coskewness and cokurtosis risk help price a number of stock strategies and portfolios, including static strategies based on a fine industry-level diversification, momentum strategies and portfolios managed on the basis of available information, the CAPM and its 3 and 4-moment versions cannot provide an exhaustive account of observed asset returns.     

Is Country Diversification better than Industry Diversification?

In this paper, we develop a framework in which one can examine the source of industry and country diversification by examining their underlying return components. We find that the global cash flow factor explains on average 39% of the variation of country cash flows and global discount rates explain 55% of the variation of country discount rates. These are much less than the explanatory power of the two factors over industry cash flow and discount rate variations, which are 72% and 78% respectively. This suggests that global factors are much less important for return components at country level than at the industry level. As a result, both better diversification of expected returns and cash flows across countries determine the larger benefits of country diversification versus industry diversification. Moreover, emerging markets tend to have much smaller co‐movements of both dividends and expected returns with those of the world, suggesting a lower degree of integration with the world goods and financial markets. Our results cast doubt on the prevailing wisdom that country diversification should be replaced by industry diversification.     

Does Information Asymmetry Explain The Diversification Discount?

We examine the diversification discount while controlling for differences in information asymmetry between diversified and nondiversified firms. We show that both diversified and nondiversified firms with higher levels of information asymmetry have discounted firm values relative to firms with lower levels of information asymmetry, although a diversification discount remains at all levels of information asymmetry. Fixed‐effect Fama‐MacBeth regressions confirm the existence of a statistically significant relation between information asymmetry proxies and excess value, but they also show that a significant diversification discount remains after controlling for differences in information asymmetry and other firm characteristics discussed in earlier studies (e.g., size, profitability, leverage, and capital constraint).     

The volatility of consumption-based stochastic discount factors and economic cycles

This paper aims to assess the macroeconomic and financial impact of economic uncertainty using information contained in the second moments of financial risk factors employed in the asset pricing literature. Specifically, we propose the volatility of consumption-based stochastic discount factors (SDFs) as a predictor of future economic and stock market cycles. We employ both contemporaneous and ultimate consumption risk specifications with durable and non-durable consumption. Alternative empirical tests show that this volatility has significant forecasting ability from 1985 to 2006. The degree of predictability tends to dominate that shown by standard predictor variables. We argue that the significant predictability of the volatility of consumption-based SDFs reported in this paper relies mainly on the joint effect of their components.     

Performance differences in property-type diversified versus specialized real estate investment trusts (REITs)

Evidence from the corporate finance literature indicates that diversified firms trade at a discount to otherwise comparable specialized firms. However, very little research has addressed whether a similar diversification discount might exist in equity REITs that diversify across property types relative to those specializing in one property type. Using a sample of 75 equity REITs, the existence of a property-type diversification discount is tested using standard Jensen's Alpha, Treynor Index, and Sharpe Ratio performance ranking methodologies over four commonly employed market proxies. Several variations of these standard tests are also utilized as robustness checks.     

Do financial conglomerates create or destroy value? Evidence for the EU

There is an ongoing debate about whether firm focus creates or destroys shareholder value. Earlier literature has shown significant diversification discounts: firms that engage in multiple activities are valued lower. Various factors are important in determining the size of the discount, for example cross-subsidization and agency problems. The existing literature, however, generally focuses on non-financial firms or on banks combining investment and commercial banking. Our paper focuses specifically on the valuation of bank-insurance conglomerates. We find no universal diversification discount but significant variability. The discount is explained by the size (increasing), the familiarity with the conglomerate business model (decreasing) and the risk profile (decreasing). Our results are robust to the historical origin, the merger record and the age of the conglomerate, as well as peer group specification and outlier elimination.     

Board composition and operational risk events of financial institutions

We investigate the relation between board composition and operational risk events of financial institutions in the period from 1996 to 2010. Drawing from corporate governance literature, we consider the impact of board characteristics on the likelihood of operational risk events. Overall, our findings suggest that board size is negatively and non-linearly associated with the possibility of operational risk events. For the event types of “Clients, Products, and Business Practices,” and “Internal Fraud and External Fraud,” firms with a higher proportion of independent directors are less likely to suffer from fraud or failure to comply with professional obligations to clients. Our results on age and tenure heterogeneity also indicate that having a more diverse board can have an adverse impact on the board monitoring function. These results can shed new light on board demographics and operational risk management in financial institutions.