Performance of closely held firms in Russia: evidence from firm-level data∗

This paper evaluates the impact of ownership concentration on firm performance in a weak institutional environment. Specifically, using new survey evidence, we seek to appraise quantitatively the performance of block-holder-controlled firms in Russia and to identify, within the domain of corporate governance theory, factors that may explain such performance. We find evidence of negative association between the size of the dominant owners’ shareholding and performance parameters such as investment, capacity utilization, and profitability. At the same time, we establish that control structures with multiple, large shareholders increase efficiency. The ambiguity of the effects of ownership concentration suggests that country-specific factors play an important role.     

Large shareholders’ power and the quality of corporate governance: An analysis of Brazilian firms

This paper analyzes the incentives of large shareholders to implement the corporate governance system that favors their interests within a framework of highly concentrated ownership and poor legal protection for investors. A metric for corporate governance based on the fulfillment of non-mandatory rules of good corporate governance is used. System GMM (Generalized Method of Moments) estimates for a balanced panel data of Brazilian firms reveal that the ownership concentration is detrimental to corporate governance quality and the quality of board composition. In accordance with the expropriation effect on principal-principal agency conflicts, by weakening the corporate governance system and board composition, large controlling shareholders may use private benefits of control. As proposed by the substitution effect, in a complementary way, controlling shareholders may renounce strong boards and directly perform management monitoring, mitigating agency conflicts with managers. Finally, the ability of large shareholders other than the main blockholder is not enough to contest his/her power to shape the corporate governance system. The work provides evidence of the prominence of the principal–principal agency problem in an emerging market, by analyzing the effect of ownership concentration over the quality of the corporate governance system, and also that other large non-controlling shareholders are not able to contest the power of the main blockholder.     

Ownership concentration and corporate performance from a dynamic perspective: Does national governance quality matter?

In this paper, the relationship between ownership concentration and financial performance of companies in Singapore and Vietnam is investigated in a dynamic framework. By focusing on two different types of national governance systems (well-developed vs. under-developed), we observe how the relationship is moderated by the national governance quality. We find that the performance effect of concentrated ownership persists in these markets even after the dynamic nature of the ownership concentration–performance relationship is taken into consideration. Our finding supports the prediction of agency theory about the efficient monitoring effect of large shareholders in markets with highly concentrated ownership. In addition, we find that national governance quality does matter when explaining the ownership concentration–performance relationship. The positive effect of concentrated ownership on performance of firms operating in the under-developed national governance system (Vietnam) tends to be stronger than that in the well-established system (Singapore). This finding is consistent with the argument that ownership concentration is an efficient corporate governance mechanism which can substitute for weak national governance quality. Econometrically, our findings still hold even after controlling for dynamic endogeneity, simultaneity, and unobserved time-invariant heterogeneity, inherent in the corporate governance–performance relationship.     

Does ownership concentration improve M&A outcomes in emerging markets?: Evidence from India

Using firm level data from India, we examine the impact of ownership concentration on post-M&A performance of firms. Our analysis has implications for both the M&A literature, which emphasises the role of agency conflict between managers and owners of widely held companies as a key reason for M&A failures, and the corporate governance literature, especially in the context of emerging market economies. A cautious interpretation of our results suggests that while ownership concentration may reduce the manager–owner agency conflict, it may nevertheless precipitate other forms of agency conflict such that ownership concentration may not necessarily improve post-M&A performance. In particular, our results have implications for the literature on the agency conflict between large (or majority) shareholders and small (or minority) shareholders of a company, especially in contexts such as emerging market economies where corporate governance quality is weak.     

CORPORATE OWNERSHIP AND CONTROL IN THE U.K., GERMANY, AND FRANCE

Like its U.S. counterpart, the U.K. corporate ownership and governance system can be characterized as an outsider system with a large number of public corporations, widely dispersed ownership (though with growing concentrations of institutional shareholdings), and well-developed takeover markets. By contrast, the much smaller number and proportion of publicly traded German and French corporations are governed by insider systems--those in which the founding families, banks, or other companies have controlling interests and in which outside shareholders are not able to exert much control.
The different patterns of ownership in the U.K. and in France and Germany give rise to different incentives and corporate control mechanisms. Concentrated ownership would seem to encourage longer-term relationships between the company and its investors. But, while perhaps better suited to some corporate activities with longer-term payoffs, concentrated ownership could also lead to costly delays in undertaking necessary corrective action, particularly if the owners receive "private" benefits from owning and running a business. And, although widely dispersed ownership may increase the likelihood that corrective action will be sought prematurely (as outsiders rush to sell their shares in response to a temporary downturn), the presence of well-diversified public owners may also be more appropriate for riskier ventures requiring large amounts of new capital investment.
Thus, concentrated ownership, while having the potential to reduce information costs and to strengthen incentives to maximize value, can also impose costs in two ways: (1) by forcing managers and other insiders to bear excessive company-specific risks that could be transferred to well-diversified outsiders; and (2) by allowing insiders to capture private benefits at the expense of outsiders.     

Taking Shareholder Protection Seriously? Corporate Governance in the U.S. and Germany

This article provides a comparative study of four major dimensions of corporate governance in the U.S. and Germany: (1) the laws affecting corporate governance, particularly those designed to protect minority shareholders; (2) the prescribed role and actual conduct of corporate boards; (3) the market for corporate control (including hostile takeovers); and (4) incentive compensation. The authors pose the question: If the primary purpose of the corporate governance system is to serve the interests of minority shareholders, how do the U.S. and German governance systems rank on each of these four dimensions ? Their conclusion is that although the U.S. system is more shareholder friendly in many respects than the German, both systems have major shortcomings, particularly in the market for corporate control. The authors conclude with a list of proposed changes to both systems that would amount to “taking shareholders seriously.”     

公司治理结构特征与困境公司恢复——基于中国上市公司的实证研究

目前学者们对公司财务困境的研究主要集中在事前的困境预测上,而对公司陷入财务困境后如何恢复研究较少。本文选取2005—2009年国内被ST的上市公司为研究样本,将研究样本分为逐渐走出财务困境的公司（一类公司）和一直处于财务困境中的公司（二类公司）,从董事会特征、股权结构以及管理层持股这三个方面来比较分析这两类公司在陷入财务困境之后的公司治理结构差异对困境恢复的影响。研究结果表明,公司处于不同的财务情况下,大股东们对公司绩效的影响是不一样的。当公司逐渐陷入财务困境的过程中,大股东们对公司绩效没有显著性的影响;而在公司逐渐摆脱财务的过程中,大股东们对公司绩效有显著的正面影响,此时的公司治理关键在于股权集中度,大股东在公司摆脱财务困境中起到了重要作用。     

寿险公司股权结构对经营绩效的影响——基于经理人代理成本视角

基于2012—2020年我国寿险公司的面板数据，实证检验股权结构对绩效的影响并探究其作用机制。结果表明：股权集中与绩效显著负相关，股权制衡与绩效显著正相关。机制检验发现，股权集中通过增加经理人代理成本削减绩效，股权制衡通过优化此类代理成本改善绩效。异质性分析表明，股权集中对成立时间短、发展速度慢的寿险公司绩效的负面影响更为显著。鉴于此，监管部门应适当降低寿险公司股东持股比例上限，引导非控股股东积极参与公司治理。     

New Corporate Forms: One Viable Solution to Advancing Environmental Sustainability

There is a clear trend in corporate governance toward increased attention to the environmental and social impacts of business operations. Major consulting firms are advising Fortune 500 companies on how to become more environmentally sustainable, private equity and “impact” investors are measuring environmental, social, and governance (ESG) factors, and voluntary reporting and shareholder resolutions on issues of environmental sustainability are on the rise. While traditional corporate forms allow companies to embrace social and environmental responsibility with some measure of success, various real and perceived risks encourage directors to focus on short‐term profitability. Even if a company has a strong social mission at inception, founders often have difficulty “anchoring their mission” over time. And the lack of required disclosure of social and environmental performance makes it more difficult for investors to evaluate and compare companies. Many believe that the institutionalized mispricing of natural resources and the continued failure to price externalities, combined with the progressive nature of climate change, require the transformation of both business and law. This article discusses social and environmental sustainability within the traditional corporate form and then explores three emerging alternatives that are now being used by businesses in California: limited liability corporations (LLCs); benefit corporations (B corps); and flexible purpose corporations (FPCs). Of these three alternatives, FPCs—a corporate form that requires shareholders to agree on one or more social missions with management and the board—may be best suited to meet the needs of the many small private firms (as well as some large public companies) that, whether for purely economic or altruistic reasons, plan to integrate ESG into their operations.     

Corporate social performance,ownership structure,and corporate governance in France

Empirical evidence of the influence of shareholders and governance practices on corporate social responsibility (CSR) policies is mixed, and most studies have been conducted in the United States. This study of the French market and its unique characteristics reveals the forms of shareholding and CSR implementations, thereby shedding new light on the influence of shareholders on corporate social performance (CSP). Specifically, with a sample of French listed companies, the authors investigate how ownership concentration, ownership type, and governance practices relate to CSP. The geography of capital is relevant, but little evidence arises of the importance of shareholders’ identity. That is, neither family nor institutional shareholders influence CSP, and large shareholders seem to place less emphasis on CSR, suggesting that they are reluctant to invest in it. Finally, the results related to good governance practices are mixed, but board independence provides a foundation for good CSR.