Corporate governance roles of information quality and corporate takeovers

We examine the corporate governance roles of information quality and the takeover market with asymmetric information regarding the value of the target firm. Increasing information quality improves the takeover efficiency however, a highly efficient takeover market also discourages the manager from exerting effort. We find that perfect information quality is not optimal for either current shareholders’ expected payoff maximization or expected firm value maximization. Furthermore, current shareholders prefer a lower level of information quality than the level that maximizes expected firm value, because of a misalignment between current shareholders’ value and total firm value. We also analyze the impact of antitakeover laws, and find that the passage of antitakeover laws may induce current shareholders to choose a higher level of information quality and thus increase expected firm value.     

Board size and firm performance: the moderating effects of the market for corporate control

We examine whether takeover threats affect the importance of board size using the passage of state antitakeover laws enacted in mid-to-late 1980s as our empirical setting. While the Complement Hypothesis predicts that board size matters more before the passage of the laws, the Substitute Hypothesis predicts the opposite. For a sample of 350 Forbes 500 firms over the period 1984–1991, we find a significant association between smaller boards and better firm performance before passage of antitakeover laws, but a much weaker relation (reduced by more than one-third) after the takeover restrictions were in place. Consistent with the Complement Hypothesis, this finding suggests that decreasing board size is more valuable when the market for corporate control is more active.

Product market competition and the cost of bank loans: Evidence from state antitakeover laws

The extant literature documents a positive relationship between a firm’s takeover vulnerability and its agency cost of debt. Using state antitakeover laws as an exogenous measure of variation in takeover vulnerability, I investigate whether product market competition has a disciplinary effect that can lower a firm’s cost of bank loans. After taking into account the industry composition of borrowers, I find that banks charge higher spreads to borrowers that are vulnerable to takeovers, but only in concentrated industries. In the absence of disciplinary competitive pressure, the effect of takeover vulnerability on the cost of bank loans is mitigated for larger firms, firms followed by analysts, firms with existing credit ratings, non-family firms, and for borrowers with shorter maturity loans or loans with covenants and collateral in place. Taken together, the results suggest that the effect of governance on the cost of financing is not homogenous across all industries, and that concentrated industry firms may need to use supplementary governance mechanisms to mitigate debt holder agency problems.     

Institutional and Legal Context in Natural Experiments: The Case of State Antitakeover Laws

We argue and demonstrate empirically that a firm's institutional and legal context has first‐order effects in tests that use state antitakeover laws for identification. A priori, the size and direction of a law's effect on a firm's takeover protection depends on (i) other state antitakeover laws, (ii) preexisting firm‐level takeover defenses, and (iii) the legal regime as reflected by important court decisions. In addition, (iv) state antitakeover laws are not exogenous for many easily identifiable firms. We show that the inferences from nine prior studies related to nine different outcome variables change substantially when we include controls for these considerations.     

The effect of state antitakeover laws on the firm's bondholders

We examine how state antitakeover laws affect bondholders and the cost of debt, and report four findings. First, bonds issued by firms incorporated in takeover-friendly states have significantly higher at-issue yield spreads than bonds issued by firms in states with restrictive antitakeover laws. Second, firms in takeover friendly states have significantly higher leverage than their counterparts in restrictive law states. Third, bond issues are associated with negative average stock price reactions among firms in takeover-friendly states, but positive stock price reactions among firms in restrictive law states. Fourth, existing bond values increase, on average, upon the introduction of Business Combination antitakeover law. These results indicate that state antitakeover laws tend to decrease bond yields and increase bond values, which is the opposite of their effect on equity values. This, in turn, implies that state laws help mitigate the agency cost of debt by shielding bondholders from expropriation in takeovers. Overall, the empirical evidence suggests that the effect of antitakeover provisions on firm value must take into account the impacts of both bondholders and stockholders.     

The Impact of the Corporate Control Market on IPO Decisions

Entrepreneurs who take their firm public during an active corporate control market face an increased risk of losing control through a takeover. I examine the extent to which the threat of takeover impacts IPO firms’ decisions and find that an active takeover market in an IPO firm's industry increases the probability that the firm incorporates in a state with state‐level antitakeover provisions. IPO firms backed by venture capital investors and reputable underwriters are less likely to incorporate in a state offering antitakeover provisions. A closer examination of equity carve‐outs suggests that control is not a first‐order consideration for some IPO firms.     

Agency-based demand for conservatism: evidence from state adoption of antitakeover laws

We use antitakeover laws passed by several states in the mid-1980s and early 1990s as an exogenous increase in agency conflicts and examine how these laws affect the demand for asymmetric timeliness of loss recognition (ATLR). Consistent with the debt-based contracting demand for ATLR, we find an increase in ATLR after the passage of antitakeover laws for firms with high contracting pressures. These increases are incremental to those found in control firms that face similar pressures but whose states did not pass antitakeover laws. We do not find comparable changes in ATLR for firms with higher agency costs of equity. In contrast to the observed increases in ATLR, we find no change in the short-window information content of earnings announcements. Overall, our results suggest that higher agency conflicts result in a heightened demand for ATLR in financial statements but not for more forward-looking new information. Further, these demands seem to emanate from debtholders and not from equityholders.     

Do antitakeover provisions harm shareholders?

We reexamine the negative relation between firm value and the number of antitakeover provisions a firm has in place. We document that firms with characteristics indicating low power to bargain for favorable terms in a takeover, but also indicating high potential agency costs, have more antitakeover provisions in place. We also find that for these firms, Tobin's Q increases in the number of adopted provisions. These findings are robust to several methods that control for endogeneity. Our evidence suggests that adopting more antitakeover provisions is beneficial for certain firms and challenges the commonplace view that antitakeover provisions are universally harmful for shareholders.     

Do Hostile Takeovers Stifle Innovation? Evidence from Antitakeover Legislation and Corporate Patenting

I examine how strong corporate governance proxied by the threat of hostile takeovers affects innovation and firm value. I find a significant decline in the number of patents and citations per patent for firms incorporated in states that pass antitakeover laws relative to firms incorporated in states that do not. Most of the impact of antitakeover laws on innovation occurs 2 or more years after they are passed, indicating a causal effect. The negative effect of antitakeover laws is mitigated by the presence of alternative governance mechanisms such as large shareholders, pension fund ownership, leverage, and product market competition.     

Voluntary Corporate Divestitures as Antitakeover Mechanisms

This paper examines the investor reaction to the use of corporate selloffs as antitakeover devices. The results show that firms subject to takeover speculations prior to the divestiture announcement experience insignificant changes in share prices while firms that have no takeover bid report significant wealth increases. The majority of the firms that undergo defensive divestitures remain independent one year after the selloffs. These findings are consistent with the authors' proposition that investors regard divestitures following rumors of takeover attempt as antitakeover strategies. On the other hand, investors perceive selloffs in a takeover-free environment as a positive net present value decision.     

Capital Structure and Corporate Control: The Effect of Antitakeover Statutes on Firm Leverage

We find that firms protected by "second generation" state antitakeover laws substantially reduce their use of debt, and that unprotected firms do the reverse. This result supports recent models in which the threat of hostile takeover motivates managers to take on debt they would otherwise avoid. An implication is that legal barriers to takeovers may increase corporate slack.     

Corporate governance and the information environment: Evidence from state antitakeover laws

We examine the relation between corporate governance and firms' information environments. We use the passage of state antitakeover laws in the U.S. as a source of exogenous variation in an important governance mechanism to identify changes in firms' information environments. We find that information asymmetry and private information gathering decreased and that financial statement informativeness increased following the passage of the antitakeover laws. Cross-sectional analyses indicate that the increased level of financial statement informativeness is attributable to firms that are most likely to access equity markets rather than managerial entrenchment, managerial career concerns, or managers' pursuit of the quiet life.     

Does corporate governance matter in competitive industries?

By reducing the threat of a hostile takeover, business combination (BC) laws weaken corporate governance and increase the opportunity for managerial slack. Consistent with the notion that competition mitigates managerial slack, we find that while firms in non-competitive industries experience a significant drop in operating performance after the laws’ passage, firms in competitive industries experience no significant effect. When we examine which agency problem competition mitigates, we find evidence in support of a “quiet-life” hypothesis. Input costs, wages, and overhead costs all increase after the laws’ passage, and only so in non-competitive industries. Similarly, when we conduct event studies around the dates of the first newspaper reports about the BC laws, we find that while firms in non-competitive industries experience a significant stock price decline, firms in competitive industries experience a small and insignificant stock price impact.     

Earnings quality effect of state antitakeover statutes

Existing theories suggest two opposite effects that antitakeover protection may have on earnings management: the exacerbating effect and the mitigating effect. We use the introduction of state antitakeover laws during the mid- to late-1980s as a natural experiment to test the relationship between antitakeover protection and earnings quality. The results show that firms incorporated in states that passed the laws have lower magnitudes of abnormal accruals and higher levels of earnings informativeness in the post-passage periods, suggesting that antitakeover protection mitigates earnings management and enhances earnings quality. Further evidence shows that reductions in earnings management are concentrated in firms with low firm-level antitakeover protection and in firms with serious agency problems, and that the earnings management effect of state antitakeover laws is likely to be of short-term duration.     

Governance and innovation

I examine the relation between the presence of governance provisions and corporate innovation for a sample of firms between 1984 and 1997. I find a positive relation between four proxies for innovation and the broad Gompers, Ishii, and Metrick (2003) Index. However, in subsample analyses, I find that only those provisions that officers and directors actively adopt are positively related to innovation; coverage by state-level antitakeover legislation is typically unassociated or negatively associated with innovation. The evidence suggests that it is the visibility of officers and directors' actions rather than the potency of the takeover protection that best explains the observed pattern.     

Corporate Governance and Dividend Payout Policy: A Test Using Antitakeover Legislation

Managers strongly prefer not to pay dividends as dividend payouts reduce the amount of cash subject to managerial discretion ( Easterbrook, 1984 ; Jensen, 1986 ). Previous empirical tests of the relationship between corporate governance and dividend payout policy employ endogenous measures of this agency problem. Using a relatively exogenous measure that incorporates state antitakeover laws and the differences‐in‐differences approach, our analysis indicates that dividend payout ratios and propensities fall when managers are insulated from takeovers. The impact of antitakeover laws on dividend payouts is more pronounced for firms with poor corporate governance and small firms.     

Does takeover activity affect stock price crash risk? Evidence from international M&A laws

We exploit the staggered initiation of merger and acquisition (M&A) laws across countries as a plausibly exogenous shock to the threat of takeover to examine whether the market for corporate control has a real effect on firm-level stock price crash risk. Using a difference-in-differences regression on a large sample of firms from 32 countries, we find that stock price crash risk significantly decreases following the passage of M&A laws. This effect is stronger for firms domiciled in countries with poorer investor protection and information environments and for firms with weaker firm-level governance. Further, financial reporting opacity and overinvestment significantly decrease in the post-M&A law periods. Our study suggests that an active takeover market has a disciplining effect on managerial bad news hoarding and leads to lower future crash risk.     

CORPORATE TAKEOVER BARRIERS: VALUATION AND FIRM PERFORMANCE

This study provides additional evidence on the share price effect of takeover barriers such as antitakeover charter amendments, dual classes of common stock, and poison pill plans. The share price reaction to the construction of takeover barriers is found to be negative but insignificant. However, when disaggregated by type, significant negative share price reactions are found on construction of poison pill plans. New evidence on the possible relationship between firm performance and takeover barrier construction is also presented. The results of this study suggest that management of 'efficiently-run' firms may construct takeover barriers to deter value-diminishing takeovers.     

The effect of state laws on capital structure

US manufacturing firms incorporated in states with stronger payout restrictions use less debt, while antitakeover statutes do not significantly reduce long-run leverage. Correcting for the endogenously determined choice of where to incorporate, we find that firms sort themselves according to state laws and capital structure needs. After accounting for self-selection, state antitakeover laws are positively associated with debt as a fraction of market value, possibly due to lower market values for these firms. Payout restrictions appear to reduce leverage for firms that have not reincorporated outside their home states. These constraints explain part of the negative relation between profitability and leverage.     

Antitakeover devices and management efficiency: An empirical study using accounting measures

Separation of corporate ownership and control creates an environment whereby the agent (management) may pursue self-interests at the expense of the principal (stockholders). One mechanism protecting stockholders from self-interested management is the market for corporate control, or the takeover market. Antitakeover devices impede the operations of this market. This paper reports on the study of one type of antitakeover device, the supermajority nonfair price amendment. This device is particularly onerous, and if antitakeover devices do protect inefficient management as has been alluded to in the literature, then evidence of inefficiency should be observable for companies adopting supermajority nonfair price amendments.To test the above proposition, we examine the difference in performance over a seven-year period (1) Between firms having supermajority nonfair price amendments and a set of matched firms that do not have these devices, and (2) between firms with these amendments and their respective industries. In both tests, performance was lower for the firms adopting these amendments, which suggests that these devices are used to protect inefficient management. Further, the argument that managers of firms which adopt antitakeover devices so that they can take a long-term outlook at the expense of short-term profitability was not supported by the data.