Corporate diversification,ownership structure,and firm value: The Singapore evidence

We provide international evidence on the level and value of corporate diversification using a sample of 145 Singapore firms. We find that the level of diversification is positively related to firm size and negatively related to the equity ownership of outside blockholders. However, we find no evidence that insider ownership has a significant impact on the level of diversification. We find significant value loss from diversification only for those firms with low managerial ownership, suggesting that value-reducing diversification stems from agency problems. Outside block ownership does not have a significant impact on the value of diversification. Thus, while outside blockholders may act as a deterrent on the level of diversification, there is no evidence that they can effectively reduce the agency problems for those firms with low managerial ownership.     

Ownership concentration and firm risk: The moderating role of mid-sized blockholders

This study analyzes the relationship between mid-sized blockholders and firm risk. We show that ownership structure matters for firm risk beyond the first largest blockholder. Firms with multiple blockholders take more risk than firms with just one blockholder, even when controlling for the stake of the largest blockholder. Consistent with the diversification argument, we find that firm risk increases by 22% when the number of blockholders increases from one to two. Our results are robust to controlling for blockholder type and firm characteristics. We carry out various robustness checks to tackle endogeneity issues. More generally, we provide evidence that firms’ decisions are affected by mid-sized blockholders and not merely the largest blockholder. This is in line with theoretical predictions.     

Multiple blockholders,power, and firm value

Using a comprehensive sample of US firms we show that most of them have multiple blockholders whose presence and ownership stakes lead to a significant difference between ownership and power. This difference matters. First, we find that insider power (ownership) is negatively (positively) related to firm value. Second, we show that outsider power is positively related to firm value. Our direct blockholder-level measure of power explains firm value over and above the explanatory power of firm-level measures used in the literature (such as the number of blockholders and the dispersion of their ownership stakes).     

Are founding families special blockholders? An investigation of controlling shareholder influence on firm performance

This paper examines how family and non-family ownership affects the performance of Swiss listed firms from 2003 to 2010. We distinguish between these two types of controlling shareholders since they have different objectives. We hypothesise that only family shareholders have a real incentive to reduce agency costs whereas non-family blockholders are similar to widely held companies. Our results show that family firms are more profitable than companies that are widely held or have a non-family blockholder. For market valuations we find that the family stake plays a critical role and document a concave relationship between family ownership and Tobin’s Q. We also investigate the impact of different features of family firms on performance, and document that the generation of the family and the active involvement of the family play an important role for market valuation.     

Blockholder ownership: Effects on firm value in market and control based governance systems

In this study, Granger tests are used to examine the relationship between blockholder ownership and the values of the largest companies in the European Union and the US. Previous studies on US data have found that blockholder ownership has no systematic effect on performance. We propose that these results may not apply to Continental Europe, where ownership concentration is typically higher, the level of investor protection is lower, and influential blockholders may have objectives other than shareholder value. In accordance with previous research, we find no significant association between blockholder ownership and prior or subsequent firm value in either the US or the UK. Nonetheless, in Continental Europe we find a negative association between blockholder ownership and firm value or accounting returns in the next period. Further analysis reveals that this association is significant only for companies with high initial levels of blockholder ownership (> 10%). We interpret this finding as evidence of conflicts of interest between blockholders and minority investors. The percentage of blockholder ownership in Continental Europe may be too high from a minority shareholder value viewpoint.     

The dark side of individual blockholder philanthropy

We examine the market reaction to charitable pledges by individual blockholders of public firms. As this philanthropy may signal a weakening preference for wealth maximization and may be indicative of distraction or relaxed monitoring, these agency costs may overwhelm any reputation benefits. We find decreased firm value and lower pay-for-performance sensitivity, the effects of which are most severe where monitoring needs are high, the blockholder is a director, or when the firm has ex ante high corporate social responsibility ratings. Our results are robust to controlling for prior charitable foundation involvement, busy director–blockholders, dual-class share structures, blockholder exit, and pre-pledge firm sentiment.     

Is Investment‐Cash Flow Sensitivity Caused by Agency Costs or Asymmetric Information? Evidence from the UK

We investigate the investment‐cash flow sensitivity of a large sample of the UK listed firms and confirm that investment is strongly cash flow‐sensitive. Is this sensitivity a result of agency problems when managers with high discretion overinvest, or of asymmetric information when managers owning equity are underinvesting if the market (erroneously) demands too high a risk premium? We find that investment‐cash flow sensitivity results mainly from the agency costs of free cash flow. The magnitude of the relationship depends on insider ownership in a non‐monotonic way. Furthermore, we obtain that outside blockholders, such as financial institutions, the government, and industrial firms (only at high control levels), reduce the cash flow sensitivity of investment via effective monitoring. Finally, financial institutions appear to play a role in mitigating informational asymmetries between firms and capital markets. We corroborate our findings by performing additional tests based on the stochastic efficient frontier approach and power indices.     

Agency Problems,Equity Ownership,and Corporate Diversification

We provide evidence on the agency cost explanation for corporate diversification. We find that the level of diversification is negatively related to managerial equity ownership and to the equity ownership of outside blockholders. In addition, we report that decreases in diversification are associated with external corporate control threats, financial distress, and management turnover. These findings suggest that agency problems are responsible for firms maintaining value-reducing diversification strategies and that the recent trend toward increased corporate focus is attributable to market disciplinary forces.     

From Social to Private Ownership: Multiple Blockholders in Slovenian Unlisted Firms

This paper studies the ownership structures of unlisted privatized firms in Slovenia. On the basis of official ownership records for all nonfinancial firms over a six-year period (1999-2004), we explore the factors responsible for the concentration of ownership and for the dissolution of the multiple blockholder structures that these firms were assigned at privatization. We observe significant path dependence: patterns of ownership and control are in part determined by the persistence of the initial privatization owners (state funds, privatization investment funds, employees, and managers) as firm blockholders. We also find that ownership concentrates less in larger, riskier, and better-performing firms. Multiple blockholders remain present in the firms in which the two largest owners are of the same type, which presumably makes it easier for them to control in coalition.     

Why Do Firms Become Widely Held? An Analysis of the Dynamics of Corporate Ownership

We examine the evolution of insider ownership of IPO firms from 1970 to 2001 to understand how U.S. firms become widely held. A majority of these firms has insider ownership below 20% after 10 years. Stock market performance and liquidity play an extremely important role in ownership dynamics. Firms with stocks that are highly valued, are liquid, and have performed well experience large decreases in insider ownership and become widely held. Ownership also falls for low cash flow and high capital expenditures firms. Surprisingly, variables proxying for agency costs have limited success in explaining the evolution of insider ownership.     

MANAGERIAL INCENTIVES AND CORPORATE DIVERSIFICATION STRATEGIES

Because the break-up of conglomerates typically produces substantial increases in shareholder wealth, many commentators have argued that the conglomerate form of organization is inefficient. This article reports the findings of a number of recent academic studies, including the authors' own, that examine the causes and consequences of corporate diversification. Although theoretical arguments suggest that corporate diversification can have benefits as well as costs, several studies have documented that diversified firms trade at a significant discount from their single-segment peers. Estimates of this discount range from 10–15% of firm value, and are larger for “unrelated” diversification than for “related” diversification. If corporate diversification has generally been a value-reducing managerial strategy, why do firms remain diversified? One possibility, which the authors label the “agency cost” hypothesis, is that top executives without substantial equity stakes may have incentives to maintain a diversification strategy even if doing so reduces shareholder wealth. But, as top managers' ownership stakes increase, they bear a greater fraction of the costs associated with value-reducing policies and are therefore less likely to take actions that reduce shareholder wealth. Also, to the extent that outside blockholders monitor managerial behavior, the agency cost hypothesis predicts that diversification will be less prevalent in firms with large outside blockholders. Consistent with this argument, the authors find that companies in which managers own a significant fraction of the firm's shares, and in which blockholders own a large fraction of shares, are significantly less likely to be diversified. If agency problems lead managers to maintain value-reducing diversification strategies, what is it that leads some of these same firms to refocus? The agency cost hypothesis predicts that managers will reduce diversification only if pressured to do so by internal or external mechanisms that reduce agency problems. Consistent with this argument, the authors find that decreases in diversification appear to be precipitated by market disciplinary forces such as block purchases, acquisition attempts, and management turnover.     

Bank power,block ownership,boards and financial distress likelihood: An investigation of Spanish listed firms

We investigate the effects of bank power, block ownership and board independence on the likelihood of financial distress. Using a matched sample design, we find that firms in which banks have power are more likely than their counterparts to enter financial distress. However, the bank power effects are moderated by block ownership and board independence. Specifically, on the one hand, financial distress due to bank power is lower for firms with greater ownership by pressure resistant blockholders and such blockholders appear to be the largest blockholder in the firm. The bank power effects are also lower in firms with greater outside directors and this appears to be primarily driven by proprietary directors than independent directors. On the other, we document evidence suggesting that the bank power effects are magnified for firms in which the board chair is a proprietary director aligned to non-financial blockholders or CEO/Chair, suggesting that banks might partly influence decisions via board chairs. Overall, the findings are consistent with bank power actions being detrimental to the firm, but the extent to which such actions harm the firm depends on the monitoring intentions of blockholders and/or board of directors. These findings have important implications for policymakers.     

Family control and investment–cash flow sensitivity: Empirical evidence from the Euro zone

This paper considers the ownership structure of family firms to determine whether family control alleviates or exacerbates investment–cash flow sensitivity in the Euro zone. We find that family-controlled corporations have lower investment–cash flow sensitivities. Further, our results show that this reduced sensitivity is mainly attributable to family firms with no deviations between cash flow and voting rights and to family firms in which family members hold managerial positions. We also find that second largest shareholders affect family firms' sensitivity and are associated with either monitoring (non-family second blockholders) or collusion (family second blockholders). Overall, family control seems to mitigate investment inefficiencies that derive from capital market imperfections.     

Ownership Structure as a Determinant of Firm Value: Evidence from Newly Privatized Czech Firms

Using a sample of 988 newly privatized Czech firms, with part of the ownership structure exogenously determined prior to voucher privatization, we find that share values are positively related with the ownership stakes of foreigners, insiders, and restituents. While the findings for foreigners and insiders can be attributed to their superior ability to identify more profitable firms, we interpret the findings on restituents as evidence of the beneficial effect of blockholdings. On the other hand, we find that the ownership of the fund with the largest stake is not significantly related with share value, suggesting that the value of external blocks depends on the identity of the owner. However, when the fund is also the largest blockholder in the firm, it has an adverse effect on share value. The negative effect of the dominant block owned by a fund is mitigated when a bank sponsors the fund. Although funds are legally separated from their sponsoring institutions, bank‐sponsored funds may nevertheless have inherited a better access to the innards of these firms, and may be in a better position to monitor them.     

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.     

The Relationship Between Market Efficiency and Insider Ownership in Large and Small Firms

The study examines insider ownership in large and small firms in relation to market efficiency. Recent studies have found a positive and significant relation between inside ownership and stock market performance. Such a finding is predicated upon the idea that inside ownership minimizes agency costs caused by the conflict between hired managers and shareholders. It is argued here that semi-strong form market efficiency requires that all public information, including insider ownership, be quickly impounded into the price of a stock. If that is the case, the expected present value of a change in agency cost should be incorporated into the stock price shortly after any significant change in ownership. Hence, if the estimate is unbiased, the longer-term performance of firms should not be effected by such changes. The issue is examined for both large, well-known firms and for smaller, less-known firms. The hypothesis that markets are generally efficient with respect to insider ownership information is rejected.     

Individual Large Shareholders,Earnings Management,and Capital‐Market Consequences

Using a large hand‐collected sample of all blockholders (ownership ≥ 5%) of S&P 1500 firms for the years 2002–2009, we first document significant individual blockholder effects on earnings management (accrual‐based earnings management, real earnings management, and restatements). This association is driven primarily by these large shareholders influencing rather than selecting firms’ financial reporting practices. Second, the market's reaction to earnings announcements suggests that investors recognize the heterogeneity in blockholders’ influence on earnings management. The results highlight the highly individualized effects of blockholders and a mechanism through which shareholders impact reported earnings.     

Information,Ownership Structure,and Shareholder Voting: Evidence from Shareholder-Sponsored Corporate Governance Proposals

This paper examines how information and ownership structure affect voting outcomes on shareholder-sponsored proposals to change corporate governance structure. We find that the outcomes of votes vary systematically with the governance and performance records of target firms, the identity of proposal sponsors, and the type of proposal. We also find that outcomes vary significantly as a function of ownership by insiders, institutions, outside blockholders, ESOPs, and outside directors who are blockholders. These results suggest that both public information and ownership structure have a significant influence on voting outcomes.     

监督还是合谋:多个大股东与公司内部控制质量

中国上市公司大股东持股比例相对较高,大股东之间可能存在合谋掏空或监督制衡的关系,为此,以2008~2016年A股上市公司为样本,探究多个大股东的股权结构对公司内部控制质量的影响。研究发现：相对于只有单一大股东的公司而言,具有多个大股东的公司内部控制质量更高;大股东数量越多、非控股大股东持股比例越高、大股东之间股权偏离度越低,公司内部控制质量越高;外国投资者和国有法人大股东能够显著提升公司内部控制质量;多个大股东的治理效应主要体现在非国有企业中,公司所处地区的法律及市场环境越好,多个大股东监督效应对公司内部控制质量的提升作用越明显。     

Determinants of Intercorporate Shareholdings

This paper examines why firms choose to spend resources on acquiring ownership rights in other firms. Based on a unique data base of every individual intercorporate shareholding on the Oslo Stock Exchange during the period 1980–1994, we find that such investments serve at least three functions. First, they play a role incorporate governance, as managers in firms withlow insider holdings, diffuse ownership structure and high free cash flow tend to mutually acquire equity stakes in each other, possibly in a collective attempt to protect their human capital in the market for corporate control. Second, interfirm equity holdings serve as financial slack for growing firms, reducing potential adverse selection costs by providing an internal funding source for new investments in long-term assets. Finally, our findings also suggest that intercorporate shareholdings are an integrated part of the investor's cash flow management system by being a liquidity buffer when cash inflows andcash outflows are non-synchronous.