Real-time revenue and firm disclosure

Review of Accounting Studies - We examine firm disclosure choice when information is received on a real-time, continuous basis. We use transaction-level credit and debit card sales for a sample of...     

Activist hedge funds and firm disclosure

This study examines whether firms' disclosure decisions are affected by the presence of activist hedge funds. Using a large sample of firms that experienced increases in ownership by activist hedge funds, we find that firms are more likely to cease providing financial guidance or reduce the information in the guidance in the quarter subsequent to new investment by activist hedge funds. These results hold even for firms that experienced good quarters and consistently provided guidance in previous quarters. Since guidance has been shown to be beneficial to capital market participants in many ways, reduced guidance has meaningful market implications. Our findings highlight a negative and possible unintended consequence of activist hedge funds' investment in firms, which provides some counterbalance to the numerous positive consequences documented in the prior literature on hedge fund activism.     

The role of founder decision rights and operating and disclosure mechanisms in firm value creation

We find that founder firms use operating performance and transparency as mechanisms more effectively than non-founder firms for creating value. The greater effectiveness comes from the founders choosing their inputs strategically. Specifically, they increase the gross margin in differentiated firms that demand organizational agility and they increase asset usage efficiency in cost‑leadership firms. Founder firms exhibit higher transparency than non-founder firms in differentiated and cost leadership firms. The improvements in operational performance, transparency, and value are all greater when founders have more decision rights. Our results are consistent with the interpretation that influential founders use organizational performance and transparency to increase the firm value more effectively than managers of similar non-founder firms by providing a unified vision and a single point of control.     

Eco-efficiency and firm value

Eco-efficiency refers to a process that seeks to maximize the effectiveness of business processes while minimizing their impacts on the environment. Fundamental to eco-efficiency is adoption of a management philosophy that stimulates the search for environmental improvements that yield parallel economic benefits [President’s Council on Sustainable Development, 1996a. Sustainable America: A New Consensus for Prosperity, Opportunity, and a Healthy Environment. Government Printing Office, Washington DC; President’s Council on Sustainable Development, 1996b. Eco-efficiency: Task Force Report. Government Printing Office, Washington DC; World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), 2000. Eco-efficiency: Creating More Value with Less Input. Geneva]. Eco-efficiency is increased by activities that create economic value while continuously reducing ecological impacts and the use of natural resources [DeSimone, L., Popoff, F., 1997. Eco-efficiency: The Business Link To Sustainable Development. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA]. This study empirically examines the proposition that implementation of eco-efficient business strategies is associated with higher firm value. We posit that, firms which adopt eco-efficient business strategies and, as a consequence, achieve reduced costs and increased profits should be more highly valued by the market than similar firms that do not adopt eco-efficient business strategies. Our empirical testing supports this proposition.     

The impact of environmental,social, and governance disclosure on firm value: The role of CEO power

Using a large cross-sectional dataset comprising of FTSE 350 listed firms, this study investigates whether superior environmental, social and corporate governance (ESG) disclosure affects firm value. We find a positive association between ESG disclosure level and firm value, suggesting that improved transparency and accountability and enhanced stakeholder trust play a role in boosting firm value. We also report that higher CEO power enhances the ESG disclosure effect on firm value, indicating that stakeholders associate ESG disclosure from firms with higher CEO power with greater commitment to ESG practice. This evidence is strong and consistent for three different measures of ESG-related disclosure: the ESG, environmental and social disclosure scores. The results are robust to the use of an instrumental variable approach, and the Heckman two-stage estimation procedure.     

Blockholder dispersion and firm value

Multiple blockholder structures are a widespread phenomenon in the U.S. The theoretical literature, however, provides conflicting predictions on whether a single large blockholder or a set of dispersed smaller blockholders is better for firm value. Using U.S. data, we find a negative correlation between Tobin's Q and blockholder dispersion. The findings are robust to a wide variety of model specifications and controls and differ from results for other geographic regions such as Europe and Asia.     

Multiple founders and firm value

In this paper, we highlight the existence of multi-founder firms, which were founded by multiple individuals (with no family connections) who are still actively involved in the firm as directors and/or managers. These firms provide a unique setting to shed further light on the net valuation effects of founder involvement. In particular, multi-founder firms provide us with the opportunity to examine the benefits and costs to shareholders of multiple founders involved as directors, CEOs and managers in the same firm. Our analysis indicates that multi-founder firms are more valuable than all other types of firms, including single-founder firms and family firms, with the valuation premium positively related to the number of founders involved in the firm. Further analysis confirms that this valuation premium is linked to the direct involvement of the multiple founders as directors and CEOs. However, further founder involvement in vice president positions has a negative relationship with firm value.     

Director attention and firm value

In this article, we show that exogenous director distraction affects board monitoring intensity and leads to a higher level of inactivity by management. We construct a firm-level director “distraction” measure by exploiting shocks to unrelated industries in which directors have additional directorships. Directors attend significantly fewer board meetings when they are distracted. Firms with distracted board members tend to be inactive and experience a significant decline in firm value. Overall, this article highlights the impact of limited director attention on the effectiveness of corporate governance and the importance of directors in keeping management active.     

Stakeholder welfare and firm value

Using data from the independent social choice investment advisory firm Kinder, Lydenberg, Domini (KLD), we construct a stakeholder welfare score measuring the extent to which firms meet the expectation of their non-shareholder stakeholders (such as employees, customers, communities, and environment), and find it to be associated with positive valuation effects: an increase of 1 in the stakeholder welfare score leads to an increase of 0.587 in Tobin’s Q. Furthermore, the valuation effects vary across stakeholders and the aforementioned positive effects are driven by firms’ performance on employee relations and environmental issues. These results suggest that stakeholder welfare (in particular, employee welfare and environmental performance) represents intangibles (such as reputation or human capital) crucial for shareholder value creation rather than private benefits managers pursue for their own social or economic needs.     

Information disclosure,firm growth,and the cost of capital

We study how information disclosure affects the cost of equity capital and investor welfare in a dynamic setting. We show that a firm’s cost of capital decreases (increases) in the precision of public disclosure if the firm’s growth rate is below (above) a certain threshold. The threshold growth rate is higher when the firm’s cash flows are more persistent, or when other firms in the economy are growing at low rates. While current shareholders always prefer maximum public disclosure, future shareholders’ welfare decreases (increases) in the precision of public disclosure if the firm’s growth rate is below (above) the threshold.     

Cost of government and firm value

Do high expenditures incurred in running the government benefit or hurt firms? Using Chinese data between 1999 and 2006, we find that higher administrative expenditures in provincial governments are associated with lower firm value, lower stock and financial performance, and lower labor productivity. Local governments that spend more on public administration tend to collect more fees from companies and spend less on social welfare and infrastructures. Our evidence is consistent with the “grabbing hand” hypothesis and has important policy implications.     

The disclosure policy of the firm in an efficient market

This study analyzes the information content of the financial reports of the management-controlled firm in an efficient market. The firm's disclosure fulfills two roles: it is the basis of the principal-agent contract—stewardship role, and it is an input to the market price informativeness (decision making) role. Optimal disclosure is derived as the outcome of the firm's owner-manager-potential buyer game. The seller and the buyer maintain principal-agent relationships with the manager, who alone observes verifiable and unverifiable information on the value of the firm. The market's price of the firm, as well as the manager's compensation, depend on the firm's reports. The firm's owner directs the manager to report verifiable information, at least, (due to the threat of coalition forming) and stewardship information, at most. The market's reaction to the financial reports depends on the information available to the market prior to their release.     

The association between risk disclosure and firm characteristics: a meta-analysis

The empirical literature on the determinants of risk disclosures offers mixed results. This complicates efforts among stakeholders to understand the factors affecting firms’ decision to report risk information. The aim of our paper is to analyze the findings of 42 empirical studies using a meta-analysis technique. We examine whether differences in the findings are attributable to random error or due to legal and institutional systems, uncertainty avoidance, disclosure regime (mandatory vs. voluntary), industry types, and the proxies used to measure corporate characteristics. We find that all moderators affect the relationship between corporate size and risk reporting. Legal system, disclosure regime, industry types, and leverage ratio measurement moderate the association between leverage ratio and risk disclosure. Industry types and uncertainty-avoidance level affect the relationship between profitability and risk disclosure. Finally, the association between risk factor and risk disclosure is moderated by industry types. We discuss the implications of our findings and offer suggestions for future research.     

On-balance-sheet duration hedging and firm value

In this study we consider the determinants and effects of on-balance-sheet duration hedging for non-financial US firms. The difference between the duration of assets and liabilities, or duration gap, is negatively related to growth opportunities, and positively related to profitability, corporate cash holdings, and managerial ownership. We find that both a lower duration gap and a lower absolute value of duration gap are associated with higher firm values. Moreover, we find some evidence that firms with larger duration gaps performed worse during the market-wide liquidity shock accompanying the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy.     

Dominant institutional owners and firm value

This research analyzes the impact of control by dominant institutional owners (banking institutions and investment funds) on firm value. The analysis considers the level of voting rights in the hands of the dominant institutional owner and other large shareholders. The results reveal a different effect on value depending on whether the dominant institutional investor is a banking institution or an investment fund. Moreover, the results show that the presence of other large shareholders affects firm value when a dominant institutional owner controls the firm.     

Multiple large shareholders and firm value

This paper investigates the effects of having multiple large shareholders on the valuation of firms. Using data on Finnish listed firms, we show, consistent with our model, that a more equal distribution of votes among large blockholders has a positive effect on firm value. This result is particularly strong in family-controlled firms suggesting that families (which typically have managerial or board representation) are more prone to private benefit extraction if they are not monitored by another strong blockholder. We also show that the relation between multiple blockholders and firm value is significantly affected by the identity of these blockholders.     

Managerial ownership dynamics and firm value

From 1988 to 2003, the average change in managerial ownership is significantly negative every year for American firms. We find that managers are more likely to significantly decrease their ownership when their firms are performing well and more likely to increase their ownership when their firms become financially constrained. When controlling for past stock returns, we find that large increases in managerial ownership increase Tobin's q. This result is driven by increases in shares held by officers, while increases in shares held by directors appear unrelated to changes in firm value. There is no evidence that large decreases in ownership have an adverse impact on firm value. We rely on the dynamics of the managerial ownership/firm value relation to mitigate concerns in the literature about the endogeneity of managerial ownership.     

Stock market liquidity and firm value

This paper investigates the relation between stock liquidity and firm performance. The study shows that firms with liquid stocks have better performance as measured by the firm market-to-book ratio. This result is robust to the inclusion of industry or firm fixed effects, a control for idiosyncratic risk, a control for endogenous liquidity using two-stage least squares, and the use of alternative measures of liquidity. To identify the causal effect of liquidity on firm performance, we study an exogenous shock to liquidity—the decimalization of stock trading—and show that the increase in liquidity around decimalization improves firm performance. The causes of liquidity's beneficial effect are investigated: Liquidity increases the information content of market prices and of performance-sensitive managerial compensation. Finally, momentum trading, analyst coverage, investor overreaction, and the effect of liquidity on discount rates or expected returns do not appear to drive the results.     

Investability, corporate governance and firm value

In this paper, I show that “investable premia” are greatest for transparent, well-governed firms. I find that single-class share investable firms and better-governed firms reap the largest valuation gains from becoming investable. Dual-class share firms do gain from becoming investable, but their gains are much lower than that of single-class share firms. These findings suggest that the failure on the part of firms to remedy agency conflicts prior to becoming investable only serves to greatly reduce, or even nullify their “investable premia”.