The power of control: the acquisition decisions of newly public dual-class firms

Many private firms that go public opt for a dual-class share structure which gives insiders stronger voting power, at the expense of shareholder democracy. We examine how the dual-class structure influences the merger decisions of newly public firms, which have a notable appetite for acquisitions. Specifically, we compare acquisition activity, method of payment choice, and the long-run value implications of acquisitions by newly public single-class and dual-class US companies. Our results show that dual-class IPO firms make relatively more acquisitions in innovative industries and are less likely to pay with stock as compared to single-class IPO firms. The reluctance of dual-class firms to pay with stock is positively related to the wedge between the insiders’ voting rights and cash-flow rights. We also find that newly-public dual-class acquirers perform better in the long-run than newly-public single-class acquirers, mainly due to dual-class acquisitions in innovative industries. Our multivariate analysis shows that these findings hold after controlling for relevant risk factors associated with industry, deal, and firm specific characteristics. These results suggest that the dual class structure may enable newly-public firms to make better M&A decisions after going public.     

Recapitalization of one class of common stock into dual-class: Growth and long-run stock returns

We study a sample of 178 firms that changed from a one-share one-vote into a dual-class common stock structure during 1979–1998. We find that dual-class recapitalizations are shareholder value enhancing corporate initiatives. Using accounting data, Lehn et al. (1990) [Lehn, K., Netter, J., Poulsen, A., 1990. Consolidating corporate control: dual-class recapitalizations versus leveraged buyouts. Journal of Financial Economics 27, 557–580] provide evidence that dual-class recapitalizing firms grow faster than firms in a control group and undertake secondary equity offerings (SEOs) to finance growth. We show that growth is indeed beneficial to the shareholders. The stockholders, on average, earn significant positive abnormal returns of 23.11% in a period of 4 years following the announcement month. Furthermore, abnormal returns are even larger (52.61%) for the dual-class firms that issue equity. This evidence is especially supportive of the value enhancing hypothesis as it is contrary to the prevailing result that SEOs are generally followed by large negative returns. We do not find any evidence of managerial entrenchment.     

Performance of Cross Listed Dual-Class Firms: Evidence from Chinese Firms Cross Listed on US Exchanges

We compare operating and market performance of Chinese single- and dual-class firms cross listed on US exchanges. We find evidence in line with researchers who argue that a dual-class structure allows insiders to invest in long-term value-enhancing projects. We find that dual-class firms underperform prior to their initial public offering (IPO) and then improve and have better operating performance than single-class firms in the second year after IPO. We find that dual-class firms also have better market performance than single-class firms beginning in the initial year, which is contrary to the finding in most other studies. The reason for this might be that firms that list on US exchanges show a credible commitment to shareholder rights.     

Excess insider control and corporate social responsibility: Evidence from dual-class firms

We investigate the corporate social responsibility (CSR) performance of firms with a dual-class share structure. Dual-class firms, which represent a fast-growing segment of the U.S. capital market, violate the "one share, one vote" principle by giving corporate insiders control in excess of their economic interest in the firm. We observe a negative association of excess insider control and firms’ CSR performance, primarily with respect to the community- and employee-related dimensions of CSR. Extended analyses reveal that this negative association is mitigated by high financial resource availability. Consistent with a trade-off between corporate spending on CSR or on benefits for insiders, we also observe a negative association between CSR performance and executive pay in dual-class firms. Taken together, these extended analyses are consistent with self-interested behavior of entrenched insiders who, unless resources are abundant, appear to reduce CSR activities to maintain resources available for their personal benefit. While the exposure to risks engendered by a dual-class equity structure may be reflected in the share price, our findings draw attention to an externality: diminished CSR performance affects not just shareholders, but all stakeholders.     

Weakened outside shareholder rights in dual-class firms and timely loss reporting

In this paper, we examine timely loss reporting for U.S. firms with a dual-class share structure, i.e., firms characterized by a divergence (wedge) between insiders’ voting rights and cash flow rights. In our primary analysis, we find compelling evidence that the wedge (quantified by excess voting rights) is associated with less timely loss reporting for these firms. In our secondary analysis, in which we match our sample of dual-class share observations with a sample of single-class share observations, we find similar results. Our paper informs public policy by showing that weakened outside shareholder rights matter, even in the U.S., where, despite a strong investor protection environment, dual-class firms are less timely in recognizing bad news in reported earnings.     

Managerial entrenchment and payout policy: A catering effect

Agency theory suggests that entrenched managers are less likely to pay dividends. However, according to the catering theory, external pressures from investors can force managers to increase dividend payments. Hence, we test whether entrenched managers respond to investor demand for dividends and share repurchases. Using a large sample of 9677 US firms over the period 1990–2016 (i.e. a total of 80,478 firm-year observations), we test and find evidence that managerial entrenchment negatively impacts dividend payments. Our findings suggest that catering effects weaken the negative impact of managerial entrenchment on payout policy and that in firms with entrenched managers an increase in the propensity to pay dividends is conspicuous only when there is external investor demand for dividends. Our results indicate that while insiders and institutional owners might not necessarily favour dividend payments, firms respond to catering incentives when dominated by insiders but not institutional owners. Overall, our findings are consistent with the view that dividend payments are a result of external pressures to reduce agency problems associated with firms run by entrenched managers.     

Dual-Class Firms: Evidence from IPOs of Chinese Firms Cross-Listed on US Exchanges

We compare Chinese single with dual-class firms cross-listed on US exchanges. We find that dual-class firms are larger in terms of assets and sales, possess ownership concentration, and have higher institutional ownership. Chinese firms in IT industry are especially likely to use dual-class structure. We find that, contrary to the literature, dual-class firms underprice 30.42% more and firm underprices less when governance practices are adequate. Insiders need to bear underpricing cost for retaining control. Interestingly, we find that dual-class firms hire more independent directors to show commitment toward shareholder’s rights but control them through CEO Chairman Duality and superior voting rights.     

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.     

Disproportionate insider control and firm performance

The effect of disproportionate insider control on firm performance is ambiguous. Disproportionate control may enhance insiders’ ability to expropriate perquisites; on the other hand, it may provide stability of management and reduce short‐term market pressures. Using a hand‐collected sample of U.S. dual‐class firms, we find that disproportionate control is positively associated with accounting‐based performance, but negatively associated with Tobin's Q. These results are consistent with the incentives of entrenched insiders who are interested in profitability but less beholden to capital markets.     

Investment efficiency: Dual-class vs. Single-class firms

This study examines the effects of a dual-class structure on investment efficiency. Agency theory suggests that a dual-class structure exacerbates agency problems, leading to under- or overinvestment, but another view posits that the dual-class structure insulates managers from the pressure of the marketplace or activist investors seeking short-term profits. We find that dual-class firms invest more efficiently than single-class peers. This effect is more pronounced among firms with less transparent investments such as R&D. Our findings are robust to a propensity score matching approach and a setting where single-class firms recapitalize with dual-class shares. Furthermore, we find that among firms most at risk of overinvestment, dual-class firms have higher future accounting profitability and less volatile future returns.     

Do managers seek control and entrenchment?

A unique dataset of post-IPO thrifts with heterogeneous initial insider ownership allows us to use revealed preferences to determine the level of ownership insiders believe to be optimal. We find strong evidence that insider ownership converges to the 20% to 30% range, whether insiders begin with diffuse or concentrated ownership. This range of ownership has been found consistent with entrenchment and control in the literature. Our results are robust to a battery of variables related to insider ownership such as moral hazard, adverse selection, market timing, insider characteristics, and firm characteristics. Furthermore, we find that managers with diffuse ownership accumulate shares most aggressively during the period of regulatory anti-takeover protection, consistent with an entrenchment motive. We find that managers with above-average pay are more likely to seek higher ownership, consistent with the existence of private benefits of control. Finally, we find that insider ownership determines equity issuance, leverage, and share liquidity in ways consistent with expected accumulation or reduction in insider ownership for control purposes.     

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.     

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.     

Abnormal operating performance in IPOs: Does public float matter?

Using a unique dataset of privately held firms and companies that went public on the European and Asian stock exchanges between 2007 and 2011, we find that on average, newly listed firms experience negative abnormal operating performance in the years after the IPO. Furthermore, we document a nonlinear relation (inverted Ushaped) between public float and post-IPO abnormal operating performance. We interpret this quadratic relation as evidence that for each level of public float, factors that facilitate the convergence of interest between insiders and outsiders (namely, monitoring effects) and entrenchment factors (namely, agency problems) are both at work. Specifically, we suggest that at low levels of public float, increasing the float intensifies agency problems less than it increases monitoring effects. However, at a high level of public float, the situation is inverted, and increasing public float intensifies agency problems much more than it facilitates the convergence of interest between insiders and outsiders.     

Does insiders share pledging stifle innovation? Evidence from China

We examine the relation between insiders share pledging activities for personal loans and firm innovation. Firstly, we find a negative effect of both the existence of pledging and the intensity of pledging activities on firm innovation, measured by R&D and patent application. Pledging by insiders with decision rights is associated with a 4.6% decline in R&D activities and 0.5% decline in patent applications, respectively, which accounts for 4.0% and 10.6% of the mean of each variable. This result holds using a propensity-score matched sample. In addition, we instrument pledging activities by financing constraints faced by other firms controlled by the same controlling insiders who pledge shares. IV estimation yield similar results. Secondly, we find share pledge activities have more pronounced effect on firm innovations when firms are located in areas with strong property rights protection, when firms are non-SOEs, or when pledging insiders serve on corporate boards. Lastly, we also find a negative effect of share pledging of other firms with common shareholders on firm innovations of interest. Overall, our findings suggest that pledging shares by insiders stifle firm innovation because share pledging reduce insiders' preference for risk taking.     

Employee treatment and firm innovation

We identify firm innovation as a channel through which the treatment of employees affects firm value. Long‐term incentive theory supports positive effects of ‘good’ employee treatment on innovation. Alternatively, entrenchment theory suggests such treatment will lead to complacency and shirking, hence deterring innovation. These opposing views merit investigation since human capital is increasingly essential to the growth and success of a firm. Using the KLD database and patent/citation data, we find a significant positive relationship between favorable employee treatment and the innovation quantity and quality of a firm. Furthermore, we find that the positive treatment of employees improves innovation focus – more innovation related to firms’ core business, leading to greater firm value via the increased economic value of patents. These findings, robust to endogeneity concerns, provide support for the long‐term incentive hypothesis, suggesting that well‐treated employees increase firm innovation. Thus, firm innovation represents a channel through which positive employee treatment enhances firm value.     

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.     

Growth opportunities,short-term market pressure,and dual-class share structure

We test the hypothesis that dual-class shares can help managers focus on the implementation of long-term projects while avoiding short-term market pressure. Consistent with this idea, we find that dual-class firms face lower short-term market pressure (fewer transient or short-term institutional holdings, a lower probability of being taken over, and lower analyst coverage) than propensity-matched single-class firms. Dual-class firms also tend to have more growth opportunities (higher sales growth and R&D intensity). The dual-class share structure increases the market valuation of high growth firms, in contrast to the finding in the literature that dual-class firms trade at lower valuations. To address endogeneity concerns, we evaluate a sample of dual-class share unifications and find that growth opportunities decline while short-term market pressure increases after share unifications.     

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.