Multinationals' diversification and the risk-return trade-off

This paper advances a theoretical rationale to explain Bowman's paradox (1980) that firms with high returns can have low risk. Here we draw on the rich body of international management research and argue that global market diversification, which provides firms with three distinct options and opportunities over domestic firms, can explain the high return-low risk profile. We also argue that no strong theoretical rationale exists in support of either related or unrelated product diversification generating such a favorable risk-return profile. By integrating both the product and the global market dimension of diversification into our analyses and by controlling for the industry effect, this paper sheds new light on the relationship between corporate diversification and the risk-return tradeoff. The results of this research, which are based on the diversification experiences of 125 multinationals, reveal the strikingly important, though so far overlooked, role that global market diversification plays in the joint management of corporate risk and return. Global market diversification here reflects both the multiplicity of international market areas in which a firm operates and the distribution pattern of a firm's industries across these multiple areas.     

Corporate diversification and the value of individual firms: A Bayesian approach

Research summary: Prior theory suggests that the performance effects of a firm's diversification strategy depend on a firm's individual resources and capabilities and the setting within which it is operating. However, prior tests of this theory have examined the average diversification‐performance relationship across all firms, instead of estimating the diversification‐performance relationship at the individual firm level. Efforts to estimate this average relationship are inconsistent with a central assumption of much of strategic management theory—that firms maximize value by choosing strategies that exploit their heterogeneous resources and individual situation. By adopting an approach that allows an evaluation of the diversification‐performance relationship for individual firms, this article shows that firms, both focused and diversified, tend to choose that diversification strategy—focus, related diversification, or unrelated diversification—that maximizes value. Managerial summary: Instead of a universal diversification discount or premium, this article shows that the effect of diversification on performance is heterogeneously distributed across firms and that firms tend to be rational in their diversification decisions. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Strategic control systems and relative r&d investment in large multiproduct firms

This paper hypothesizes that tight financial controls associated with large diversified M-form firms lead to a short-term, low-risk orientation and thereby lower relative investment in R&D. Further, it is hypothesized that increasing levels of diversification require different control systems which have significant implications for investing in R&D. Results of the study of 124 major U.S. firms suggest that less diversified U-form firms invest more heavily in R&D than more diversified M-form firms after controlling for size and industry effects. Additionally, dominant business firms invested more in R&D than either related or unrelated business firms. Finally, the relationship between R&D intensity and market performance was negative for related and unrelated firms. The findings suggest that the market evaluates R&D investment more positively for firms that are organized to seek synergy than for those that are organized to pursue a hedging (or diversification) strategy.     

DIVERSIFICATION AS REAL OPTIONS AND THE IMPLICATIONS ON FIRM-SPECIFIC RISK AND PERFORMANCE

The management literature posits that firms can create value through diversification. In contrast, the established finance literature concludes that diversified firms destroy value.

This paper suggests a way to reconcile these two warring camps by articulating a new theory of the way in which diversification can add value not by increasing performance, but by reducing risk in ways mat investors cannot replicate.

Specifically, diversification, understood dynamically, provides a way for companies competing in especially turbulent industries to hedge the competitive risk attendant to “convergence” phenomena. That is, in industries where the optimal operating scope of a firm is in question because the promise of convergence cannot be exploited using market-mediating mechanisms, firms will “over diversify” as a hedge against uncertain future reconfigurations of industry boundaries.

In other words, these firms diversify as a way to create “real options” on future integration. These options create a form of “strategy insurance” that investors can not recreate with a portfolio of focused firms: investments in two separate, focused firms do not create an option on a single firm that encompasses the activities of those two companies. As uncertainty spawned of convergence begins to fade, strategically-hedged firms will re-focus their operations by exercising or abandoning their options on integration in a manner appropriate to the demands of their newly-defined marketplaces.

Option-creating diversification has potentially profound implications on operating performance and risk profile. Most significantly, options-based diversification is asserted to cause the operating performance of such firms to fall as they diversify and increase as they focus, in keeping with the observations of the finance literature. Yet the firms will have created value for shareholders by compensating for significant strategic risks that investors cannot otherwise hedge.     

Estimating risk-return relationships: An analysis of measures

We show that the risk-return paradox can be partly explained by the choice of accounting risk and return measures. Returns computed with equity or assets from End-of-Period (EOP) annual reports produce negative risk-return associations, while measures calculated using Beginning-of-Period (BOP) equity or assets yield more positive relationships. The likelihood of reporting negative relationships using EOP methods is accentuated by dividing samples at median returns. Below-median firms suffer losses and may appear to have lower and more variable returns than above-median firms, simply because of EOP methods. Our results show that mean and variance measures are unstable and risk-return relationships vary inversely the number of firms reporting mean losses.     

Dynamic and risk measurement perspectives on bowman's risk-return paradox for strategic management: An empirical study

Bowman's (1980, 1982) widely quoted papers have reported the existence of a risk-return paradox for strategic management. In this paper the authors examine the dynamic behavior of the risk-return relationship and analyze whether the risk-return paradox is stable across time. The analysis involves tracking Bowman's so-called negative association ratio across time. Using accounting measures of risk and return, it is demonstrated that while the paradox holds during the 1970s, the finding does not hold in the environment of the 1960s. Further, the paradox disappears if market-based risk measures are used. Some implications for strategic management are then discussed and attention is directed towards the meaning of risk in the context of strategic management. In addition, possible explanations for this paradox are evaluated and directions for further research are suggested.     

Research notes and communications corporate restructuring and strategic change: The effect on diversification strategy and R & D intensity

In the 1980s a number of large corporations restructured their diversified businesses through divestitures. It is hypothesized that restructuring activity focused on firms at intermediate levels of diversification (e.g., related-linked) which have a mixture of related and unrelated business units. Results confirm this hypothesis which explains that such mixed corporate strategies create organizational and control inefficiencies in managing both related and unrelated types of business units. Restructured firms were also found to move towards two types of different internal capital markets (related and unrelated). Most restructuring firms moved toward lower levels of diversification (e.g., related-constrained), although some moved toward higher levels of diversification (e.g., unrelated business). Also, this study finds restructuring firms that changed their corporate strategy by reducing diversified scope increased their R&D intensity. Firms that restructured and increased their diversified scope decreased R&D intensity. This result suggested a partial substitution between diversification and R&D activity.     

Diversification Strategies and the Experience of Top Executives of Large Firms

Prior research by Berg and Pitts has shown that there is a difference in the diversification strategies followed by major corporations; this strategy depends upon the type of organizational structure at the corporate level. This paper extends research on diversification strategy by testing the hypotheses that the skills and competence of the incumbent chief executive officer of a major firm are associated with its diversification strategy. Using empirical data spanning the years 1965-1980 for fifty-three major U.S. firms that have diversified and grown, it is shown that the background and prior experience of the incumbent CEO of each firm is significantly associated with the diversification strategy of a firm. This has implications for boards of directors in their search for and selection of top level corporate executives, as well as implications for managers in search of executive jobs.     

Using simulated mergers to evaluate corporate diversification strategies

This study suggests that simulated mergers can be used to help evaluate the effects of diversification on corporate performance. The results, which are consistent with a risk-reduction motive for conglomerate diversification, imply that conglomerate strategies focused on fewer and larger units may be advantageous in terms of certain measures of risk and return. Forecast error is used here to measure strategic risk, and return on equity is used to measure return.     

Search behavior of the diversified firm: The impact of fit on innovation

This paper provides a new approach to account for the relationship between diversification and innovation by integrating insights concerning strategic fit. We argue that the type of diversification strategy leads to greater innovation output when the appropriate technological search strategy is employed. Using a longitudinal study of the patenting activity of 258 manufacturing firms, we find that strategic fit is important for innovation output. More specifically, a related diversification strategy leads to greater innovation when firms use a narrow technological search strategy. In contrast, an unrelated diversification strategy leads to greater innovation when a broader technological search strategy is used. Implications for future research are discussed. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Diversification strategies,business cycles and economic performance

Two major diversification strategies of firms are examined: diversification into related businesses and diversification into unrelated businesses. The first strategy attempts to exploit operating synergies. In the second, the firm attempts to gain financial benefits from its ability to increase leverage due to a greater stability of cash flows. The study utilizes a large sample affirms to assess empirically the benefits and costs of these two diversification strategies by developing a new measure of diversification across business cycles and economic sectors. This new measure is compared with Berry—Herfindahl type measures of total diversification and recent measures of diversification into related businesses. The results indicate that pure financial diversification is associated with (a) more stable cash flows, i.e. lower operating risk; (b) increased levels of leverage; and (c) lower profitability. These observations are in accord with the theory. We also reaffirm that firms which diversify into related businesses have, on the average, higher profitability than non-diversified firms, although these results are not always statistically significant.     

The Strategy and structure of top 100 Japanese industrial enterprises 1950–1970

This paper examines the strategic and structural development of the 100 largest Japanese manufacturing enterprises between 1950 and 1970. Unlike other studies of Japanese business the author focuses not only on some of the key differences between Western and Japanese firms such as the emergence of widely diversified industrial groups, but also on similarities. Using the model developed originally by Channon the author traces the development of diversification in Japan and the emergence of the multidivisional forms of organization which as in the West prove to be the major strategic and structural forms in Japan by 1970.     

Acquisition strategy and the market position of acquiring firms

Research suggests that firms which emphasize unrelated diversification through mergers and acquisitions are often located in unfavorable market positions, in terms of the attractiveness of their industries and their competitive positions within these industries. However, these previous research efforts have not established whether such positions will also be linked to firms using non-conglomerate acquisition strategies. This study utilizes three acquisition strategies—conglomerate, technology-related, and marketing-related—to hypothesize differences in the market position of acquisitive firms. Results show that, while acquisitive growth is generally associated with a decline in market position, one particular acquisition strategy, the marketing-related strategy, is associated with a distinctly superior position. Firms utilizing this strategy were found to be in more profitable industries and to have higher market shares in these industries.     

The industry context of strategy,structure and performance: The U.K. brewing industry

This paper is concerned with identifying influences on the competitive performance of companies involved in the U.K. brewing industry. It seeks to identify key strategic characteristics, relate these to company performance and move towards an explanation of the influences that emerge as influencing competitive standing. It argues that diversification strategies must be studied as an aspect of industry structure, and shows that more focused, limited diversification and regional brewing strategies may be preferable in the context of the U.K. brewing industry. The research findings conflict with those of many previous studies which research the diversification strategies of primarily large firms (both in the U.S. and the U.K.) drawn from across-industry samples (e.g. the Fortune 500 firms) and which identify superior performance for related diversification strategies. The study therefore provides support for the hypothesis that there is an optimum level of diversification within an industry which balances economies of scope and diseconomies of organizational scale. In the context of the U.K. brewing industry the traditional single or dominant business brewers seem to have found the strategy which matches firms effectively with the important characteristics of industry structure.     

Do analysts add value when they most can? Evidence from corporate spin‐offs

This article investigates how securities analysts help investors understand the value of diversification. By studying the research that analysts produce about companies that have announced corporate spin‐offs, we gain unique insights into how analysts portray diversified firms to the investment community. We find that while analysts' research about these companies is associated with improved forecast accuracy, the value of their research about the spun‐off subsidiaries is more limited. For both diversified firms and their spun‐off subsidiaries, analysts' research is more valuable when information asymmetry between the management of these entities and investors is higher. These findings contribute to the corporate strategy literature by shedding light on the roots of the diversification discount and by showing how analysts' research enables investors to overcome asymmetric information. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Some evidence on the gains from international diversification for Canadian investors

It is easily demonstrated ex post that international portfolio diversification results in increased returns and reduced risk. However, to determine the value of international diversification as an effective portfolio management strategy, it is necessary to form portfolios based on information available at the time of their composition, and then evaluate the performance of the portfolio in the following months. This is the main focus of our study, which adds several innovations to past research. First, we use daily rates of return on 23 national indices to evaluate the value of international diversification for a Canadian investor. Second, we evaluate the predictive value of the historical variance-covariance matrix vis-à-vis alternative models. Third, we use the Bayes-Stein correction to reduce errors in the historical return vector. Finally, we use a quadratic programming model in order to introduce the effects of constraints on the optimisation process. The results, obtained over the 1986–1989 period, are not in favour of international diversification. Returns on diversified portfolios were often lower than returns on the low-risk Canada market during the low-performance portfolio test periods. In other cases, higher returns on diversified portfolios could not be justified by their higher volatility. It is possible that these results may be partially due to the effects of the market crash in October 1987. Nevertheless, our study brings up many directions for future research. Is international diversification in fact profitable? Is portfolio optimisation appropriate in an international context? Finally, what is the best way to estimate the expected return vector in various markets?     

The strategic value of CEO external directorate networks: implications for CEO compensation

This study examines the relationship between CEO external directorate networks and CEO compensation. Drawing on previous research showing a link between executives' external networks, firm strategy, and performance, the study argues that executive external networks are strategically valuable to firms; thus, they should be reflected in executive compensation. The study further examines whether firm diversification, with its elevated demand for strategic resources, moderates the relationship between CEO external directorate networks and pay. Hypotheses are tested using a sample of 460 Fortune 1000 firms. Analyses reveal that the rewards to CEO external directorate networks are contingent upon the firm's level of diversification. Implications for future research and practice are discussed. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Variations in ownership behavior and propensity to diversify: a study of the Indian corporate context

The relationship between ownership and diversification has been the focus of renewed debate between financial economists and strategic management scholars. While financial economists hold that manager‐controlled firms tend to reflect higher levels of diversification, strategy researchers argue that ownership and diversification are not systematically related. In throwing light on this debate, this study uses a fine‐grained definition of ownership groups to explore how the different objectives and monitoring predispositions of distinct ownership groups might influence diversification strategy. The empirical examination is set in India to offer a striking contrast from the predominantly U.S.‐based studies that have shaped the ongoing debate. Findings show that diverse ownership groups adopt different postures in monitoring and/or influencing organizational diversification. While some ownership groups are closely associated with focused strategies, and some encourage diversification, others are quite indifferent. These results suggest that the context‐specific variation among ownership groups is germane to our understanding of diversification strategy. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Does corporate ownership structure affect its strategy towards diversification?

We claim that there is a link between corporate control structure and managers’ strategy towards unrelated mergers and risk diversification. Companies with greater ownership concentration are less diversified. Evidence also shows that corporate diversification generally results in value loss while focussing is value increasing. This highlights the potentially detrimental effect of agency problems on corporate strategy. Copyright © 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Economies of Scope,Resource Relatedness,and the Dynamics of Corporate Diversification

Research summary: The dominant view has been that businesses that are more related to each other are more often combined within diversified firms. This study uses a dynamic model to demonstrate that, with inter‐temporal economies of scope, diversified firms are more likely to combine moderately related businesses than the most‐related businesses. That effect occurs because strong relatedness reduces redeployment costs and makes firms redeploy all resources to better performing businesses. The strength of that effect depends on inducements for redeployment measured as the current return advantage of one business over another business, volatilities of business returns, and correlation of those returns. This study develops hypotheses for those relationships and suggests empirical operationalizations, encouraging empiricists to retest the implications of relatedness for the dynamics of corporate diversification. Managerial summary: It is believed that diversified firms are more likely to combine more‐related businesses because relatedness enables sharing of resources between businesses. Indeed, a firm can apply knowledge created in one business to another business, avoiding costly duplication in knowledge development. Resource sharing also adds value when a firm offers several products, adding the convenience of one‐stop shopping and charging higher prices. However, resource sharing is not the only motivation for corporate diversification. In environments where profitability of businesses changes frequently, firms diversify by redeploying part of resources from an underperforming business to a better performing business. This study uses a dynamic model to demonstrate that, with that second motivation for corporate diversification, firms end up combining moderately related businesses rather than the most‐related businesses. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.