Cross-country evidence on the value of corporate industrial and international diversification

We provide evidence on the value of industrial and international diversification for more than 3000 firms from Germany, the U.K., and the U.S. Consistent with prior studies, we find that industrial diversification reduces firm value in the U.K. and the U.S. Furthermore, similar to the recent findings of Denis et al. [J. Finance 57 (2002)], we find that U.S. multinationals trade at a discount relative to firms operating only in the domestic market. This result is robust to different benchmarks used to measure the value of diversification. By contrast, we find that international diversification has no effect on the value of firms headquartered in either Germany or the U.K.     

Can growth opportunities explain the diversification discount?

We investigate the possibility that the diversification discount is due to differing growth opportunities between diversified and single-segment firms. We do this by comparing diversified business segments with individual single-segment same-industry firms of comparable growth opportunities. Using a sample of 230 diversifying firms from 1981 to 1997, we find a significant valuation discount in diversified firms even when we control for the difference in growth opportunities between diversified and single-segment firms. This result suggests that differing growth opportunities between diversified and single-segment firms cannot account for the diversification discount.     

Geographic diversification and firm value in the financial services industry

This paper investigates whether geographic diversification is value-enhancing or value-destroying in the financial services sector, broadly defined. Our dataset comprises approximately 3579 observations over the period from 1985 to 2004 and covers the entire range of U.S. financial intermediaries — commercial banks, investment banks, insurance companies, asset managers, and financial infrastructure services firms. We use two alternative measures of geographic diversification: (1) a dummy variable whether the firm reports more than one geographic segment and (2) the percentage of sales from non-domestic operations. Our results indicate that geographic diversification is not associated with a significant valuation discount in financial intermediaries. However, when accounting for the firms' main activity-areas, we find evidence of a significant discount associated with geographic diversification in securities firms and a premium in credit intermediaries and insurance companies. All these results are robust after taking into account functional diversification of the firms, a potential endogeneity of both functional and geographic diversification, and a potential value transfer from equity to debt holders by using estimates of the market value of debt.     

Credit ratings and excess value of diversification

We investigate the impact of credit ratings on the valuation of diversification. Our empirical results indicate that the existence and level of credit ratings are associated with a lower negative effect of diversification. Further analysis reveals that the mitigating effect of credit ratings on the diversification discount is more pronounced for firms with more severe information asymmetry. In addition, both a change in firm status from no rating to being rated and a change in rating level from low to high lead to a significant reduction in the diversification discount. An event study on diversification buttresses the findings by showing that the market has a less negative reaction to rated and higher-rated firms around the announcement of diversifying mergers. Our results are robust to alternative techniques used to control for potential endogeneity bias, to controlling for corporate governance, and to different sample periods. Overall, the evidence suggests that credit ratings reduce information asymmetry problems and thus mitigate the diversification discount.     

Stock Market Sensitivity to U.K. Firms' Pension Discounting Assumptions

New U.K. pension accounting regulations significantly increase the exposure of the balance sheets of U.K. firms to volatilities in pension fund valuations. We examine whether the abnormal returns of firms that voluntarily used market-based pension discount rates are significantly different from the abnormal returns of industry-matched pair samples of firms that retained traditional cost-based valuation assumptions during the period surrounding the release of the related exposure draft. We also examine the interest rate sensitivity of stock price returns over the 4-year period before and after the announcement date. Consistent with our hypotheses, U.K. stock price returns incorporate the effect of unexpected interest rate changes on sources of pension earnings for firms that voluntarily switched to market-based assumptions but do not incorporate these effects for firms that did not switch. These results suggest that unexpected changes in interest rates have a differential effect on a firm's sources of pension, financial, and core earnings.     

Do financial conglomerates create or destroy value? Evidence for the EU

There is an ongoing debate about whether firm focus creates or destroys shareholder value. Earlier literature has shown significant diversification discounts: firms that engage in multiple activities are valued lower. Various factors are important in determining the size of the discount, for example cross-subsidization and agency problems. The existing literature, however, generally focuses on non-financial firms or on banks combining investment and commercial banking. Our paper focuses specifically on the valuation of bank-insurance conglomerates. We find no universal diversification discount but significant variability. The discount is explained by the size (increasing), the familiarity with the conglomerate business model (decreasing) and the risk profile (decreasing). Our results are robust to the historical origin, the merger record and the age of the conglomerate, as well as peer group specification and outlier elimination.     

Spin‐offs: Tackling the Conglomerate Discount

Spin‐offs and other restructuring actions have risen sharply in 2011, driven by the need to streamline business models and increase corporate values. These transactions can be an effective tool for addressing the conglomerate valuation discount that has been a pervasive phenomenon over the past decade, affecting conglomerates in most regions across the world. In particular, North American and Western European conglomerates trade at valuation multiples that are roughly 10% lower than those of their pure‐play peers. A conglomerate discount also prevails in some of the emerging markets, including CEEMEA and Asia. Nevertheless, in some regions, notably Japan and Latin America, conglomerates typically trade at a premium. Although the average conglomerate discount narrowed during the financial crisis due to the perceived benefits of diversification during downturns, almost half of the conglomerates globally trade at a discount, and almost a third of all conglomerates have persistently traded at a discount during the past five years. For such companies, fixing the discount requires a simplification of the business model. The authors show that recent announcements of spin‐offs have led to significant share price outperformance by the parent company in both the short and the longterm, highlighting their effectiveness as a tool to enhance valuation. Spin‐offs can be particularly attractive for those conglomerates that operate unrelated business segments since these firms trade at a sharper discount than diversified firms operating in related businesses. The authors discuss how management should think about the financial implications of spin‐offs, including capital structure considerations, dividend policy, and turnover in the shareholder base.     

The valuation discount of multi-segment firms in Australia

This paper refines the Berger and Ofek (1995) methodology to estimate the valuation discount of multi-segment firms in Australia between 1988 and 1998. Evidence is found that based on earnings before tax, the sample of multi-segment firms traded at a 29 per cent greater discount than a comparable portfolio of single segment firms over the sample period. To explain the results further analysis shows that the valuation discount was driven by poorly performing multi-segment firms rather than multi-segment firms per se. This raises questions about studies that conclude that diversification is value destroying.     

Does Information Asymmetry Explain The Diversification Discount?

We examine the diversification discount while controlling for differences in information asymmetry between diversified and nondiversified firms. We show that both diversified and nondiversified firms with higher levels of information asymmetry have discounted firm values relative to firms with lower levels of information asymmetry, although a diversification discount remains at all levels of information asymmetry. Fixed‐effect Fama‐MacBeth regressions confirm the existence of a statistically significant relation between information asymmetry proxies and excess value, but they also show that a significant diversification discount remains after controlling for differences in information asymmetry and other firm characteristics discussed in earlier studies (e.g., size, profitability, leverage, and capital constraint).     

Valuation of diversified banks: New evidence

This paper reconsiders the effect of diversification on bank valuation. Our objective is to provide new evidence based on a unified estimation framework that places particular emphasis on separating the effects of diversification (specialised banks vs. diversified banks) from those of bank type (investment banks vs. commercial banks). Consistent with prior studies, we find a significant diversification discount at the end of the 1990s. Our main finding is that it decreases over time and practically vanishes after the financial crisis. We do not find support for the hypothesis that the diversification effect is influenced by geographical or regulatory factors. The valuation impact of bank characteristics varies over time, particularly in the financial crisis, but this structural break does not explain the observed decrease of the diversification discount. We show that the pre-crisis discount is considerably smaller in a robust regression, which in part is driven by banks with a large share of non-interest income.     

Corporate use of derivatives and excess value of diversification

We provide a link between diversification discount and corporate use of financial derivatives. We show that diversified firms benefit from financial risk management. Our findings are consistent with the notion that derivative usage lowers information asymmetry and thereby reduces the negative valuation effects of diversification. Our evidence complements the earlier findings of both the risk management literature and diversification discount literature and is robust to controls for endogeneity and information asymmetry levels.     

Is the diversification discount caused by the book value bias of debt?

We analyze whether the diversification discount is driven by the book value bias of corporate debt. Book values of debt may be a more downward biased proxy of the market value of debt for diversified firms, relative to undiversified firms, as diversification leads to lower firm risk. Thus, measures of firm value based on book values of debt undervalue diversified firms relative to focused firms. Our paper complements recent literature which uses market values to test the risk reduction hypothesis for a subsample of firms for which debt is traded. Alternatively, we employ market value of debt estimates for the whole firm universe. Consistent with the above hypothesis, we show that the use of book values of debt underestimates the value of diversified firms. There is no discount for mainly equity financed firms and lower distress risk and equity volatility for diversified firms. More concentrated ownership increases firm valuation.     

Does corporate diversification by business groups create value? Evidence from Korean chaebols

We investigate the valuation effects of diversification activities by Korean business groups known as chaebols. Employing an extensive dataset of Korean firms and accounting for the endogeneity problem associated with firms' diversification decisions, we offer reconciling evidence that unrelated diversification by Korean firms erodes firm value, but their related diversification does not decrease firm value. Undocumented in the existing literature, we further provide new evidence that a firm's affiliation to a large business group amplifies the valuation effect of firm-level diversification, such that the non-negative or weak positive valuation effect of related diversification is stronger for large business group firms. These findings are supportive of the notion that the unique characteristics of large business group firms such as stronger internal factor markets enable these firms to take advantage of the synergic benefits associated with related diversification. Our findings are robust to different model and sample specifications.     

Value, Survival, and the Evolution of Firm Organizational Structure

We examine corporate product diversification as a dynamic process. Consistent with prior research, we find that the average diversification discount is about 8% when using the standard value-multiple approach. However, we find that a significant portion of the diversification discount arises from benchmark comparisons of value ratios of mature firms with those of very young firms that are more likely to have high value multiples. The magnitude of the diversification discount falls by 15% to 30% when we control for firm age. We also show that diversification reduces the mortality rate of firms, and we provide evidence that mature firms pursue diversification strategies partly as a means to exit stagnant business segments for industries that are more highly valued.     

Diversification,Performance, and the Corporate Life Cycle

This paper investigates the relation between the extent of diversification in firms and their performance at different life cycle stages. To illustrate the joint endogeneity of diversification and performance, we treat both the extent of diversification and firm performance as endogenous variables in a simultaneous equation system. Empirical results reveal that corporate diversification erodes firm value. Overall, firms in their growing stages experience a significant diversification discount; however, mature firms do not show such findings. Although unrelated diversification leads to trading at a discount in all growing and mature firms, conversely, related diversification exhibits an evident premium in mature firms.     

The impact of geographic diversification on firm performance

This paper empirically examines the economic effects of both corporate industrial and geographic diversifications. Using a sample of 28,050 firm-year observations from 1990 to 1998, we find that industrial and geographic diversifications are associated with firm value decrease. Consistent with Denis et al. [Denis, D. J., Denis, D. K., and Yost, K. (2002). Global diversification, industrial diversification, and firm value. Journal of Finance, 57, 1951-1979], the costs of corporate diversification may outweigh the benefits of diversification. We find that geographically diversified firms have higher R&D expenditures, advertising expenses, operating income, ROE and ROA than industrially diversified firms. In addition, higher R&D expenditures create value for multi-segment global firms, but not for single-segment global firms. This result implies that there exists an interaction effect between industrial and geographic diversification. We also examine the effects of agency cost issues, as characterized by the diversification discount, on both industrial and geographic diversification. Consistent with the agency explanation, firms with high equity-based compensation are associated with higher firm value than firms with low equity-based compensation. Also, we find that firms with a higher insider ownership percentage are associated with higher excess value.     

The Sarbanes-Oxley act and corporate investment: A structural assessment

We assess the impact of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 on corporate investment in an investment Euler equation framework. We allow a dummy for the passage of the Act to affect the rate at which managers discount future investment payoffs. Using generalized method of moments estimators, we find that the rate U.S. firm managers apply to discount investment projects rises significantly after 2002, while the discount rate for U.K. firms remains unchanged. The effects of the legislation on corporate investment are asymmetric, and are much more significant among relatively small firms. We also find that well-governed firms, firms with a credit rating, and accelerated filers of Section 404 of the Act have become more cautious about investment.     

Diversification and risk-adjusted performance: A quantile regression approach

The effect of diversification on firm performance has been debated. We reexamine the effect using a sample of 44,248 observations of non-financial US firms for the 1997–2009 period employing the quantile regression approach. Our empirical results show that the effect of diversification on firm performance is not homogeneous across various quantile levels: the diversification discount (premium) shows up in firms with high (low) RoE quantiles. Further, we find that diversification affects firm risk as well. Therefore, we consider a risk-adjusted performance measure and find that both diversification discount and premium disappear, which is consistent with the risk-return trade-off principle.     

Explaining the Diversification Discount

This paper argues that the documented discount on diversified firms is not per se evidence that diversification destroys value. Firms choose to diversify. We use three alternative econometric techniques to control for the endogeneity of the diversification decision, and find evidence supporting the self–selection of diversifying firms. We find a strong negative correlation between a firm's choice to diversify and firm value. The diversification discount always drops, and sometimes turns into a premium. There also exists evidence of self–selection by refocusing firms. These results point to the importance of explicitly modeling the endogeneity of the diversification status in analyzing its effect on firm value.     

The Value of Diversification During the Conglomerate Merger Wave

The current trend toward corporate focus reverses the diversification trend of the late 1960s and early 1970s. This article examines the value of diversification when many corporations started to diversify. I find no evidence that diversified companies were valued at a premium over single segment firms during the 1960s and 1970s. On the contrary, there was a large diversification discount during the 1960s, but this discount declined to zero during the 1970s. Insider ownership was negatively related to diversification during the 1960s, but when the diversification discount declined, firms with high insider ownership were the first to diversify.