Do Corporate Governance Motives Drive Hedge Fund and Private Equity Fund Activities?

We document empirical evidence that both hedge fund (HF) and private equity fund (PE) investments are driven by corporate governance improvements, but address different types of agency conflicts. Whereas HFs focus on firms without a controlling shareholder, in particular family shareholders, PEs invest in firms with low managerial ownership. Both appear to address free cash flow problems differently. Aiming at increasing dividends, HFs tend to use commitment devices that can be implemented over a short horizon. PEs are inclined to longer‐term strategies: they target firms that are particularly well suited for leverage increases because of low expected financial distress costs.     

Sober business: Shared value creation between the insurance industry and the temperance movement

This study examines how the Swedish insurance company Ansvar established and expended an international business from the 1930s to the 1990s with the motives to insure total abstainers while battling against alcohol abuse in society. Anvar represented a for-profit business that aimed at addressing social issues. The case provides a historical example of how shared value was created between the company and the temperance movement for the joint goal of improving society through temperance. The article argues that the company’s decline was due to changing values, where alcohol was no longer seen as a threat to society.     

The role of contracts and intellectual property rights in open innovation

Our exploratory empirical study, based on interviews and a survey of firms, addresses a number of questions on the role of formal contracts and intellectual property rights (IPR) in the context of firm-to-firm open innovation (OI). We find that firms active in OI have a very strong preference for the governance of their OI relationships with other firms through formal contracts. Also, despite the open nature of OI, firms still see IPR as highly relevant to the protection of their innovative capabilities. We find the degree of openness of firms, their formal legal attitude, and the competitive dynamics of their product market environment to be related to the preference of OI firms for IPR. Furthermore, the strength of firms’ internal R&D capabilities increases the positive relationship between openness and the preference for IPR.     

The Case for Secondary Buyouts as Exit Channel

Do private equity firms have a clear pecking order when deciding on exit channels for their portfolio companies? Are secondary buyouts—that is, sales to other PE firms—always an exit of last resort? And are there company‐ or market‐related factors that have a clear and predictable influence on decisions to pursue secondary buyouts? Using a proprietary dataset of over 1,100 leveraged buyouts that exited in North America or Europe between 1995 and 2008, the authors attempt to answer these questions by analyzing the returns associated with public, private, and secondary (or “financial”) exits. Based on their analysis of the realized returns, there is no clear pecking order of exit types. Secondary buyouts deliver rates of return that are the equal of those achieved through public exits. In addition, the authors assess the relationship between the likelihood of choosing a financial exit and certain company‐related as well as market‐related factors. Portfolio companies with greater debt capacity are more likely to be sold in secondary buyouts. Furthermore, increases in both the liquidity of debt markets and the amount of undrawn capital commitments to the private equity industry increase the probability of exit through secondary buyouts.