Corporate Diversification: What Gets Discounted?

Prior literature finds that diversified firms sell at a discount relative to the sum of the imputed values of their business segments. We explore this documented discount and argue that it stems from risk–reducing effects of corporate diversification. Consistent with this risk–reduction hypothesis, we find that (a) shareholder losses in diversification are a function of firm leverage, (b) all equity firms do not exhibit a diversification discount, and (c) using book values of debt to compute excess value creates a downward bias for diversified firms. Overall, the results indicate that diversification is insignificantly related to excess firm value.     

The Economics of Director Heterogeneity

We investigate the potential costs and benefits of firms constituting a heterogeneous pool of directors relative to more homogeneous boards. We measure director heterogeneity along six separate dimensions and divide board heterogeneity into occupational and social components. Our empirical analysis indicates that corporate complexity and managerial control exhibit significant influence on board heterogeneity. Using the heterogeneity of the county population of the firm's headquarters as an instrument, we also find that investors place valuation premiums on heterogeneous boards in complex firms but discount heterogeneity in less complex firms. Overall, our analysis indicates greater heterogeneity may not necessarily improve board efficacy.     

Government Budgets and Public Services: Some Criteria for Determining the Sources and Levels of Public Goods, including Transport Services

Instances of non-optimal consumption of public goods and services can easily arise if individual demand curves are not identical. It does not follow, however, that the best solution to the problem of too little consumption is an increase in government expenditure. Special user charges and voluntary contributions of time, goods, and money on the part of persons that value public goods more highly than the general population have long been important ways of supplementing government spending for social goods. The work trip appears to be a good example of a service area where existing cost structures and pricing methods may be biased against the voluntary associations which are needed to make the United States less dependent on foreign oil. This bias could be corrected by using an income-tax-surcharge to help finance the fixed costs associated with mass transit and other types of work trip pooling arrangements.     

Founding-Family Ownership and Firm Performance: Evidence from the S&P 500

We investigate the relation between founding‐family ownership and firm performance. We find that family ownership is both prevalent and substantial; families are present in one‐third of the S&P 500 and account for 18 percent of outstanding equity. Contrary to our conjecture, we find family firms perform better than nonfamily firms. Additional analysis reveals that the relation between family holdings and firm performance is nonlinear and that when family members serve as CEO, performance is better than with outside CEOs. Overall, our results are inconsistent with the hypothesis that minority shareholders are adversely affected by family ownership, suggesting that family ownership is an effective organizational structure.     

MAINBANKS AND INVESTMENT EFFICIENCY IN FINANCIAL DISTRESS

We explore the effects of mainbanks on investment efficiency in financial distress. The previous literature argues that firms with close financial relationships with banks have lower costs of financial distress because of a reduced underinvestment problem. Although benefits may accrue to such close relationships, we contend shortcomings are possible as well. A firm in financial distress without a mainbank may be forced to reduce investment or sell assets to a buyer who has a higher value. However, for a firm with a mainbank, this disciplinary force is weakened. To firms with poor investment opportunities, the presence of mainbanks may actually induce an overinvestment problem. The empirical findings reported here are consistent with this idea. JEL classification: G31, G33, G34.     

Subordinate board structures

The board of directors is a flat governance structure where each director has an equal vote in determining the collective actions taken by the group. Yet, some boards choose to delegate authority for specific tasks to numerous committees, while others choose to create relatively few subcommittees of the board. We investigate the determinants of subordinate board structures, exploring both their benefits and costs. Using a sample of the S&P 1500 we find that subordinate board structures are positively related to board size and the proportion of outside directors, even after controlling firm characteristics such as complexity and ownership structure. Further tests indicate that these board structures can offset the negative associations that board size and the proportion of outsiders can have with firm performance. Yet, in firms with relatively small or insider oriented boards, where co-ordination problems among directors or social loafing may be less pronounced, we find that subordinate board structures are negatively related to firm performance. Categorizing committees as either monitoring or advisory, we find that both types of committees appear related to firm performance. Taken as whole, these results are consistent with the idea that subordinate board structures can be a costly remedy to alleviate problems that arise with larger, more outsider dominated boards.     

Founders,heirs, and corporate opacity in the United States

We argue that information about firm activities can vary substantially in the presence of founder or heir ownership, thereby influencing the risks borne by minority investors. We explore two hypotheses with regard to these controlling shareholders and corporate transparency, focusing on their role as monitor in-place and their potential to exploit firm opacity to accrue private benefits of control. To test these notions, we create an opacity index that ranks the relative transparency of the two thousand largest industrial US firms and find founder and heir ownership in 22% and 25% of these firms, respectively. Our analysis indicates that, in large, publicly traded companies, both founder and heir firms are significantly more opaque than diffuse shareholder firms. We also find that founder and heir-controlled firms exhibit a negative relation to performance in all but the most transparent firms. Surprisingly, additional tests reveal that concerns about divergences in ownership versus control (management type, dual class shares, and board influence) appear to be substantially less important than corporate opacity in explaining the performance impacts of founder and heir control. Finally, we decompose corporate opacity into disclosure and market scrutiny components, finding that the disclosure quality component appears to be of greater importance to investors. However, irrespective of whether these controlling shareholders create or stay in the firm because of corporate opacity, our analysis suggests that founders and heirs in large, publicly traded firms exploit opacity to extract private benefits at the expense of minority investors.     

State and Local Electric Utility Taxes:

ABSTRACT Competitive forces emerging nationally across the electric utility sector as a result of actual and anticipated deregulatory activity have forced the industry, various governmental units, and the general public to consider a number of important issues. One major concern is the extent to which state and local taxes imposed on the major investor-owned firms, traditionally embedded in regulated rates, will affect their competitive position relative to challenges from nonregulated competitors offering intrastate or interstate electricity sales. The most likely trend is tax revenue reduction accompanied by some efforts at revenue neutrality, as investor-owned firms lose their monopoly status in a more market-oriented environment and compete with smaller finns with relatively lower cost structures. The trend will also include customer-based taxation shifting the burden from the providers of electricity to the customers, with the providers remaining as tax collectors.     

Director capital and corporate disclosure quality

Conventional wisdom regarding board effectiveness emphasizes the role of board composition and incentives in alleviating conflicts of interest. We argue that board capital, however, may be a more important aspect of board efficacy since directors are the highest level agents of shareholders, meet infrequently, and shareholders have limited recourse for poor decision-making. In contrast, shareholders and the SEC can sue/prosecute directors for conflicts of interest or bias. One role of the board involves determining the depth and degree of the firm’s financial disclosures. To test the idea that high capital boards seek to provide greater disclosure quality to investors, we manually collect data on director attributes and apply factor analysis to measure the networking, educational, and experience capital of the board. The results indicate that board capital is positively related to disclosure quality, with differing key attributes for inside and outside directors. These results are robust to 2SLS and difference-in-difference approaches.     

Investment policy in family controlled firms

We explore the relation between family ownership and corporate investment policy. Our analysis centers on two incentives, risk aversion and extended investment horizons, which potentially influence the level and type of investments that family firms undertake. We find that family firms devote less capital to long-term investments than firms with diffuse ownership structures. When dividing long-term investment into its two components of R&D and capital expenditures, we note that family firms, relative to nonfamily firms, prefer investing in physical assets relative to riskier R&D projects. Additional tests indicate that family firms receive fewer patent citations per dollar of R&D investment relative to nonfamily firms. Overall, all empirical results indicate that family preferences for lower firm risk, across all family sub-types, affects corporate R&D spending and capital expenditures.