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.     

The efficacy of regulatory intervention: Evidence from the distribution of informed option trading

A substantive body of equity-market academic research documents an extensive range of costs arising from the SEC’s October 2000 adoption of strictures on selective disclosure and insider trading; suggesting an unusual outcome, specifically, an increase in informed trading. We investigate the efficacy of the SEC’s regulations by examining informed trading in an attractive setting for exploiting private information; the options market. Using data on the S&P 1500 industrial firms, our analysis indicates that about 38% of firms exhibited symptoms of informed option trading prior to regulatory intervention. After regulatory intervention, we observe that only 19% of firms show symptoms of informed trading. In additional testing of ADR firms – explicitly exempt from complying with Reg FD, we find no evidence of a change in informed option trading from pre- to post-regulation; suggesting that the SEC’s strictures on US firms led a to a significant reduction in informed option trading. Notably, our proxies for large shareholder and financial analyst access are associated with the largest decreases in informed option trading. In developing a unique measure of informed trading based on option market data, we provide evidence on the efficacy of security regulation in limiting informed trading.     

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.     

Challenges to the Ideal Property Tax

A bstract . In the 19th century state-appointed tax revision commissions began to influence the reform of the property tax. By 1893, some 28 commissions had been appointed. Their remarkably similar calls for reform set the parameters for much of the academic research in the 20th century when this tax instrument was transformed from a local tax to a federal-state-local exaction. As now administered, the property tax is no longer a unified tax. Separate assessment criteria make it a tax on mines, utilities, business property, household personalty and on housing. The latter is modified in different ways by homestead exemption (41 states), circuit breakers (50 sates) and use of classified schedules (17 states). Along with unprofessional and inaccurate assessments as well as politicized assessment practices, this has changed the tax to a general title for disparate fiscal activities in the 68,000 jurisdictions that use the property tax.