Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis

Topics: Property, S corporation, Shareholder Pages: 37 (12569 words) Published: January 17, 2012
JOURNAL OF FINANCIAL AND QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS doi:10.1017/S0022109011000226

Vol. 46, No. 4, Aug. 2011, pp. 943–966

COPYRIGHT 2011, MICHAEL G. FOSTER SCHOOL OF BUSINESS, UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON, SEATTLE, WA 98195

Governance Problems in Closely Held Corporations
Venky Nagar, Kathy Petroni, and Daniel Wolfenzon ∗

Abstract
A major governance problem in closely held corporations is the majority shareholders’ expropriation of minority shareholders. As a solution, legal and finance research recommends that the main shareholder surrender some control to minority shareholders via ownership rights. We test this proposition on a large data set of closely held corporations. We find that shared-ownership firms report a substantially larger return on assets and lower expense-to-sales ratios. These findings are robust to institutionally motivated corrections for endogeneity of ownership structure. We provide evidence on the presence of governance problems and the effectiveness of shared ownership as a solution in settings characterized by illiquidity of ownership.

I.

Introduction

The corporate finance and governance literature with very few exceptions has focused on two extreme ownership structures: i) exclusively atomistic shareholders, and ii) atomistic shareholders and a single large shareholder (see Laeven and Levine’s (2008) extensive review). It is only recently that studies are beginning to explore the intermediate ownership structure with multiple large shareholders. Most of the empirical studies in this emerging literature examine European public firms (Laeven and Levine (2008), Lehmann and Weigand (2000), Faccio, Lang, and Young (2001), and Maury and Pajuste (2005)).1 However, a recent body of analytical research suggests that multiple large owners are particularly relevant to governance when ownership is illiquid (e.g., Bennedsen and Wolfenzon (2000)).

∗ Nagar, venky@umich.edu, Ross School of Business, University of Michigan, 701 Tappan St., Ann Arbor, MI 48109; Petroni, petroni@msu.edu, Broad College of Business, Michigan State University, 315 Eppley Center, East Lansing, MI 48824; Wolfenzon, dw2382@columbia.edu, Graduate School of Business, Columbia University, 3022 Broadway, New York, NY 10027, and NBER. We are especially grateful to Luc Laeven (the referee), whose comments on the paper substantially improved the exposition and analyses. We also thank Jill Fisch, Paul Malatesta (the editor), Andrei Shleifer, and seminar participants at INSEAD, University of Michigan, New York University (NYU), Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and the 2007 NYU/Penn Conference on Law and Finance. 1 A notable exception is Faccio and Lang (2002), who document the ownership patterns of both public and private western European firms.

943

944

Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis

We therefore examine the role of multiple large shareholders in an important illiquid ownership setting: closely held corporations in the United States. The vast majority of firms in the United States are closely held corporations.2 The latest U.S. Census indicates 7 million corporate tax filers, of which only about 8,000 are public firms. Closely held corporations are also vitally important to the economy: They produce 51% of the private sector output and employ 52% of the labor force.3 Closely held corporations are also an important part of the business landscape in other countries, constituting the private corporation in Britain, the close corporation in Japan, the GmbH firm in Germany, and the SARL firm in France (Armour, Hansmann, and Kraakman (2009)). As a result, governance problems in closely held corporations constitute an important economic problem. Firms in general face two types of governance problems: the governance problem between managers and shareholders, and the governance problem between majority and minority shareholders (Shleifer and Vishny (1997)). While both governance problems exist in private firms, legal...


References: Ang, J. S.; R. A. Cole; and J. W. Lin. “Agency Costs and Ownership Structure.” Journal of Finance, 55 (2000), 81–106. Angrist, J. D., and A. B. Krueger. “Instrumental Variables and the Search for Identification: From Supply and Demand to Natural Experiments.” Journal of Economic Perspectives, 15 (2001), 69–85. Armour, J.; H. Hansmann, and R. Kraakman. “What Is Corporate Law?” In The Anatomy of Corporate Law: A Comparative and Functional Approach, R. Kraakman, J. Armour, P. Davies, L. Enriques, H. Hansmann, G. Hertig, K. Hopt, H. Kanda, and E. Rock, eds. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press (2009). Barringer, F. “Newspaper Chain Weighs Stock Offering.” New York Times (Aug. 8, 2002). Bennedsen, M.; K. M. Nielsen; F. Perez-Gonzalez; and D. Wolfenzon. “Inside the Family Firm: The Role of Families in Succession Decisions and Performance.” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 122 (2007), 647–691. Bennedsen, M., and D. Wolfenzon. “The Balance of Power in Closely Held Corporations.” Journal of Financial Economics, 58 (2000), 113–139. Bertrand, M.; P. Mehta; and S. Mullainathan. “Ferreting Out Tunneling: An Application to Indian Business Groups.” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 117 (2002), 121–148. Brav, O. “Access to Capital, Capital Structure, and the Funding of the Firm.” Journal of Finance, 64 (2009), 263–308. Chen, E. H., and W. J. Dixon. “Estimates of Parameters of a Censored Regression Sample.” Journal of the American Statistical Association, 67 (1972), 664–671. Clark, R. C. Corporate Law. Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Company (1986). Core, J. E., and D. F. Larcker. “Performance Consequences of Mandatory Increases in Executive Stock Ownership.” Journal of Financial Economics, 64 (2002), 317–340. Demsetz, H., and K. Lehn. “The Structure of Corporate Ownership: Causes and Consequences.” Journal of Political Economy, 93 (1985), 1155–1177. Dyck, A., and L. Zingales. “Private Benefits of Control: An International Comparison.” Journal of Finance, 59 (2004), 537–600. Faccio, M., and L. H. P. Lang. “The Ultimate Ownership of Western European Corporations.” Journal of Financial Economics, 65 (2002), 365–395. Faccio, M.; L. H. P. Lang; and L. Young. “Dividends and Expropriation.” American Economic Review, 91 (2001), 54–78. Gomes, A., and W. Novaes. “Sharing of Control as a Corporate Governance Mechanism.” Institute for Law and Economics Research Paper 01-12, PIER Working Paper No. 01-029, University of Pennsylvania (2005). Gorton, G., and F. A. Schmid. “Universal Banking and the Performance of German Firms.” Journal of Financial Economics, 58 (2000), 29–80. Hamilton, B. H. “Does Entrepreneurship Pay? An Empirical Analysis of the Returns to SelfEmployment.” Journal of Political Economy, 108 (2000), 604–631. Hannan, M. T. “Ecologies of Organizations: Diversity and Identity.” Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19 (2005), 51–70. Heaton, J., and D. Lucas. “Portfolio Choice and Asset Prices: The Importance of Entrepreneurial Risk.” Journal of Finance, 55 (2000), 1163–1198. Himmelberg, C. P.; R. G. Hubbard; and D. Palia. “Understanding the Determinants of Managerial Ownership and the Link between Ownership and Performance.” Journal of Financial Economics, 53 (1999), 335–384. Holmstr¨ m, B., and J. Tirole. “Inside and Outside Liquidity.” Cambridge, MA: MIT Press (2011). o John, K.; L. Litov; and B. Yeung. “Corporate Governance and Risk-Taking.” Journal of Finance, 63 (2008), 1679–1728. Ke, B. “Taxes as a Determinant of Managerial Compensation in Privately Held Insurance Companies.” Accounting Review, 76 (2001), 655–674. Ke, B.; K. Petroni; and A. Safieddine. “Ownership Concentration and Sensitivity of Executive Pay and Accounting Performance Measures: Evidence from Publicly and Privately-Held Insurance Companies.” Journal of Accounting and Economics, 28 (1999), 185–209.
966
Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis
Kennedy, P. A Guide to Econometrics, 3rd ed. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press (1992). Laeven, L., and R. Levine. “Complex Ownership Structures and Corporate Valuations.” Review of Financial Studies, 21 (2008), 579–604. Laeven, L., and R. Levine. “Bank Governance, Regulation, and Risk Taking.” Journal of Financial Economics, 93 (2009), 259–275. La Porta, R.; F. Lopez-de-Silanes; A. Shleifer; and R. W. Vishny. “Law and Finance.” Journal of Political Economy, 106 (1998), 1113–1155. La Porta, R.; F. Lopez-de-Silanes; A. Shleifer; and R. W. Vishny. “Agency Problems and Dividend Policies around the World.” Journal of Finance, 55 (2000), 1–33. Lehmann, E., and J. Weigand. “Does the Governed Corporation Perform Better? Governance Structures and Corporate Performance in Germany.” European Finance Review, 4 (2000), 157–195. Levinsohn, J., and A. Petrin. “Estimating Production Functions Using Inputs to Control for Unobservables.” Review of Economic Studies, 70 (2003), 317–341. Maury, B., and A. Pajuste. “Multiple Large Shareholders and Firm Value.” Journal of Banking and Finance, 29 (2005), 1813–1834. McConnell, J. J., and H. Servaes. “Additional Evidence on Equity Ownership and Corporate Value.” Journal of Financial Economics, 27 (1990), 595–612. Morck, R.; A. Shleifer; and R. W. Vishny. “Management Ownership and Market Valuation: An Empirical Analysis.” Journal of Financial Economics, 20 (1988), 293–315. Moskowitz, T. J., and A.Vissing-Jorgensen. “The Returns to Entrepreneurial Investment: A Private Equity Premium Puzzle?” American Economic Review, 92 (2002), 745–778. Olley, G. S., and A. Pakes. “The Dynamics of Productivity in the Telecommunications Equipment Industry.” Econometrica, 64 (1996), 1263–1297. O’Neal, F. H., and R. Thompson. O’Neal’s Oppression of Minority Shareholders. Wilmette, IL: Callaghan Lawyers Cooperative Publishing (1985). Pagano, M., and A. Roell. “The Choice of Stock Ownership Structure: Agency Costs, Monitoring, and the Decision to Go Public.” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 113 (1998), 187–225. Petersen, M. A., and R. G. Rajan. “Does Distance Still Matter? The Information Revolution in Small Business Lending.” Journal of Finance, 57 (2002), 2533–2570. Price Waterhouse LLP. National Survey of Small Business Finances: Methodology Report. Washington, DC: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (1996). Shleifer, A., and R. W. Vishny. “A Survey of Corporate Governance.” Journal of Finance, 52 (1997), 737–783. Shleifer, A., and D. Wolfenzon. “Investor Protection and Equity Markets.” Journal of Financial Economics, 66 (2002), 3–27. Sorkin, A. R. “ ‘Super Mario’ Has a Super Headache.” New York Times (Sept. 25, 2005). Stiglitz, J. E. Whither Socialism? Cambridge, MA: MIT Press (1994). Zhou, X. “Understanding the Determinants of Managerial Ownership and the Link between Ownership and Performance: Comment.” Journal of Financial Economics, 62 (2001), 559–571. Zingales, L. “The Value of the Voting Right: A Study of the Milan Stock Exchange Experience.” Review of Financial Studies, 7 (1994), 125–148.
Copyright of Journal of Financial & Quantitative Analysis is the property of Cambridge University Press and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder 's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
Continue Reading

Please join StudyMode to read the full document

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Journal on Financial Ratio Analysis Essay
  • Walmart Financial statement Analysis Essay
  • jet2 financial analysis task2 Essay
  • Financial Analysis of IT industry Essay
  • Financial Analysis of Sobeys Inc. Essay
  • Financial Analysis IBM Jen Essay
  • Financial Statement Analysis Essay
  • Financial Analysis Essay

Become a StudyMode Member

Sign Up - It's Free