Preview

Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis

Powerful Essays
Open Document
Open Document
12569 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis
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



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.

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Powerful Essays

    finance 340 exam study guide

    • 2722 Words
    • 11 Pages

    We would expect agency problems to be less severe in other countries, primarily due to the relatively small percentage of individual ownership. Fewer individual owners should reduce the number of diverse opinions concerning corporate goals. The high percentage of institutional ownership might lead to a higher degree of agreement between owners and managers on decisions concerning risky projects. In addition, institutions may be able to implement more effective monitoring mechanisms than can individual owners, given an institutions’ deeper resources and experiences with their own management. The increase in institutional ownership of stock in the United States and the growing activism of these large shareholder groups may lead to a reduction in agency problems for U.S. corporations and a more efficient market for corporate control.…

    • 2722 Words
    • 11 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    Book: Stout, Lynn. The Shareholder Value Myth. San Francisco:Berrett-Koehler Publishers, 2012. ISBN: 978-1-60509-813-5 (Widely available from online and physical book sellers)…

    • 3217 Words
    • 13 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Best Essays

    Eagles Electronics Case

    • 3249 Words
    • 13 Pages

    Giroud, X. & Holger, M. (2010) Does corporate governance matter in competitive industries, Journal of financial economics, 95, pp. 312-331…

    • 3249 Words
    • 13 Pages
    Best Essays
  • Good Essays

    In this essay I plan to show what consequences there are from a separation of ownership from control and what effects could occur as a result. I will be arguing whether managers are worth the cost of hiring, to the business as a whole, giving examples of problems that may arise in these types of situations and what impact they can cause. The separation of ownership in large firms is when the owners appoint paid managers to run their businesses, causing ownership to be divorced from control. Diseconomies of scale are the forces that cause larger firms to produce goods and services at increased per-unit costs.…

    • 1256 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Jensen, M., & Meckling, W. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs, and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics 3, 305-360.…

    • 2215 Words
    • 10 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Finance

    • 5399 Words
    • 22 Pages

    References: Bertoncelj, A. (2006) “Corporate restructuring and controlling interest”, Studia Universitatis Babes-Bolyai, Oeconomica, Vol. 51, No.1, pp. 59-73.…

    • 5399 Words
    • 22 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    On the other hand, combining ownership and control can be used to eliminate managerial expropriation. A family’s historical presence and control of management and director posts allows them influence and maintain their control over the firm. At the same time, families have a long investment horizon, which leads to greater investment horizon. Hence, this leads to the question if family ownership structure enhances or hinders the performance of a firm. The research is based on a sample of firms from the S&P 500 from 1992 and 1999. It was seen that family firms constitute over 35% of the S&P 500 industrials and on average, families own nearly 18% of their undiversified equity.…

    • 1070 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Best Essays

    Jensen, MC and Meckling, WH,(1976). “Theory of the Firm: Managerial Behavior, Agency Costs and Ownership Structure.” Journal of Financial Economics, Vol.3, No. 4.…

    • 2526 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Best Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Bibliography: 1. Frederikslust R. (2008) ed 1st , Corporate Governance and Corporate Finance An European Perspective, London: Rautledge…

    • 1740 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    Activist Investor

    • 775 Words
    • 3 Pages

    One concern that critics addressed is whether activist intervention increased shareholders’ value. Supporters believe that activist investors will have positive effect in strengthen shareholders’ voice and increasing the value of vote through activist intervention on corporation governance. In the paper, The Agency Costs of Agency Capitalism: Activist Investors and the Revaluation of Governance Rights, Gilson and Gordon point out that, corporation ownership nowadays is no longer dispersed as before. Share ownership is reconcentrated by institutional investors who “owned over 70% of the outstanding stock of the thousand largest US public companies”. These institutional investors consisted of large funds show little incentive to take the active role of monitoring their portfolios or challenging boards and management. Due to portfolio diversification, free ride problem occurs when they bear costs and obtain benefits from active participation will benefits their competitors as well. The active role of monitoring to take corrective action transfers to activist hedge funds, “who acquire a…

    • 775 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    ECGI European Corporate Governance Institute Finance Working Paper No. 39/2004 Negotiation, Organization and Markets Harvard University Working Paper No. 04-26…

    • 4755 Words
    • 20 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    2. Simple Formal Analysis of the Sources of Agency Costs of Equity and Who Bears Them…

    • 845 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    8. Lichtenberg, F. and Siegel, D. (1990). The effects of leveraged buyouts on productivity and related aspects of firm behaviour. Journal of Financial Economics. 9. Lubatkin, M. and Chatterjee, S. (1994). Extending modern portfolio theory into the domain of corporate diversification: Does it apply?. Academy of Management Journal, 37, pp. 109-136. 10. Pinegar, M. and Wilbricht, L. (1989). What Managers Think of Capital Structure Theory: A Survey. Financial Management, Winter, pp. 82-91. 11. Smith, A. (1990). Corporate ownership structure and performance. The case of Management Buyouts. Journal of Financial Economics, 27, pp.143-164. 12. McConnell, J. and Muscarella, C. (1985). Corporate capital expenditure decisions and the market value of firms. Journal of Financial Economics, 14, pp. 399-422. 13. Modigliani, F. and Miller, M. (1958). The cost of capital, corporation finance, and the theory of investment. American economic Review 48, June, 261-197. 14. Dividend Smoothing, Agency Costs, and Information Asymmetry: Lessons from the Dividend Policies of Private Firms. 15. Michael S. Rozeff , Growth, Beta and Agency Costs as Determinants of Dividend Payout Ratios, Journal of Financial Research, Vol. 5, No. 3, pp. 249-259, Fall 1982. 16. Smith, A. (1990). Corporate ownership structure and performance. The case of Management Buyouts. Journal of Financial Economics, 27, pp.143-164. 17. Henri Servaes Tobin’s Q and the gain from takeovers: The Journal of Finance • Vol. LXVI, No. 1 • March 1991. 18. Easterbrook (1984): Two Agency-Cost Explanations of Dividends. 19. The Modern Corporation and Private Property, Berle and Means. 20. Brealey & Myers on Corporate Finance: Capital Investment and Valuation , Richard A Brealey, Stewart C Myers. 21. The Black (1976) effect and cross market arbitrage in FTSE-100 index futures and options.…

    • 2496 Words
    • 10 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Customer Service in Banking

    • 7585 Words
    • 31 Pages

    Lau, J. and Block, J.H. (2012), “Corporate cash holdings and their implications on firm value in family and founder firms”, Corporate Ownership and Control, pp. 1-40, available at: http:// ssrn.com/abstract¼2000175 (accessed September 10). Lazaridis, I. and Tryfonidis, D. (2006), “Relationship between working capital management and profitability of listed companies in the Athens Stock Exchange”, Journal of Financial Management and Analysis, Vol. 19 Nos 26/25. Lipton, M. and Lorsch, J.W. (1992), “A modest proposal for improved corporate governance”, Business Lawyer, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 59-78. Michalski, G. (2008), “Determinants of accounts receivable level: portfolio approach in firm’s trade credit policy”, Acta Oeconomica Pragensia, Vol. 16 No. 5, pp. 47-56. Myers, S. (1984), “The capital structure puzzle”, Journal of Finance, Vol. 39, pp. 572-92. Nadiri, M.I. (1969), “The determinants of real cash balances in the US total manufacturing sector”, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 83 No. 2, pp. 173-96. Opler, T., Pinkowitz, L., Stulz, R. and Williamson, R. (1999), “The determinants and implications of corporate cash holdings”, Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 3-46. Saddour, K. (2006), “The determinants and the value of cash holdings: evidence from French firms”, CEREG, pp. 1-33, available at: www.dauphine.fr/cereg/cahiers_rech/cereg200606. pdf (accessed June 3, 2012). Valipour, H., Moradi, J. and Farsi, F.D. (2012), “The impact of company characteristics on working capital management”, Journal of Applied Finance and Banking, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 105-25. Yermack, D. (1996), “Higher market valuation of companies with a small board of directors”, Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 40 No. 2, pp. 185-211. Further reading Harford, J. (1999), “Corporate cash reserves and acquisitions”, Journal of Finance, Vol. 54 No. 6, pp. 1969-97. Corresponding author Amarjit S. Gill can be contacted at: amarjit.gill@ubc.ca…

    • 7585 Words
    • 31 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Best Essays

    10. Anonymous,(n.d.).Shareholder Disputes,(paragraph-2).Retrieved March 4, 2011 from http://www.darlingtons.com/site/srvbusiness/srvbusinesslitigationanddisputes/ srvshareholderdisputes/ 11. Roderick, R. (1998). Company shareholders and directors (paragraph-1).Retrieved March 4, 2011 from http://www.law-office.demon.co.uk/art%20power-1.htm 12. Prakash, O.P. (July 29, 2009).Minority Shareholder Rights – Necessities & Limitations. Retrieved March 4,2011from http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/articles/MINORITY-SHAREHOLDER-RIGHTSNECESSITIES-LIMITATIONS-1464.asp 13. Anonymous, (n.d.).Minority Shareholders (paragraph-18).Retrieved March 5, 2011 from http://www.law-essays-uk.com/resources/free-essays/minority-shareholders.php 14. Anonymous, (n.d.).Minority Shareholders (paragraph-8).Retrieved March 5, 2011 from http://www.law-essays-uk.com/resources/free-essays/minority-shareholders.php…

    • 3692 Words
    • 15 Pages
    Best Essays