Knowledge that Transforms

This paper investigates the effectiveness of equity-based compensation in mitigating the effects of agency costs on the valuation of single-segment and multi-segment firms. In a sample of 4182 firm-year observations during the period 1993–1998, we find that firms with high equity-based compensation have higher valuation than firms with low equity-based compensation. This is true in both single-segment and multi-segment firms. The effect of equity-based compensation for multi-segment firms, where agency costs are expected to be higher, is much greater than for single-segment firms. Also, the negative value-effect of diversification is less for firms with high equity-based compensation.

Smith [Smith, M., 1996. Shareholder activism by institutional investors: evidence from CALPERS. Journal of Finance 51, 227-252] and Wahal [Wahal, S., 1996. Public pension fund activism and firm performance. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis 31, 1-23] identify significant positive abnormal returns surrounding the announcement of performance targetings by the California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS), dubbed the “CalPERS effect.” More recent studies suggest that this “CalPERS effect” continues in later samples. While I confirm the early period results, I find the results reported in studies examining later periods are driven by the inclusion of early 1992–1993 targetings and from a significant bias in the market model parameters caused by estimation during periods of known under-performance. Additionally, these results are partially driven by the failure to control for contaminating events and the use unnecessarily long event windows. Contrary to previous studies, after addressing these methodological concerns, I find no evidence to support the continued existence of a “CalPERS effect”.

We examine shareholder voting on management-sponsored compensation proposals from 1992 through 2003 to determine how voting has evolved as a result of changes in the corporate governance environment. We investigate three questions: have regulatory changes and changes in investor sentiment affected voting; do the same factors appear to influence voting over time and has the impact of the various factors changed over time; and do additional factors such as the level of compensation and alternate definitions of dilution influence voting support? We find evidence of changing trends in voting, that shareholders have become more sensitive to potentially harmful plan provisions, and that additional factors do affect voting.

We develop a model for the use of stock options in compensation agreements based on a financing explanation. Our model is consistent with the extensive use of options for non-executive employees. Simulation results from our model show an optimal use of options of about 9.3% of total compensation for a non-executive employee with a compensation of US$50,000. Finding an optimal level of options as part of compensation in this context requires a balancing of two opposing factors—the benefit of a lower capital issuance cost versus a higher compensation cost as a result of the discount that an employee places on options because of an undiversified position.

This paper examines the compensation of CEOs in China's listed firms. First, we discuss what is known about the setting of CEO compensation and then we go on to examine factors that may help explain variations in the use of performance related pay. In China, listed firms have a dominant or controlling shareholder and we argue that the distinct types of controlling shareholder have different impacts on the use of incentive pay. We find that firms that have a State agency as the major shareholder do not appear to use performance related pay. In contrast, firms that have private blockholders or SOEs as their major shareholders relate the CEO's pay to increases in stockholders' wealth or increases in profitability. However the pay–performance sensitivities for CEOs are low and this raises questions about the effectiveness of firms' incentive systems.

We study a sample of 178 firms that changed from a one-share one-vote into a dual-class common stock structure during 1979–1998. We find that dual-class recapitalizations are shareholder value enhancing corporate initiatives. Using accounting data, Lehn et al. (1990) [Lehn, K., Netter, J., Poulsen, A., 1990. Consolidating corporate control: dual-class recapitalizations versus leveraged buyouts. Journal of Financial Economics 27, 557–580] provide evidence that dual-class recapitalizing firms grow faster than firms in a control group and undertake secondary equity offerings (SEOs) to finance growth. We show that growth is indeed beneficial to the shareholders. The stockholders, on average, earn significant positive abnormal returns of 23.11% in a period of 4 years following the announcement month. Furthermore, abnormal returns are even larger (52.61%) for the dual-class firms that issue equity. This evidence is especially supportive of the value enhancing hypothesis as it is contrary to the prevailing result that SEOs are generally followed by large negative returns. We do not find any evidence of managerial entrenchment.

This paper examines the relation between insider ownership and corporate performance in the presence of adjustment costs and investigates how the adjustment costs are determined. In a model specification without adjustment costs, we find that insider ownership is significantly positively associated with corporate performance. But once we allow for adjustment costs, the relationship no longer exists. We find that insider ownership and corporate performance can be explained by their respective lagged values and that many firm characteristics that were previously useful in explaining these two variables turn out to be statistically insignificant. In addition, there is no evidence that insider ownership and corporate performance affect each other. This is consistent with the adjustment cost argument. It is also consistent with the “endogeneity” argument suggested by Demsetz [Demsetz, H. 1983. The structure of ownership and the theory of the firm. Journal of Law and Economics 26, 375–390.], Demsetz and Lehn [Demsetz, H., Lehn, K., 1985. The structure of corporate ownership: causes and consequences. Journal of Political Economy 93, 1155–1177.], and Demsetz and Villalonga [Demsetz, H., Villalonga, B., 2001. The ownership structure and corporate performance. Journal of Corporate Finance 7, 209–233.]. Finally, we document that the speed of adjustment of insider ownership is positively related to insiders' market timing but negatively to the number of insiders and that the speed of adjustment of Tobin's Q is positively associated with financial leverage and stock price volatility.

This paper empirically examines how family-controlled firms perform in relation to firms with nonfamily controlling shareholders in Western Europe. The sample consists of 1672 non-financial firms. Active family control is associated with higher profitability compared to nonfamily firms, whereas passive family control does not affect profitability. Active family control continues to outperform nonfamily control in terms of profitability in different legal regimes. Active and passive family control is associated with higher firm valuations, but the premium is mainly due to economies with high shareholder protection. The benefits from family control occur in nonmajority held firms. These results suggest that family control lowers the agency problem between owners and managers, but gives rise to conflicts between the family and minority shareholders when shareholder protection is low and control is high.

The ability to withdraw IPOs when demand is weak increases expected proceeds and provides issuers with option value. To enhance this value, the SEC adopted in 2001 the ‘public-to-private’ safe harbor Rule 155 and simplified Rule 477 for withdrawing offerings. The option value can exceed the underpricing associated with soliciting investor demand. Hence, issuers might prefer bookbuilding despite the associated underpricing even if they could sell via fixed price at full expected value. The option value increases faster than underpricing with ex ante uncertainty, generating predictions regarding the use of bookbuilding and the timing of IPOs, and leading to a distinct theory of hot IPO markets.