To make high-quality research more accessible and easier to explore.

Fields:
3 results ✕ Clear filters

How do share repurchases affect ownership concentration?

Journal of Corporate Finance 2013 20, 22-40
We study how share repurchases affect the ownership stake of outside blockholders in 950 publicly-traded US corporations from 1996 through 2001, using a control function approach to address the possible endogeneity of repurchases. We find that share repurchases tend to make outside ownership less concentrated: repurchasing 1% of outstanding common equity decreases the fraction owned by large shareholders by around one and a half percentage points. This may decrease outside shareholders' influence over firm decision-making. Our results are confirmed when we restrict the sample to institutional owners, but not to individual owners.

A paper tiger? An empirical analysis of majority voting

Journal of Corporate Finance 2013 21, 119-135
Majority voting in board elections has emerged as a dominant theme in recent proxy seasons. Analysis of majority voting is important: first, the impact is controversial yet scant empirical evidence exists. Second, Congress is still considering mandating this practice. Third, there has been a tectonic shift in adoptions of majority voting, from 16% to over 67% of S&P 500 firms in just two years. Fourth, the vast majority of shareholder proposals for majority voting are sponsored by unions with little shareholdings. Proponents argue that majority voting aligns shareholder–director interests. Opponents argue that the practice will be disruptive and could result in the failure of boards to meet exchange and SEC requirements. Others assert that majority voting is a paper tiger, amounting to form over substance, particularly since many adoptions are non-binding. We provide an empirical analysis of the wealth effects, characteristics, and efficacy of majority voting. Our results are consistent with the paper tiger hypothesis.

Underperformance of founder-led firms: An examination of compensation contracting theories during the executive stock options backdating scandal

Journal of Corporate Finance 2013 23, 294-310
Using the executive stock option (ESO) backdating scandal as a backdrop, this paper examines whether compensation committees can effectively set executive compensation contracts in the presence of a founding CEO. Analyzing a sample of firms accused of backdating ESO grant dates and a control sample of non-backdating firms, we find evidence suggesting that managerial power influences the decision to backdate. Specifically, our analysis indicates the presence of a founder CEO increases the likelihood that ESOs are backdated by 22%. We further find that founder-led firms strongly underperform a matched sample of non-backdating firms. This finding contrasts a number of studies that document superior operating and stock return performance for founder-led firms.