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

Fields:
5 results ✕ Clear filters

Do managers seek control and entrenchment?

Journal of Corporate Finance 2021 67, 101806
A unique dataset of post-IPO thrifts with heterogeneous initial insider ownership allows us to use revealed preferences to determine the level of ownership insiders believe to be optimal. We find strong evidence that insider ownership converges to the 20% to 30% range, whether insiders begin with diffuse or concentrated ownership. This range of ownership has been found consistent with entrenchment and control in the literature. Our results are robust to a battery of variables related to insider ownership such as moral hazard, adverse selection, market timing, insider characteristics, and firm characteristics. Furthermore, we find that managers with diffuse ownership accumulate shares most aggressively during the period of regulatory anti-takeover protection, consistent with an entrenchment motive. We find that managers with above-average pay are more likely to seek higher ownership, consistent with the existence of private benefits of control. Finally, we find that insider ownership determines equity issuance, leverage, and share liquidity in ways consistent with expected accumulation or reduction in insider ownership for control purposes.

Minority Shareholder Protections and the Private Benefits of Control for Swedish Mergers

Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis 2004 39(1), 167-191
Sweden has a high degree of separation of ownership from control through pyramids, dual-class shares, and cross-holdings. This increases the potential for private benefits of control. However, Sweden's extralegal institutions—tax compliance and newspaper circulation—are consistent with greater shareholder protection. Using data on Swedish mergers we find limited evidence of shareholder expropriation. Apparently, Sweden's extralegal institutions offset the drawback of weak corporate governance.

The role of the chief legal officer in corporate governance

Journal of Corporate Finance 2015 34, 1-22
The CLO shapes and enforces corporate governance, but is faced with a dual-role paradox that requires her to act as both monitor of corporate governance and executive of the firm. We study the role of the CLO under environments that are most likely to impact governance and pressure the firm to either emphasize or marginalize the CLO's role as monitor or facilitator. Using the financial shock of a securities class action lawsuit on large corporations, we measure changes in CLO value through the metrics of total and relative compensation of the CLO and other C-suite members. After controlling for relevant variables such as growth and total assets, we find that when firms have more insiders on their board of directors, the CLO's compensation declines when the preceding year's Tobin's Q is high. CLO compensation increases under conditions of high opacity, but that compensation partially erodes in high Tobin's Q environments. We also find that a lawsuit increases CFO and CEO turnover but not the CLO's. Our results have implications for corporate governance, the dual and potentially conflicting role of CLO as gatekeeper and monitor, executive compensation, and agency costs.

The Volatility and Price Sensitivities of Managerial Stock Option Portfolios and Corporate Hedging

Journal of Finance 2002 57(2), 801-813
We use estimates of the Black—Scholes sensitivity of managers' stock option portfolios to stock return volatility and the sensitivity of managers' stock and stock option portfolios to stock price to test the relationship between managers' risk preferences and hedging activities. We find that as the sensitivity of managers' stock and stock option portfolios to stock price increases, firms tend to hedge more. However, as the sensitivity of managers' stock option portfolios to stock return volatility increases, firms tend to hedge less.

IPOs, clustering, indirect learning and filing independently

Journal of Banking & Finance 2009 33(11), 2070-2079
IPO underpricing has been attributed to valuation uncertainty, which can be at least partially resolved by the indirect learning associated with IPO clustering [Benveniste, L.M., Ljungqvist, A., Wilhelm, W.J., Yu, X.Y., 2003. Evidence of information spillovers in the production of investment banking services. Journal of Finance 58, 577–608]. We examine why firms might choose not to issue their IPOs contemporaneously with clusters of similar firms, forgoing opportunities to learn from their peers. We find that the willingness to file an IPO without the benefit of indirect learning from peer firm IPOs is directly related to insiders’ needs for portfolio diversification and the firm’s need to raise capital.