During market-wide shocks that cause large drops in stock prices, firms with more state-endorsed antitakeover provisions (ATPs) experience smaller declines in value. Two channels appear to drive this finding. First, by giving boards more bargaining power to fight opportunistic bids, firms with more ATPs extract higher takeover premiums during market shocks. Second, having more ATPs attenuates the effect of market shocks on firm value by protecting relationship-specific investments with stakeholders from disruptive takeovers. Our results suggest that ATPs benefit shareholders during market shocks when firm values are abnormally low and represent one advantage of incorporating in states with more ATPs.

This paper revisits the association between firm value (as proxied by Tobin’s Q) and whether the firm has a staggered board. As is well known, in the cross-section firms with a staggered board tend to have a lower value. Using a comprehensive sample for 1978 – 2011, we show an opposite result in the time series: firms that adopt a staggered board increase in firm value, while de-staggering is associated with a decrease in firm value. We further show that the decision to adopt a staggered board seems endogenous, and related to an ex ante lower firm value, which helps reconciling the existing cross-sectional results to our novel time series results. To explain our new results, we explore potential incentive problems in the shareholder-manager relationship. Short-term oriented shareholders may generate myopic incentives for the firm to underinvest in risky long-term projects. In this case, a staggered board may helpfully insulate the board from opportunistic shareholder pressure. Consistent with this, we find that the adoption of a staggered board has a stronger positive association with firm value for firms where such incentive problems are likely more severe: firms with more R&D, more intangible assets, more innovative and larger and thus likely more complex firms.