PhDs.io — Knowledge that Transforms

Founding family ownership, stock market returns, and agency problems

Journal of Banking & Finance 2019 107, 105600

This paper explores the relationship between founding family ownership and stock market returns. Using the entire population of non-financial firms listed on the Swiss stock market for 2003–2013, we find that the stock returns of family firms are significantly higher than those of non-family firms after adjusting the returns for different firm characteristics and risk factors. Family firms generate an annual abnormal return of 2.8% to 7.1%. We also document that family firms potentially having more agency problems earn higher abnormal returns. Our evidence suggests that outside investors receive a premium for holding shares of these firms as they are exposed to the specific agency problems present in family firms.

Family firms and carbon emissions

Marcin Borsuk; Nicolas Eugster; Paul-Olivier Klein; Oskar Kowalewski

Journal of Corporate Finance 2024 89, 102672 open access

This study examines the relationship between family firms and carbon emissions using a large cross-country dataset of 6600 non-financial firms over the period 2010–2019. We find that family firms emit less carbon than non-family firms, especially after the Paris Agreement. Several factors contribute to this outcome, including governance structure, the degree of family control, R&D spending, and the issuance of green patents. Our study also shows that despite lower carbon emissions, family firms have lower environmental scores, primarily due to their reduced public commitment to emission reduction. Both environmental scores and carbon emissions increase when non-family CEOs are appointed and when family ownership decreases, indicating that agency conflicts may influence these outcomes.

In statistics, samples are drawn from a population in a data‐generating process (DGP). Standard errors measure the uncertainty in estimates of population parameters. In science, evidence is generated to test hypotheses in an evidence‐generating process (EGP). We claim that EGP variation across researchers adds uncertainty—nonstandard errors (NSEs). We study NSEs by letting 164 teams test the same hypotheses on the same data. NSEs turn out to be sizable, but smaller for more reproducible or higher rated research. Adding peer‐review stages reduces NSEs. We further find that this type of uncertainty is underestimated by participants.

Search Criteria

Founding family ownership, stock market returns, and agency problems

Family firms and carbon emissions

Nonstandard Errors