Preview

Ownership Structure, Managerial Behavior and Corporate Value

Powerful Essays
Open Document
Open Document
7926 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Ownership Structure, Managerial Behavior and Corporate Value
Journal of Corporate Finance 11 (2005) 645 – 660 www.elsevier.com/locate/econbase

Ownership structure, managerial behavior and corporate value
J.R. Daviesa, David Hillierb,T, Patrick McColganc a University of Strathclyde, UK b University of Leeds, UK c University of Aberdeen, UK

Received 21 November 2002; accepted 6 July 2004 Available online 20 April 2005

Abstract The nonlinear relationship between corporate value and managerial ownership is well documented. This has been attributed to the onset of managerial entrenchment, which results in a decrease of corporate value for increasing levels of managerial holdings. We propose a new structure for this relationship that accounts for the effect of conflicting managerial incentives, and external and internal disciplinary monitoring mechanisms. Using this specification as the basis for our analysis, we provide evidence that the managerial ownership–corporate value relationship is co-deterministic. This finding is at odds with recent work which reports that corporate value determines managerial ownership but not vice-versa. D 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
JEL classification: G32 Keywords: Ownership structure; Capital expenditure; Corporate value; Tobin’s Q

1. Introduction In a market without agency problems, corporate managers will choose investments that maximise the wealth of shareholders. In practice, competing objectives which are incompatible with the shareholder wealth-maximising paradigm may also be pursued.
T Corresponding author. Leeds University Business School, University of Leeds, Maurice Keyworth Building Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK. Tel.: +44 113 3434359; fax: +44 113 3434459. E-mail address: d.j.hillier@Leeds.ac.uk (D. Hillier). 0929-1199/$ - see front matter D 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2004.07.001

646

J.R. Davies et al. / Journal of Corporate Finance 11 (2005) 645–660

Following Jensen and Meckling (1976), a large literature has developed



References: Burkart, M., Gromb, D., Panunzi, F., 1997. Large shareholders, monitoring, and the value of the firm. Quarterly Journal of Economics 112, 693 – 728. Cho, M.H., 1998. Ownership structure, investment, and the corporate value: an empirical analysis. Journal of Financial Economics 47, 103 – 121. Chung, K.H., Pruitt, S.W., 1994. A simple approximation of Tobin’s Q. Financial Management 23, 70 – 74. Dahya, J., McConnell, J.J., Travlos, N.G., 2002. The Cadbury committee, corporate performance and top management turnover. Journal of Finance 57, 461 – 483. Demsetz, H., Lehn, K., 1985. The structure of corporate ownership: causes and consequences. Journal of Political Economy 93, 1155 – 1177. Demsetz, H., Villalonga, B., 2001. Ownership structure and corporate performance. Journal of Corporate Finance 7, 209 – 233. Denis, D.J., Sarin, A., 1999. Ownership and board structures in publicly traded corporations. Journal of Financial Economics 52, 187 – 223. Denis, D.J., Denis, D.K., Sarin, A., 1997. Ownership structure and top executive turnover. Journal of Financial Economics 45, 193 – 221. Doukas, J.A., McKnight, P.J., Pantzalis, C., 2002. Security analysis, agency costs and UK firm characteristics. Working Paper. Faccio, M., Lasfer, M.A., 1999. Managerial ownership, board structure and firm value: the UK evidence. Working Paper. Faccio, M., Lasfer, M.A., 2000. Do occupational pension funds monitor firms in which they hold large stakes? Journal of Corporate Finance 6, 71 – 110. Fama, E.F., 1980. Agency problems and the theory of the firm. Journal of Political Economy 88, 288 – 307. Franks, J., Mayer, C., 1996. Hostile takeovers and the correction of management failure. Journal of Financial Economics 40, 163 – 181. Franks, J., Mayer, C., Renneboog, L., 2001. Who disciplines management in poorly performing companies? Journal of Financial Intermediation 10, 209 – 248. Hart, O.D., 1983. The market mechanism as an incentive scheme. Bell Journal of Economics 14, 366 – 382. Hermalin, B., Weisbach, M., 1991. The effects of board composition and direct incentives on firm performance. Financial Management 20, 101 – 112. Himmelberg, C.P., Hubbard, R.G., Palia, D., 1999. Understanding the determinants of managerial ownership and the link between ownership and performance. Journal of Financial Economics 53, 353 – 384. Jensen, M.C., 1986. Agency costs of free cashflow, corporate finance and takeovers. American Economic Review 76, 323 – 329. Jensen, M.C., Meckling, W.H., 1976. Theory of the firm: managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics 3, 305 – 360. Jensen, M.C., Ruback, R.S., 1983. The market for corporate control: the scientific evidence. Journal of Financial Economics 11, 5 – 50. Kole, S., 1995. Measuring managerial equity ownership: a comparison of sources of ownership data. Journal of Corporate Finance 1, 413 – 435. Lewellen, W.G., Badrinath, S.G., 1997. On the measurement of Tobin’s Q. Journal of Financial Economics 44, 77 – 122. 660 J.R. Davies et al. / Journal of Corporate Finance 11 (2005) 645–660 Lindenberg, E., Ross, S., 1981. Tobin’s Q ratio and the industrial organization. Journal of Business 54, 1 – 33. Martin, K.J., McConnell, J.J., 1991. Corporate performance, corporate takeovers, and management turnover. Journal of Finance 46, 671 – 687. McConnell, J.J., Servaes, H., 1990. Additional evidence on equity ownership and corporate value. Journal of Financial Economics 27, 595 – 612. Modigliani, F., Miller, M.H., 1963. Corporate income taxes and the cost of capital: a correction. American Economic Review 53, 433 – 443. Morck, R., Shleifer, A., Vishny, R.W., 1988. Management ownership and market valuation: an empirical analysis. Journal of Financial Economics 20, 293 – 315. Myers, S.C., 1977. Determinants of corporate borrowing. Journal of Financial Economics 5, 147 – 175. Roe, M.J., 1990. Political and legal restraints on ownership and control of public companies. Journal of Financial Economics 27, 7 – 42. Ross, S.A., 1977. The determination of financial structure: the incentive-signalling approach. Bell Journal of Economics 8, 23 – 40. Short, H., Keasey, K., 1999. Managerial ownership and the performance of firms: evidence from the UK. Journal of Corporate Finance 5, 79 – 101. Stulz, R.E., 1988. Managerial control of voting rights: financing policies and the market for corporate control. Journal of Financial Economics 20, 25 – 54.

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Powerful Essays

    finance 340 exam study guide

    • 2722 Words
    • 11 Pages

    We would expect agency problems to be less severe in other countries, primarily due to the relatively small percentage of individual ownership. Fewer individual owners should reduce the number of diverse opinions concerning corporate goals. The high percentage of institutional ownership might lead to a higher degree of agreement between owners and managers on decisions concerning risky projects. In addition, institutions may be able to implement more effective monitoring mechanisms than can individual owners, given an institutions’ deeper resources and experiences with their own management. The increase in institutional ownership of stock in the United States and the growing activism of these large shareholder groups may lead to a reduction in agency problems for U.S. corporations and a more efficient market for corporate control.…

    • 2722 Words
    • 11 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    In this essay I plan to show what consequences there are from a separation of ownership from control and what effects could occur as a result. I will be arguing whether managers are worth the cost of hiring, to the business as a whole, giving examples of problems that may arise in these types of situations and what impact they can cause. The separation of ownership in large firms is when the owners appoint paid managers to run their businesses, causing ownership to be divorced from control. Diseconomies of scale are the forces that cause larger firms to produce goods and services at increased per-unit costs.…

    • 1256 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Jensen, M., & Meckling, W. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs, and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics 3, 305-360.…

    • 2215 Words
    • 10 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Does M&a Add Value?

    • 2939 Words
    • 12 Pages

    Bibliography: Goergen, M. and Renneboog,L., 2003. Shareholder wealth effects of European domestic and crossborder takeover bids. European Corporate Governance Institute Finance Working Paper Roll, R., 1986. The hubris hypothesis of Corporate Takeovers, Journal of Business 59, 197-216 Servaes,H., 1991. Tobin’s Q and the gains from takeovers. Journal of Finance 46, 409-419 Kaplan,S and Weisbach,M.,1992. The Success of Acquisitions: Evidence from Divestitures, Journal of Finance 47, 107-138. Jensen, MC., 1986. Agency costs of free cash flow, corporate finance and takeovers. American Economic Review 76, 323-329 Asquith, P; Bruner, R; and Mullins,F., 1987. Merger returns and the form of financing. Working Paper, Cambridge, Mass., Harvard Business School Bruner, R., 2001. Does M&A Pay? A Survey of Evidence for the Decision-Maker. Batten Institute Working Paper, Darden Graduate School of Business Caves, R., 1989. Mergers, Takeovers and Economic Efficiency. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 7 151-174 Meeks,G., 1977. Disappointing Marriage: A Study of Gains from Merger. Cambridge University Press Huang,Y and Walkling,R., 1989. Target Abnormal Returns Associated with Acquisition Announcements: Payment, Acquisition Form and Managerial Resistance, Journal of Financial Economics Yook, K.C., 2000. Larger Return to Cash Acquisitions: Signalling effect or Leverage effect? Working Paper, Johns Hopkins Gregory, A., 1997. An Examination of the Long Run Performance of UK Acquiring Firms. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting 971-1002 Loughran,T and Vijh,A., 1997. Do long term shareholders benefit from corporate acquisitions? Journal of Finance, 52 1765-1790 Lang,L; Stulz,R; and Walkling,R.,1989. Managerial Performance, Tobin’s Q and Gains from Successful Tender Offers. Journal of Financial Economics 24 137 - 154 Lewellen,W; Rosenfeld,A., 1985. Merger Decisions and Executive Stock Ownership in Acquiring Firms. Journal of Accounting and Economics 7 209-231 Berger,P.G and Ofek, E.,1995. Diversification’s Effect on Firm Value. Journal of Financial Economics 37 39-65 Bloomberg for accounting and financial data…

    • 2939 Words
    • 12 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Finance

    • 5399 Words
    • 22 Pages

    References: Bertoncelj, A. (2006) “Corporate restructuring and controlling interest”, Studia Universitatis Babes-Bolyai, Oeconomica, Vol. 51, No.1, pp. 59-73.…

    • 5399 Words
    • 22 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Better Essays

    Lazonick, W. and O’Sullivan, M. (2000) “Maximizing shareholder value : A new ideology for corporate governance.” Economy and society, 29(1), 13-35…

    • 1433 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Better Essays

    Lincoln Electric is one of the leading producers and manufacturers of Arc Welding Products and Electric Motors. Lincoln Electric’s success lies on the foundation of the various company policies introduced by James Lincoln. This case study analyzed the critical points on which the success of Lincoln Electric’s has its foundations.…

    • 2222 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    THE SEPARATION OF OWNERSHIP and control has long been recognized as the source of the agency problem between managers and shareholders at public corporations (Berle and Means (1932), Jensen and Meckling (1976)), and its shareholder-value ramification has been the subject of an extensive literature.1 While most of this research focuses on firms in which voting or control rights and cash f low rights are largely aligned, recently some researchers have started to examine companies with alternative ownership schemes such as cross-holding, pyramidal, and dual-class structures. These alternative ownership arrangements, which are common in much of the world, often result in a significant divergence between insider voting rights and cash f low rights. This divergence aggravates the agency conf licts between managers and shareholders, since insiders controlling disproportionally more voting rights than cash f low rights bear a smaller proportion of the financial consequences of their decisions while…

    • 5537 Words
    • 23 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    References: 1. Berle, A.A. and Means, G.C. (1932). The Modern Corporation and Private Property. The Macmillan Company, New York, NY. 2. Dolmat-Connell, J. (2002). Carrots and Sticks. Forbes, p.42. 3. Jensen, M. (1986). Agency cost of free cash flow, corporate finance and takeovers. American Economic Review Papers and Proceedings 4. Jensen, M. (1989). Eclipse of public corporation. Harvard Business Review 5. Jensen, M. and Meckling, W. (1976). Theory of the Firm: Managerial Behaviour, Agency Costs, and Ownership Structure. Journal of Financial Economics, pp.305-360. 6. Jensen, M. and Ruback, R. (1983). The market for corporate control: The Scientific Evidence. Journal of Financial Economics, 11, pp. 5-50. 7. Lang, L., Stulz, R. and Walking, R. (1991). A test of the free cash flow hypothesis. Journal of Financial Economics, 27.…

    • 2496 Words
    • 10 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    † Thanks for comments go to Ian Ayres, Einer Elhauge, and Louis Kaplow. SHAREHOLDER WEALTH MAXIMIZATION Table of Contents Introduction ........................................................................................ 2 I. Scope…

    • 7102 Words
    • 29 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Bibliography: Mercuro, N., Haralambos, S. & Gerald, W., 1992. Ownership Structure, Value of the Firm and the Bargaining Power of the Manager. Southern Economic Journal, 59(2), pp.273-83.…

    • 2313 Words
    • 10 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    18. Attiya Y. Javid and Robina Iqbal . “Ownership Concentration, Corporate Governance and Firm Performance: Evidence from Pakistan.” The Pakistan Development Review, Vol 47, 2008.…

    • 6092 Words
    • 25 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Accountability

    • 5594 Words
    • 23 Pages

    References: Froud, J., Haslam, C., Johal, S., & Williams, K. (2000). Shareholder value and financialization: Consultancy promises, management moves. Economy and Society, 29(1), 80–110.…

    • 5594 Words
    • 23 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    • At higher levels of insider ownership, managerial entrenchment prevents takeovers — decrease firm value…

    • 580 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Auditing Assignment 1

    • 717 Words
    • 3 Pages

    Nowadays, a lot of company’s ownership and management is separated. It had major influences for auditing. Shareholders were concerned that their funds may not be used in proper ways to maximize the value of the company by appointed managers.…

    • 717 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays