This paper investigates the relationship between divestitures and firm value in family firms. Using handcollected data on a sample of over 30,000 firm-year observations, we find that family firms are less likely than non-family firms to undertake divestitures, especially when these companies are managed by family rather than non-family-CEOs. However, we then establish that the divestitures undertaken by family firms, predominantly those run by family-CEOs, are associated with higher post-divestiture performance than their non-family counterparts. These findings indicate that family firms may fail to fully exploit available economic opportunities, potentially because they pursue multiple objectives beyond the maximization of shareholder value. These results also elucidate how the characteristics of corporate owners and managers can influence the value that firms derive from their corporate strategies. AbstractThis paper investigates the relationship between divestitures and firm value in family firms. Using hand-collected data on a sample of over 30,000 firm-year observations, we find that family firms are less likely than non-family firms to undertake divestitures, especially when these companies are managed by family-rather than non-family CEOs. However, we then establish that the divestitures undertaken by family firms, predominantly those run by family-CEOs, are associated with higher post-divestiture performance than their non-family counterparts. These findings indicate that family firms may fail to fully exploit available economic opportunities, potentially because they pursue multiple objectives beyond the maximization of shareholder value. These results also elucidate how the characteristics of corporate owners and managers can influence the value that firms derive from their corporate strategies.Keywords: family firms, divestitures, corporate strategy, agency theory, CEOs  We are very grateful to Alfonso Gambardella and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and suggestions. We would also like to thank Laurence Capron, Alex Edmans, Phanish Puranam, David Reeb, and seminar participants at the

This paper investigates "legacy divestitures," the sale or spinoff of a company's original, or "legacy," business. The central tension considered in this work is that the historical presence of a firm's legacy business should simultaneously make that unit very interdependent with the company's remaining operations and make the firm's managers highly likely to take those same interdependencies for granted. Consistent with these predictions, the post-divestiture operating performance of firms that divest their legacy businesses falls short of that of firms that retain comparable legacy units, especially when the divested unit operates in the same industry as others of the divesting firm's businesses. Newer chief executive officers (CEOs) are more likely to undertake legacy divestitures than their longer-tenured peers, and the most recently appointed CEOs undertake the most costly legacy divestitures. In summary, this paper provides insights into how historical interdependencies create value in diversified firms, as well as the decision-making processes that managers follow in overseeing these companies. Abstract This paper investigates "legacy divestitures," the sale or spinoff of a company's original, or "legacy" business. The central tension considered in this work is that the historical presence of a firm's legacy business should simultaneously make that unit very interdependent with the company's remaining operations and make the firm's managers highly likely to take those same interdependencies for granted. Consistent with these predictions, the post-divestiture operating performance of firms that divest their legacy businesses falls short of that of firms that retain comparable legacy units, especially when the divested unit operates in the same industry as others of the divesting firm's businesses. Newer CEOs are more likely to undertake legacy divestitures than their longer-tenured peers, and the most recently-appointed CEOs undertake the most costly legacy divestitures. In sum, this paper provides insights into how historical interdependencies create value in diversified firms, as well as the decision-making processes managers follow in overseeing these companies.

This paper investigates the relationship between divestitures and firm value in family firms. Using handcollected data on a sample of over 30,000 firm-year observations, we find that family firms are less likely than non-family firms to undertake divestitures, especially when these companies are managed by family rather than non-family-CEOs. However, we then establish that the divestitures undertaken by family firms, predominantly those run by family-CEOs, are associated with higher post-divestiture performance than their non-family counterparts. These findings indicate that family firms may fail to fully exploit available economic opportunities, potentially because they pursue multiple objectives beyond the maximization of shareholder value. These results also elucidate how the characteristics of corporate owners and managers can influence the value that firms derive from their corporate strategies. AbstractThis paper investigates the relationship between divestitures and firm value in family firms. Using hand-collected data on a sample of over 30,000 firm-year observations, we find that family firms are less likely than non-family firms to undertake divestitures, especially when these companies are managed by family-rather than non-family CEOs. However, we then establish that the divestitures undertaken by family firms, predominantly those run by family-CEOs, are associated with higher post-divestiture performance than their non-family counterparts. These findings indicate that family firms may fail to fully exploit available economic opportunities, potentially because they pursue multiple objectives beyond the maximization of shareholder value. These results also elucidate how the characteristics of corporate owners and managers can influence the value that firms derive from their corporate strategies.Keywords: family firms, divestitures, corporate strategy, agency theory, CEOs  We are very grateful to Alfonso Gambardella and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and suggestions. We would also like to thank Laurence Capron, Alex Edmans, Phanish Puranam, David Reeb, and seminar participants at the

No abstract

Research Summary: This study analyzes how the divestitures that are impelled by activist investors in their campaigns against public corporations affect shareholder value. Using hand-collected data on the activist campaigns that were launched against and the divestitures that were undertaken by Fortune 500 companies between 2007 and 2015, we find that activist-impelled divestitures are more positively associated with immediate and longer-term measures of shareholder value than comparable managerled divestitures. These performance differences persist for nearly two years after the completion of these deals. Our results empirically test the idea that firms with agency problems unlock shareholder value when they divest, and support the notion that activist investors fulfill an important external governance function. Our work also opens new research opportunities and offers practical implications as well. Managerial Summary: This study investigates how divestitures that are undertaken at the behest of activist investors affect shareholder value. We find that divestitures that were undertaken under pressure from activist investors are associated with more positive shareholder returns than comparable divestitures that were undertaken voluntarily by managers. These performance differences persist for nearly two years after the completion of these deals, alleviating concerns about the purported shorttermism of activist investors. Our findings suggest that activist investors may fulfill an important governance † Both authors contributed equally and are listed alphabetically. We sincerely thank Connie Helfat and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and suggestions throughout the review process. We are very grateful to Raffi Amit, Matthew Bidwell,

Research Summary This paper explores the stock market performance of acquisitions and divestitures where both, one, or neither of the companies in the transaction are family firms. We find that acquirer shareholder returns are highest when family firms buy businesses from non‐family firm divesters, especially when family chief executive officer (CEO) acquirers buy businesses from non‐family CEO divesters. Additionally, divester shareholder returns are highest when family firms sell businesses to non‐family firm acquirers, especially when family CEO divesters sell businesses to non‐family CEO acquirers. These findings reveal that it is important to consider the characteristics of both the acquiring and divesting firms when analyzing acquisition and divestiture performance, and that the expected gains to family firm acquisitions and divestitures are driven by transactions in which the counterparties are non‐family firms. Managerial Summary This paper explores how investors react to acquisitions and divestitures where both, one, or neither of the companies in the deal are family firms. The stock market performance of acquiring firms is highest when family firms buy businesses from non‐family firms, relative to the other three possible combinations of family and non‐family firm acquirers and divesters. Likewise, the stock market performance of divesting firms is highest when family firms sell businesses to non‐family firms, again relative to the other three possible combinations of family and non‐family acquirers and divesters. These findings suggest that investors take into consideration the identities of both the acquiring and divesting firms when evaluating acquisitions and divestitures, and that this has significant implications for the expected performance gains of these transactions.

Agency theory predicts that incentives will align agents' interests with those of principals. However, the resource-based view suggests that to be effective, the incentive to deliver must be paired with the ability to deliver. Using Fortune 500 boards as an empirical context, this study shows that the presence of directors who lack top-level experience but own large shareholdings is negatively associated with firm value, an effect that increases in the number of such directors. Firm value rises after such directors depart from boards, with the greatest increases occurring when many of these directors leave. While agency theory highlights the importance of the right incentives being in place, this research suggests that this can be ineffective if the right resources are not also in place. AbstractAgency theory predicts that the right incentives will align agents' interests with those of principals. However, the resource-based view suggests that to be effective, the incentive to deliver must be paired with the ability to deliver. Without requisite ability, an agent's incentives may yield the desired alignment but not the desired results. Using the corporate boards of Fortune 500 firms as an empirical context, this study shows that the presence of directors who lack top-level business experience but have large ownership stakes is negatively associated with firm value, an effect that becomes larger as the number of such directors on a board increases. Furthermore, firm value rises after such directors depart from corporate boards, with the greatest increases occurring in firms where the reduction in the number of these directors is the largest. While agency theory highlights the importance of having the right incentives in place, this research suggests that doing so can be ineffective if the right resources are not in place as well.

This article investigates how securities analysts help investors understand the value of diversification. By studying the research that analysts produce about companies that have announced corporate spin-offs, we gain unique insights into how analysts portray diversified firms to the investment community. We find that while analysts' research about these companies is associated with improved forecast accuracy, the value of their research about the spun-off subsidiaries is more limited. For both diversified firms and their spun-off subsidiaries, analysts' research is more valuable when information asymmetry between the management of these entities and investors is higher. These findings contribute to the corporate strategy literature by shedding light on the roots of the diversification discount and by showing how analysts' research enables investors to overcome asymmetric information. Draft, March 8, 2010We would like to thank Gabriel Natividad, Cynthia Montgomery, Felix Oberholzer, and seminar participants at HEC Lausanne for their comments. We thank Patrick Barton, Mercedes Boland, Qin Ding, Victor Doherty, Alexander Fisher, Michael Hauschild, Nick Hurley, Benjamin Istvan, Benjamin Kaufman, Patrick Lo, James Moran, George Saalouke, Michael Skey, Robert Steele, Jeremy Stone, Robert Tau, Huong Trieu, Lois Wang, and Jeff Wu for their assistance in collecting and coding the data from analyst reports, and Boris Groysberg for providing part of the data about analysts. We gratefully acknowledge the financial support of the Division of Research at the Harvard Business School. All errors are our own. When Do Analysts Add Value?Evidence from Corporate Spinoffs AbstractWe investigate the information content and forecast accuracy of 1,793 analyst reports written around 62 spinoffs--a setting in which analysts' ability to inform investors is potentially very high. We find that analysts pay little attention to subsidiaries about to be spun off even though these subsidiaries constitute a significant part of the parent company operations. Moreover, while the level of detail in analyst research about parent companies is significantly related to EPS and price forecast accuracy, the same is not true for the subsidiaries. We establish that this "forgotten child" phenomenon is linked to a "neglected parent" effect, whereby inaccuracy in subsidiary earnings forecasts is associated with inaccuracy in parent estimates. We conclude by showing that spinoffs may be a particularly complex setting for analysts to evaluate relative to other forms of corporate restructuring, such as IPOs, mergers, or bankruptcies, providing one potential explanation for our findings. 1The impact of financial analysts on capital market efficiency has been much debated in academia and in practice. A large body of academic research finds that analysts act as important information intermediaries, generating financial forecasts, stock recommendations and other fundamental research which helps investors form more precise estimates of stock prices, thereb...