No abstract

Purpose This paper aims to perform empirical analysis to test whether less severe agency conflict between managers and controlling shareholders may improve family firms’ corporate and stock liquidity, compared to non-family firms. Design/methodology/approach The authors use the ordinary least square and two-stage generalized method of moments regression analyses. They also use match-paired design for robustness check. Findings Focusing on Standard & Poor’s 500 firms, the authors find that family firms are more conservative by hoarding more corporate liquid assets (as measured by accounting balance sheet liquidity ratios) than their peer non-family firms to prevent underinvestment from external costly finance. These family firms also exhibit higher level of stock liquidity and lower liquidity risk as measured by effective bid–ask spread than non-family firms. The results are consistent with the motivation that organizations (i.e. family firms in this study) whose shareholders can efficiently monitor that their managers are associated with higher level of corporate liquidity and stock liquidity, and lower level of liquidity risk. Originality/value This study contributes to the literature on liquidity (both corporate liquidity and stock liquidity) and ownership structure, more broadly corporate governance. It provides insights into corporate and stock liquidity within a unique ownership context: family firms versus non-family firms. Family firms in the USA are subject to both Type I (agency problems arising from the separation of ownership and control) and Type II agency problems (agency conflict arising between majority and minority shareholders). It is an ongoing debate whether family firms suffer more or less agency problems from one type versus the other than non-family firms. The finding that family firms have higher corporate and stock liquidity is consistent with that family firms being subject to less severe agency conflict due to separation of ownership from control.

No abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this study is to examine how pension risk shifting can be explained and constrained by debt component in chief executive officer (CEO) compensation and to explore whether a CEO’s relatively large holdings of inside debt to equity compensation would result in a well-funded pension status. Design/methodology/approach – The authors use two-stage least-squares model to control the potential unobserved and uncontrolled firm characteristics that could drive both CEO inside debt determinants and firm pension funding status. Findings – This paper finds a positive relationship between the CEO inside debt ratio and firm funding status. Additional tests show a positive association between the CEO inside debt ratio and financial slack measures and a negative association between this ratio and financial constraint measure. Additional evidence also shows that the CEO inside debt ratio is negatively associated with other contemporaneous investment activities. Overall, the findings suggest that CEO inside debt creates managerial incentives that can affect pension funding decisions and decrease pension risk shifting. Research limitations/implications – One of the difficulties facing the compensation literature is the unobservable nature of the entire compensation negotiation and design process. Pension funding status is another challenging topic given that management has discretion over the pension assumptions and the calculations themselves are complicated. Therefore, the determinants of pension status used in this paper are not all-inclusive. Although a two-stage least-squares methodology is applied to mitigate endogeneity, it is still possible that an omitted variable problem exists in both cases. Originality/value – This study provides direct evidence of the executive debt-like compensation’s effect on pension risk-shifting behavior and pension funding decisions and also contributes to the literature that investigates the association between CEO inside debt and firm risk by examining the trade-off between pension funding and other contemporaneous investment activities.

No abstract