How is corporate governance measured? What is the relationship between corporate governance and performance? This paper sheds light on these questions while taking into account the endogeneity of the relationships among corporate governance, corporate performance, corporate capital structure, and corporate ownership structure. We make three additional contributions to the literature: First, we find that better governance as measured by the Gompers, Ishii, and Metrick [Gompers, P.A., Ishii, J.L., and Metrick, A., 2003, Corporate governance and equity prices, Quarterly Journal of Economics 118(1), 107-155.] and Bebchuk, Cohen and Ferrell [Bebchuk, L., Cohen, A., and Ferrell, A., 2004, What matters in corporate governance?, Working paper, Harvard Law School] indices, stock ownership of board members, and CEO-Chair separation is significantly positively correlated with better contemporaneous and subsequent operating performance. Second, contrary to claims in GIM and BCF, none of the governance measures are correlated with future stock market performance. In several instances inferences regarding the (stock market) performance and governance relationship do depend on whether or not one takes into account the endogenous nature of the relationship between governance and (stock market) performance. Third, given poor firm performance, the probability of disciplinary management turnover is positively correlated with stock ownership of board members, and board independence. However, better governed firms as measured by the GIM and BCF indices are less likely to experience disciplinary management turnover in spite of their poor performance.
HOSTILE TAKEOVERS invite strong reactions, both positive and negative, from academics as well as the general public. Yet fairly little is known about what drives these takeovers, which characteristically involve significant wealth gains to target firms' shareholders. The question is where these wealth gains come from.We examine the sample of all 62 hostile takeover contests between 1984 and 1986 that involved a purchase price of $50 million or more. In these contests, 50 targets were acquired and 12 remained independent. We use a sample of hostile takeovers exclusively to avoid using evidence from friendly acquisitions to judge hostile ones, as many studies have done. We examine such post-takeover operational changes as divestitures, layoffs, tax savings, and investment cuts to understand how the bidding firm could justify paying the takeover premium. We also examine the possibility of wealth losses by bidding firms' stockholders as the explanation for target shareholder gains.The analysis of post-takeover changes is complicated because once the target and the bidding firms are merged, it becomes impossible to attribute to the target the changes recorded in joint accounting data. As a consequence, we do not use such data, but rather focus on discussion in annual reports, 1OK forms, newspapers, magazines, Moody's andWe would like to thank Dennis Carlton, Eugene Fama, Kenneth Frenchy, Gregg Jarrell, Michael Jensen, Steve Kaplan, Rene Stulz, and Lawrence Summers for comments and the Bradley Foundation for financial support. Brookings Papers: Microeconomics 1990Value Line reports, and other such sources. Our approach is similar to the one recently employed by Bhide (1989). The advantage of this design is that we can attribute the changes we examine, such as layoffs and selloffs, to the target firm. The disadvantage is that most changes we examine are biased downward because some may not be reported.Our calculations suggest that, on average, taxes and layoffs each explain a moderate fraction of the takeover premium. Layoffs, which disproportionately affect high-level white-collar employees, explain perhaps 10-20 percent of the average premium, although in a few cases they are the whole story. Tax savings are usually somewhat smaller than savings from layoffs (although they are significant in a larger number of cases), since debt is typically repaid fairly fast. But tax reductions are very large in management buyouts, acquisitions by partnerships, and acquisitions by firms with tax losses. Large investment cuts occur infrequently in our sample, and do not appear to be an important takeover motive. Wealth declines of the bidding firms' shareholders, similarly, while important in a few cases, are usually small and cannot be a systematic source of target shareholders' gains.Our most significant finding is that most hostile takeover activity results in allocation of assets to firms in the same industries as those assets. In most hostile takeovers, the bidding firm is in the same business as, or a business closely related ...
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.