Deregulation, Reregulation, Equity Ownership, and S&L Risk-Taking

Market discipline and bank efficiency

“…Bank corporate governance has been investigated in these studies in the form of whether market investors influence banks' risk-taking behavior (e.g., Gorton and Rosen, 1995, Esty, 1998, and Cebenoyan et al, 1995, 1999. There are also some studies using data of Japanese banks (e.g., Horiuchi andShimizu, 2001 andYasuda, 2004).…”

Insider Ownership, Risk, and Leverage in REITs

“…P-values are adjusted for heteroskedasticity and correlated observations with the Huber-White Sandwich estimator for variance and are adjusted for clustering by firm A third broad implication is the suggestion that changes in managerial motivations at about 25-35% ownership may be universal across managers in all industries, not just REITs. Critical slope reversals for performance variables occur at around 25-35% in industrial companies (Morck et al 1988) and in thrift institutions (Cebenoyan et al 1995(Cebenoyan et al , 1999; Dolde and Knopf (University of Connecticut working paper 2008)).…”

“…corporate performance." 3 Finally, empirical U-shaped and inverted U-shaped relations between insider ownership and firm performance have been observed for industrial companies (Morck et al 1988) and for thrift institutions (Cebenoyan et al 1995(Cebenoyan et al , 1999. Despite the marked differences between the business operations, assets, and leverage of industrials and thrifts, both suggest a swing from managerial entrenchment to incentive alignment at about 25-30% insider ownership.…”

Financial Services Consolidation and Performance in New York State Savings and Loan Associations, 2000-2011

“…Research on S&L performance has primarily drawn from broader research across the entire banking industry (Brigham, 1964;Benston, 1972;Verbrugge et al, 1976;Geehan and Allen, 1978;Mester, 1993;Bradley, Gabriel and Wohar, 1995;Cebenoyan et al, 1995;Kaushik and Lopez, 1996;Jahere, Page and Hudson, 2006). The argument that market structures influence firm behavior is prevalent among 3 schools of thought: The Structure Conduct Performance (SCP) Paradigm, Efficient Structure Hypothesis (ESH) and Relative Market Power Hypothesis (RMPH).…”

“…Studies highlighting firm-specific factors emphasized ownership and control, managerial efficiency and profitable ownership structure. Studies published during the mid-1980s and later extensively focused on regulation, deregulation and insolvency risks and the impact of change in ownership (stock versus mutual) on efficiency and cost structure (Balderston 1985;Benston, 1986;Kane, 1989;Barth, 1991;Curry and Shibut, 2000;Mester, 1993;Cebenoyan, Cooperman and Register, 1995;Fraser and Zardkoohi, 1996).…”