Search results

We examine the influence of ownership structure on a blockholder’s power in a firm. We first describe the presence and ownership stakes of blockholders in a comprehensive sample of US firms. We develop a measure of the influence of the ownership structure on a blockholder’s power and show that an average blockholder loses 12% of her potential power due to the presence and size of the ownership stakes of other blockholders. Further, the influence of ownership structure varies systematically with a blockholder’s rank and identity, with the second and nonfamily manager blockholders experiencing the largest loss of power.

Some commentators suggest that the Wall Street views family firms with scepticism. The appointment of independent directors to form a majority on a firm's board of directors should constitute a strong signal to the market of a family firm's willingness to be monitored objectively and thus should alleviate Wall Street's scepticism. This is likely to be more important for the newly public family firms than for mature family firms since outsider-domination on the board pre-dates the involvement of other outsiders, such as underwriters, financial analysts, or institutional investors. Whether the presence of an independent board alleviates the market's scepticism may be evident in the responses of various external monitoring entities to the newly public family and non-family firms. Using a hand-collected sample of newly public firms, we cast brand-new light on whether an independent board provides any advantage to the newly public family firms in underwriter reputation, analyst coverage, and investment by institutional investors over newly public non-family firms. We find that independence of board of directors is overall a positive signal and that while the independence of board is more important than the independence of management for underwriters and financial analysts, the reverse is the case for institutional investors.

This study aims to explore the relationship between the level of busyness of Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) and investment efficiency in the context of emerging markets.

The sample includes firms listed on the Indonesia Stock Exchange from 2010 to 2018 using ordinary least square estimation.

The findings suggest that companies led by busy CEOs tend to exhibit lower investment efficiency, thus providing support for the hypothesis that as CEOs’ commitments increase, their ability to concentrate on the company diminishes. Furthermore, our analysis reveals that companies with busy CEOs tend to demonstrate a greater tendency to over-invest, potentially in response to market pressures to showcase strong performance. A more in-depth examination of the data shows that the negative impact of busy CEOs on investment efficiency is especially noticeable in firms lacking risk and management committees (RMC).

These findings have substantial practical implications for the structuring and composition of corporate boards. They highlight the significance of conducting comprehensive assessments to gain insights into the external commitments of incoming CEOs.

This study underscores the importance of establishing RMC.