Search results

The purpose of the study is to examine how operating efficiencies from incentive alignment compensate for rent extraction in family firms. The author asks whether ownership (1) improves operating efficiencies to increase firm value, (2) positively affects related-party transactions (RPTs), or (3) destroys firm value. Finally, the author assesses whether the incentive effect dominates the entrenchment effect.

This study employs a panel of 333 listed family firms (and 185 nonfamily firms) and handles endogeneity using a dynamic panel system GMM and panel VAR.

Ownership decreases discretionary expenses and increases asset utilization to add firm value. The efficiency gains generate more value in family firms, especially majority-held ones, than in nonmajority ones. However, ownership is also related to increased RPTs (especially dubious loans/guarantees), reducing firm value. RPTs destroy value more severely in the family (or group) firms than in nonfamily (nongroup) firms. It could be why ownership's positive impact on value is lower in family firms than in nonfamily firms. Overall, the incentive effect dominates the entrenchment effect and is robust to controlling private benefits of control in the dynamic ownership-value model.

(1) A family firm's ownership may not be optimal. (2) The firm's long-term commitment as a dynasty limits the scale of expropriation yet sustains impetus for long-term value creation. The paradox partly explains why large family holdings and firm-specific investments endure over generations. (3) This way, large ownership substitutes weak investor protection in India despite tunneling as skin in the game provides necessary investor confidence. (4) Future studies can examine whether extraction varies with family generations and how family characteristics affect the incentive effects.

(1) Concentrated ownership may not be a wrong policy choice in emerging markets to draw firm-specific investments. (2) Investors, auditors, or creditors must pay closer attention to loans/guarantees. (3) More vigorous enforcement, auditor scrutiny, and board oversight are needed.

Family firms are not necessarily a bad organization type that destroys investor wealth. They can be valuably efficient due to their ownership and wealth concentration, and frugality. They matter in the economic growth of a developing market like India.

(1) Extends ownership-performance research to family firms and shows that although ownership facilitates tunneling, the incentive effect dominates; (2) family ownership is not impacted by firm value; (3) family ownership levels reduce discretionary expenses and increase asset utilization to create added value, especially in majority-held family firms; (4) RPTs and loans/guarantees increase with ownership; (5) value erosion from RPTs is higher in family (group) firms than in other firms.

This paper aims to examine the relation between promoter ownership (PO) and corporate social responsibility (CSR) expenditure in India, the first country to legally mandate the CSR spending.

This paper applies panel regression to examine the impact of PO on actual and excess CSR expenditure because panel regression has lesser multicollinearity problems and has the benefit of controlling for individual or time heterogeneity mostly present in cross-section or time series data. The results are robust to testing the CSR expenditure decision (to engage or not to engage in CSR) by using the binary choice logit model.

Based on the agency theory, this study shows a nonlinear relation between PO and CSR expenditure, which suggests that promoters start extracting private benefits of control at the expense of outside shareholders and engage in lesser CSR expenditure only when their ownership crosses a threshold level of 52% approximately. This study further shows that the nonlinear relation between PO and CSR expenditure is more pronounced for firms that are more prone to agency problems, for business group firms than standalone firms and for firms not following the Companies Act 2013 CSR mandate.

The findings shed light at the idea of how promoters’ incentive alignment should be proposed and followed to encourage a firm’s social investment activities.

First, this study argues that the relation between PO and CSR expenditure is nonlinear in nature, by showing that the impact of PO on CSR expenditure is adverse only at higher level of PO. Second, this study’s richer data set on CSR expenditure not only allows the authors to analyze the relation for actual CSR spending by the firms but also helps to examine the excess spending made over and above the mandatory spending, as directed by the Companies Act, 2013.

This study investigated the impact of corporate ownership structure on agency costs in the insurance industry.

The study sample included 23 insurance companies listed on the Amman Stock Exchange (ASE) from 2010 to 2019. Panel regression was used to account for the firm- and time-specific unobservable variables and system-GMM estimation was used to address endogeneity concerns.

The results show that managerial ownership positively (negatively) affects selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses (assets turnover), implying that unmonitored managers engage in activities that serve their own interests rather than those of shareholders. The largest shareholder's ownership has no impact on agency costs, implying that the ownership of the largest shareholder is irrelevant. However, as the wedge between the percentage of capital owned by the largest shareholders and managers increases, SG&A expenses (efficiency ratio) decrease (increases), indicating that the existence of large non-management shareholders reduces agency costs. After accounting for the endogeneity problem, the impact of ownership structure on agency costs measured by asset turnover remains robust.

To the best of the authors' knowledge, this study is the first to provide unique evidence and useful insights into the determinants of agency costs from a frontier market in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA), with a focus on the insurance sector. Additionally, this study uses a new measure of separation between ownership and control by calculating the wedge between managers' and large shareholders' ownership.

This paper addresses the following questions: Why do some firms employ multiple debt types? What explains debt heterogeneity? Is the choice of the source of debt a function of corporate governance?

The author's paper is empirical and uses multiple regression analysis.

Firms under weak corporate governance have a higher propensity to use multiple debt types and have a dispersed debt structure. Contrastingly, firms that are well-managed tend to concentrate debt and borrow predominantly from a few creditors. The author also found that while bank debt is negatively associated with debt concentration, market debt is positively associated with debt concentration.

Firms under weak corporate governance have a higher propensity to use multiple debt types and have a dispersed debt structure. Well-managed firms tend to concentrate debt and borrow predominantly from a few creditors. Bank debt is negatively associated with debt concentration and market debt is positively associated with debt concentration.

Policymakers and practitioners need to account not only for changes in the firm’s total debt level but also for changes within the firm’s debt composition. Understanding a manager’s choice of debt structure can incentivize creditors to effectively monitor and use debt concentration as a form of commitment device that transfers some control rights from the manager to creditors.

While a vast body of corporate finance literature examines the conflict between shareholders and management, there is little empirical work on the conflict between creditors and management. In this paper, the author examines how managerial entrenchment affects debt structure. The results provide a comprehensive picture of how corporate governance influences debt choice(s).

This study provides new insights into the relationship between the heterogeneity of institutional investors (IIs) and corporate tax avoidance (CTA). It also investigates whether family ownership moderates this relationship.

Based on a sample of 200 French-listed firms from 2008 to 2017, we use the generalized method of moment (GMM) estimator proposed by Arellano and Bover (1995) and developed by Blundell and Bond (1998) to address endogeneity and omitted variable concerns.

The results show that passive IIs are associated with an increase in the level of tax avoidance. However, active ones significantly decrease the levels of tax avoidance practices. Moreover, we show that institutional activism is not sufficient to control managerial actions, particularly in the context of controlled family businesses. The results suggest that families may expropriate the rights of minority shareholders through a controlling coalition with passive IIs.

This study has several practical implications. First, the results are useful for policymakers who should constrain passive IIs to provide only one service (asset management). Second, this study may sensitize family owners to the need to cooperate with active IIs that are effective in monitoring the firm. In particular, families should be willing to sacrifice some of their socioemotional wealth to promote a balanced ownership structure, which is important for responsible and effective corporate governance.

This paper extends previous research by investigating the heterogeneity of IIs in terms of horizon, ownership and control. In addition, this paper sheds a new light on how family firms behave regarding tax avoidance practices in the presence of active and passive IIs.

An emerging line of research examining the role of numerological superstition in the capital market shows that it has significant impact on investor behavior (Bhattacharya, Kuo, Lin, & Zhao, 2018; Hirshleifer, Jian, & Zhang 2018). However, to the authors’ best knowledge, there is a dearth of evidence on whether numerological superstition affects corporate behavior. This study fills this void by examining the association between investors’ numerological superstition and earnings management using Chinese data.

Chinese culture views 6 and 8 as lucky numbers. Using Chinese publicly traded firms, the authors examine the relation between investors’ numerological superstition and corporate financial reporting behavior.

The results suggest that firms reporting lucky earnings-per-share (EPS) numbers ending with 6 or 8 are more likely to engage in earnings management. These firms also raise more capital through seasoned equity offerings in the following year; however, they do not have more capital investments. Instead, their controlling shareholders siphon a significant amount of capital through related party transactions. Overall, the findings suggest that managers collude with controlling shareholders to manage earnings by exploiting the superstitious beliefs of minority shareholders.

To the authors’ best knowledge, there is a dearth of evidence on whether numerological superstition affects corporate behavior. This study fills this void by examining the association between investors’ numerological superstition and earnings management using Chinese data.

This study investigates whether the proportion of proprietary directors (blockholders or their representatives) on the board's remuneration committee influences vertical pay inequality in Spanish listed companies and whether this relationship can be conditioned by the concentration of ownership.

The sample contains information on the individual compensation of 1048 directors of 57 Spanish listed firms during the period 2013–2018 making up an unbalanced panel with 3565 observations. Panel data regressions are used to study how the presence of proprietary directors on the remuneration committee influences the remuneration of directors, focusing not on their absolute remuneration levels, but rather on their relationship to the average remuneration of the organization's employees (as a measure of vertical pay inequality within the company). The authors also investigate whether this relationship is conditioned by firm ownership concentration.

The results indicate that the presence of proprietary directors on the remuneration committee acts as a mechanism to reduce vertical pay inequality, even in the context of high ownership concentration.

Unlike the majority of previous research dedicated to the independence of the remuneration committee, this study focuses on the role played by proprietary directors. The results help elucidate the importance of proprietary directors to properly monitor and restrain directors' compensation in contexts of high ownership concentration.

In public firms, the largest shareholder can make decisions on cash dividends in favor of its own interests at the expense of other investors. While the second largest shareholder can actively participate in corporate governance and protect the interests of investors, its impact has not been fully understood. This research investigates how shareholding ratio and ownership type of the second largest shareholder moderate the relationship between controlling shareholder's shareholding ratio and cash dividends.

The authors conducted econometrics analysis based on a panel data of China's A-share listed companies from 2007 to 2017.

The authors find that the controlling shareholder's shareholding ratio has a significant negative impact on cash dividends. However, this influence is conditional on the shareholding ratio of the second largest shareholder. The negative impact is weakened when the second largest shareholder holds a large proportion of shares or when the shareholding gap between the second largest and the controlling shareholder is small.

This research extends the existing literature by highlighting the nuanced moderating effect of the second largest shareholder on the relationship between the controlling shareholder and cash dividends, thus making a unique contribution to the understanding of corporate governances in the emerging financial market in China.

This paper aims to investigate how the passage of the Sarbanes Oxley Act (SOX) impacted the likelihood and timing of the decision of leveraged buyout (LBO) firms to exit via initial public offering (IPO) (reverse-LBO) and the mediating effect of reputed private equity (PE) firms.

The sample comprises firms that went private via LBO between 1990 and 2018. The authors use logistic and ordinary least square regression models to compare the effect of SOX on the re-listing decision and the time taken to re-list.

LBO firms were less likely to exit via public offering after SOX, and the time from LBO to IPO was significantly longer for exiting firms post-SOX. PE firm reputation partially reversed the reluctance to exit via IPO and shortened the time to exit.

The primary focus is RLBOs; the authors do not directly examine other methods of LBO exit. The findings have policy implications for unintended impacts of SOX. Despite the benefits of increasing transparency and protecting investors, SOX reduced the likelihood of going public and increased the time to IPO, potentially reducing product market competition.

RLBOs present a unique experimental setting as the authors can test the impact of SOX on both the likelihood and time to go public, whereas prior literature using first-time IPO samples are able to test only the likelihood. The authors also show that the reputation of the advising PE firm attenuates the reluctance and time taken for RLBOs to re-list. The authors are, thus, able to provide a new perspective on the impact of SOX on the going public decision.

The phenomenon of “broken rungs” has prevented most women from attaining managerial positions relative to men. Despite this gender disparity in management, female executives are more likely to enhance shareholder trust due to higher ethical standards, which can be hypothesized to mitigate the negative impact of family ownership on firm value. Therefore, this study aims to investigate the moderating role of female ownership and female directors in mitigating the unfavorable effects of family ownership on firm value as measured by Tobin’s Q and the Market Value of Equity (MVE).

Multiple linear regression is applied to examine the proposed hypotheses, as well as other vital factors, such as board independence (BI), the dual chief executive officer (CEO)–chairman role (CEO duality) and control variables (i.e. firm size, firm age, leverage and investment ratio).

The results revealed that female directors could buffer the negative impact caused by family ownership, leading to higher firm value, when given a sufficient level of female ownership or the appointment of more female directors, regardless of female ownership levels. Otherwise, female ownership cannot help overcome the negative effects of family ownership in Thai-listed firms. This study also sheds light on corporate governance elements that impact firm value. CEO duality reduces the value of Thai-listed companies, whereas board independence increases firm value.

The managerial roles for women should be promoted in Thai-listed enterprises. The government can support new laws, policies and programs for embracing a cross-cutting gender perspective. Female network initiatives enable women to advance in their managerial careers.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study intends to fill the research gap by investigating how female directors and owners can moderate family ownership’s influence on the value of firms listed on the Stock Exchange of Thailand (SET), which is one of the emerging capital markets.