The Dynamics of Diversification Discount SEOUNGPIL AHN*
|
|
- Amos Phillips
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 The Dynamics of Diversification Discount SEOUNGPIL AHN* NUS Business School National University of Singapore Singapore Tel: (65) Current version: June 2007 Preliminary and Incomplete Please do not quote * Author acknowledges generous financial support for the project from Ministry of Education, Singapore and Academic Research Council of National University of Singapore.
2 Abstract Using a sample of diversified firms over the period of , we investigate changes in the diversification discount during the two recent merger waves. The time-series patterns of the diversification discount coincide with the merger waves. The average discount is higher when many firms diversify during the waves and it is eliminated as firms in deep discount exit. We document some evidence that is consistent with the endogeneous self-selection hypothesis in the estimation of the average excess value. Nonetheless, we find that the distribution of excess value is meaningful. Deep discounted firms are more likely to reverse their diversification within shorter time periods while the survival of diversification strategies among premium firms and moderate discount firms is unrelated to their excess values. After accounting for value effects, premium firms perform better than focused firms as well as discount firms. We interpret the results as evidence that (1) diversification is good for some firms, but it is not for other firms, and (2) excess value correctly identify these firms successful and unsuccessful in their diversification.
3 1. Introduction The effect of corporate industrial diversification on value remains controversial and is still not well understood despite numerous studies. Previous research has indicated the existence of a diversification discount that conglomerates are valued at a discount as compared to a portfolio of single segment firms. 1 Two broad views have emerged to explain the diversification discount phenomenon. One view is that industrial diversification per se is value decreasing. The diversification discount hypothesis implies that the measured discounts represent inequilibrium which will be eventually resolved by dismantling diversification. If external and internal disciplinary mechanism works properly, any true value loss associated with diversification will be subsequently eliminated by these disciplinary forces. Berger and Ofek (1996) document that diversification discount increases the possibility of bust-up takeovers. Comment and Jarrell (1995) document a trend toward focus during late 80 s. Kaplan and Weisbach (1992) find that, following large acquisitions, almost 44% of target companies are divested in the later period. Mitchell and Lehn (1990) also find that poorly performing firms are more likely to be the target of acquisitions. Lang and Stulz (1994) notice that the diversification discount is gradually decreased starting from year 1986 through year Nonetheless, they left us with a puzzle why there are still many firms that diversify and remain diversified when diversification leads to lower value. The other view is that diversification does not destroy value and an observed diversification discount due to the mechanics of the calculation of the discount. Whited 1 For examples, see Berger and Ofek (1995), Lang and Stulz (1994), and Rajan, Servaes, Zingales (2001) among others. 1
4 (2001) and Villalonga (2003, 2004) argue that once the measurement error in calculation of excess value is corrected, diversification discount disappears. 2 Campa and Kedia (2002) and Graham, Lemmon, and Wolf (2002) find that diversified firms are not in discount after controlling for a firm s endogenous decision to diversify. This evidence is consistent with the persistence of diversification strategy even today. However, it contradicts the evidence from corporate refocusing literature. 3 Another set of literature indicates that mergers occur in waves in response to industry, macroeconomic, stock market conditional and regulatory shocks. Mitchell and Mulherin (1996) and Andrade, Mitchell, and Stafford (2001) report that merger waves occur in the early 80 s. Moeller, Schlingemann and Stulz (2005) document merger wave in the late 90 s. Shleifer and Vishny (2002) propose a model that the merger waves are driven by stock market run-ups which lead groups of bidders with overvalued stock to purchase target stock, which may be overvalued as well. Merger waves are followed by restructuring waves and a vast amount of assets are reallocated. Is a firm s diversification strategy related to merger waves? Exogenous shocks may drive many firms to diversify. Average diversification discount is high when there are more firms that are unsuccessful in their diversification. Disciplines from internal and external control force these unsuccessful firms to undo their diversification and, once the restructuring is completed, average diversification discount disappears. Firms that are successful in their diversification remain diversified through the restructuring wave. We observe 2 Whited (2001) reports that diversified firms are not in discount under measurement error consistent GMM estimation. Villalonga (2003) sorts out comparison stand-alone firms most closely resembled the segments of diversified firms and find that excess value is not negative when segments are compared with the propensity score matched stand-alone firms. Villalonga (2004) uses establishment data of Business Information Tracking Series (BITS) database and finds that diversified firms are in premium. 3 Refocusing literature including Ahn and Denis (2004), Gertner, Powers, Scharfstein (2002), and Dittmar and Shivdasani (2000) also document that diversified firms are valued less than focused firms and refocusing is value enhancing through the elimination of inefficiency present in diversification. 2
5 diversification discount during merger waves when many firms diversify. The subsequent disappearance of the discount can be understood as a winner-picking process, in which successfully diversified firms remain diversified and failed diversification is disciplined. Therefore, diversification per se does not necessarily destroy firm value. For some diversified firms, the benefits of diversification outweigh the costs of diversification and, for others, it is not. If excess value correctly measures value loss from diversification, excess value can predict a firm s survival as a diversified firm and indicates firms successful and firms failed in their diversification. Using a sample of firms over the period , we look at the explanatory power of the competing hypotheses by investigating changes in diversification discount during two recent merger waves. We find that time series pattern of diversification discount is broadly matched with merger waves. The time series pattern of the diversification discount suggests that refocusing activities in the mid to late 1980s eliminated the aggregate diversification discount existed in the early 80 s. The average value effect of diversification is not different than zero during The disappearance of the diversification discount is consistent with an effective market for corporate control that punishes inefficient diversification. To test whether excess value correctly measures the inefficiency of diversification, we examine the relation between the length of diversification and excess value. If excess value represents value loss from diversification, more discounted diversified firms will remain diversified for shorter periods. We expect that value-losing diversification cannot be sustained under the presence of the internal and external pressure. If discounted firms are forced to refocus, we should expect the disappearance 3
6 of discounted firms and diversification discount after the restructuring waves during late 80 s. We find that more discounted firms tend to reverse their diversification within shorter time period. Using Hazard model, we find that 1% increase in diversification discount is associated with around 20% increase in the probability of refocusing. The result is robust after controlling for leverage, operating performance, investment rate, and firm size. We find even stronger result after removing firms financially constrained and firms having poor performance. In addition, we find that excess value does not predict the survival of focused firms, confirming that excess value measures the value loss from diversification. Why diversification discount reappears in year 1999 and diversification strategies thrive again during late 90 s through early 2000 s? This can be explained in connection with merger waves. Moeller, Schlingemann and Stulz (2005) find that the period from saw shareholders of acquiring firms make losses that are probably higher than in earlier periods. Consistent with their results, we find that the diversification discount, after being eliminated in the period from returns in We think the return of diversification is caused by another set of diversified firms responding to different shocks. The level of diversification discount implies subsequent restructuring wave in the forthcoming years. Finally, we investigate value changes when discount firm remain diversified. We find that after adjusting for the value effect (Lamont and Polk, 2002), premium firms outperform discount firms. The result confirms that excess value correctly distinguishes firms successful in their diversification and firms failed in the diversification. 4
7 The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we describe our sample selection procedure and explain our measure of diversification discount. Section 4 examines the relation between the length of diversification and excess value. Section 5 examines performance of firms that remain diversified. Section 6 provides some discussion on our findings. Section 7 concludes. 2. Sample selection and estimation of diversification discount 2.1. Sample selection Our initial sample consists of the universe of companies covered by Compustat (including the research file) in both firm level and segment level at any time over the period 1980 to We matched the firm data with the segment data. We obtain segment data from the Compustat Industry Segment (CIS) files over the period of 1981 to According to the change in the segment reporting standard from SFAS No. 14 to SFAS No. 131 in the end of year 1997, we use segment data from the Compustat Operating Segment (COS) files over the period of 1998 to To avoid any distortion effect of really small companies in calculating excess value, we exclude firms with sales revenue less than $20 million. We also exclude firms with any segment operating in the financial industry (SIC code ), those in other regulated utilities (SIC code ), those that are listed as American Depository Receipts (ADRs), and those lacking the required data at the firm level or segment level. 4 Segment reporting in Compustat segment files is subject to managerial discretion in reporting the number of segments. As a result, the number of segments reported could 4 Alternatively, we exclude all firms with segment sales less than $20 million. This reduces our sample size from 8,674 firm-years and 24,400 segment-year to 5,600 firm-years and 15,983 segment-years. Nonetheless, with one exception (noted later) our results are virtually unchanged. 5
8 fluctuate over time even if there is no real change in a firm s organization. To minimize the effect of the managerial discretion in segment reporting, we also require that firms remain as single segment firms or diversified firms for at least two consecutive years. We define diversified firms as those firms reporting at least two segments operating in different three-digit, standard industrial classification (SIC) codes. We define focused firms as those firms reporting only one segment. We exclude any multiple segment firms reported segments operating in the same three-digit SIC codes. 5 Therefore, by definition, diversified firms in our sample consist of pure conglomerates operating in unrelated industries. For those diversified firms, we eliminate segments entitled corporate, allocation, inter-segment allocation, and others. These segments are non-economic activities representing unallocated amount in segment sales, segment assets and segment operating profits. After elimination of the non-economic segments, we exclude diversified firms in which the sum of segment sales deviates by more than 1% from the total sales of the firm. After the selection process, final sample consists of 16,347 firm-year observations of diversified firms and 24,602 firm-year observations of focused firms over the period 1980 to On average, the diversified firms report 2.9 segments with median of 3 segments Estimation of diversification discount We estimate diversification discount with excess value measure. Similar to Berger and Ofek (1995), Lang and Stulz (1994), and Rajan, Servaes, and Zingales (2000), 5 Our main findings are not sensitive to this definition. We find qualitatively similar results if we define industry at either the two-digit or four-digit SIC level. 6
9 we compute excess value as the natural log of the Tobin s q of the firm divided by its imputed q. Tobin s is proxied by market value to sales ratio. Imputed q is calculated as the sales weighted sum of the ratio of market value to sales for single-segment firms in the same industry. Market value of a firm is the book value of assets plus the market value of common equity minus the sum of the book value of common equity and balance sheet deferred tax. We match each segment of a diversified firm with the industry median value of single segment firms. Industry is defined at the 4-digit SIC level provided that there are at least five single-segment firms in the industry. If there are fewer than five single-segment firms in a 4-digit SIC industry, we define industry at the 3-digit SIC level and then 2-digit SIC level. We winsorize excess values as well as all other final variables at the first and 99th percentiles. We make several choices based in calculating excess value. First, we match segments with industry median instead of sales or asset weighted mean. We prefer to use industry median over weighted mean because median is less subject to the size effect. It is possible that the mean value is driven by large and, presumably, more successful single segment firms resulting in a downward bias in the calculated excess value. Second, our sample of diversified firms confined to conglomerate having segments operating at least two different industries and exclude firms with multiple segments in the same industry at the three-digit SIC level. Third, we prefer to use segment sales instead of segment assets or net income. Segment assets tend to be under-allocated across segments and segment net income is subject to earnings manipulation. 7
10 3. Diversification discount and the length of diversification strategy In this section, we provide evidence that diversification discount changes in a systematic way across two recent merger waves. Diversified firms trade at discount when many firms diversify in the waves and the discount is eliminated during subsequent restructuring wave. This dynamic pattern of diversification discount implies that diversification can be understood as a winner-picking process in which successful diversification survives and unsuccessful diversification is eliminated. We also examine whether excess value is associated with a firm s survival time as a diversified firm. It appears that the measure of excess value can correctly predict the sustainability of diversification strategies over time Change in the diversification discount over time Table 1 reports our measure of excess value in each year from year 1980 to We confirm a significant diversification discount overall. Over the entire sample period, diversified firm, on average, trade at discount compared to focused firms: average excess value is with median excess value of However, the magnitude of this discount is changing over time. Figure 1 shows that diversification discount is substantially higher during and during periods, but it is mostly eliminated during period. Similarly, Servaes (1996) finds significant diversification discount during the 60 s, but not during the early and mid 70 s. A trend toward refocusing during the second half of the 1980 s and corresponding decrease of diversification discount are documented by Comment and Jarrell (1995) and Lang and Stulz (1994). Campa and Kedia (2002) also document similar time patterns over the 8
11 period of We complement their findings by adding the return of diversification discount from 1999 to Interestingly, the dynamic pattern of diversification discount coincides with the periods of merger waves during the early 80 s and the late 90 s. 6 Figure 1 also shows that the diversification discount is positively correlated with the number diversified firms existing in the certain time period. 7 Diversification discount increases as many firms diversify during the waves and the discount is relatively low as many firms undo their diversification subsequently. It is well established that mergers tend to occur in waves and the merger waves are followed by restructuring waves through which a vast amount of assets are reallocated. Mitchell and Mulherin (1996), Andrade, Mitchell, and Stafford (2001), and Shleifer and Vishny (2002) argue that the clustering of merger activities is in part driven by exogenous shocks such as macro-economic, industrial, technological, and regulatory changes and stock market run-ups. The coincidence between the time series pattern of diversification discount and the merger waves suggests that firms diversify in response to exogenous shocks and diversification and subsequent restructuring can be understood as a process of massive asset reallocation. Our view on the time patterns in diversification discount is that many firms diversify in a certain period in response to exogenous shocks, followed by exits of unsuccessful diversified firms. Firms successful in their diversification stay diversified, those unsuccessful in their diversification exit, and this cycle repeats when another shock arrives. Things that cannot last, do not. We expect that the firms experiencing value loss from diversification will eventually refocus. 6 Merger waves in the early 80 s are reported in Mitchell and Mulherin (1996) and Andrade, Mitchell, and Stafford (2001). The recent merger waves in the late 90 s are examined by Moeller, Schlingemann and Stulz (2005). 7 The number of diversified firms increases from 586 firms in 1997 to 878 firms in This jump is in part due to segment reporting change from SFAS 14 to SFAS 131 in
12 However, the cross-sectional average diversification discount is temporarily high during the restructuring period, as the elimination of discount firms is delayed. There are, at least, two reasons that the restructuring process is slow and sometimes costly. First, managers of diversified firm may resist against restructuring when doing so is value-enhancing. At the same time, a slow correction by the market for corporate control and inadequate internal monitoring would result in a temporarily higher discount during the merger waves that is corrected over time. The presence of antitakeover defenses may diminish the effectiveness of the external discipline. Jensen (1993) argues that the restructuring through hostile takeovers could take two or three years while the voluntary restructuring through internal control mechanism could take up to ten years in some cases like General Mills restructuring during the 1980 s. Second, compared to the market for financial assets, the market for physical assets is illiquid. Schlingemann, Stulz, and Walking (2000) document that the liquidity of the market for corporate assets is an important factor in determining which segments of a firm are divested. The liquidity of the market for corporate assets might deter a diversified firm from exiting and sometimes it is costly. Pulvino (1998) argues that financially constrained firms are more likely to sell their assets at discounted prices. The liquidity problem could put binding constraints on diversified firms during the merger waves when many firms restructure their assets at the same time. The survival of successful diversified firms and the refocusing of unsuccessful diversified firms are similar to the argument in the value-maximizing neoclassic model of diversification in Maksimovic and Phillips (2002). They, however, implicitly assume that the entire process of diversification and refocusing is, on average, timely and efficient. 10
13 However, if firms reverse their diversification immediately whenever their diversification turns out to be value-decreasing, there will be no time-series fluctuations in the diversification discount. Therefore, we interpret that the observed dynamic patterns in the diversification discount arises from the delay in eliminating unsuccessful diversification. If excess value is informative, we expect that firms with positive excess values (successful diversification) are more likely to stay diversified than firms with negative excess value (unsuccessful diversification). Our focus in this paper is to study whether the measure of diversification discount (excess value) can correctly identify these firms that are successful and unsuccessful in their diversification. This is an important issue in the following reason. People, in general, agree that there are firms who perform well through diversification and firms who do not. In theory, diversification has both potentials that could increase or destroy the firm value. Then, what make the benefits of diversification outweigh the costs of diversification in some firms, but not in other firms? If excess value can be used to identify these firms that are successful and unsuccessful in their diversification, we can answer the question by comparing characteristics of these two types of firms. This is different question from how to interpret the negative average excess value from panel data set, as it has been examined in the debate on the diversification discount. 8 Villalonga (2004) and Whited (2001) argue that the average excess value is estimated with a downward bias and, after correcting for the estimation error, the average excess value is indifferent from zero. Their findings on the location of the average excess value, however, do not necessarily imply that the distribution of excess value is also meaningless. As long as the behavior of premium firms and discount firms (identified 8 Villalonga (2003) provides an excellent summary on the debate. 11
14 with excess value) is different in a predictable way, the excess value is a meaningful measure. Campa and Kedia (2002) analyze the diversification discount in self-selection models which endogenize a firm s decision to diversify and refocus with instrumental variables representing the firm s characteristics, industry conditions, and macroeconomic indicators. They argue that the excess value measure overestimates the diversification discount among diversifying firms and underestimates the discount among refocusing firms. The result suggests that excess value is a nosy measure so that it might misclassify firms as discount firms when their diversification is not value-destroying and it might misclassify firms as premium firms when their diversification is value-destroying. It is an empirical question whether this bias is large enough to make the distribution of the excess value measure to be completely meaningless. In the following analysis, we show that the distribution of excess value is useful measure in identifying firms that are successful and unsuccessful in their diversification Excess value and the decision to exit What causes the dynamic pattern in excess value? To answer the question, we need to explain how the discount during the early and mid 80 s is eliminated and why the discount returns in the late 90 s. If diversification is the result of value-maximizing firm behavior and, therefore, the distribution of excess value is unrelated to the value loss from diversification, firms decision to exit will be independent of excess value because premium firms and discount firms (identified with excess value) have equal probability to refocus when it is optimal to do so. 9 Alternatively, diversification could be viewed 9 Similarly, Campa and Kedia (2002) argue that the time patterns in the diversification discount can be explained by the changes in industry compositions. As low valued firms diversify, the average value of the 12
15 unfavorably by the market during the early to mid 80 s and during the period of , but not during the period of If diversification is viewed unfavorable by the market during certain periods, firms remaining diversified and firms undoing their diversification during these periods are valued similarly by the market. We compare excess values between diversified firms that remain diversified and diversified firms that disappear. Firms disappear from the sample of diversified firms in various cases including being acquired, bankrupt, refocusing, and privatized. We aggregate all these cases to exiting diversified firms. 10 From Table 2, the remaining diversified firms are, on average, performing better than the exiting diversified firms. From panel A., diversified firms that remain diversified for the entire period of are discounted at , while firms disappeared during the periods are substantially more discounted at Similarly in panel C, exiting firms are more discounted than remaining firms over the periods. The result indicates that the diversification discount in the early and mid 80 s are eliminated as deeper discount firms exit slowly from the sample of diversified firms and moderate discount firms and premium firms stay diversified. Therefore, the time series pattern of excess value is not caused by the changes in market remaining focused firms increases. This exit of poor performers increases the imputed value of diversified firms and leads to higher discount during certain periods. However, their argument is more nuanced instead of directly testing how these changes in the industry composition are related to the year-by-year changes in average excess value. For example, in 1989, the mean excess value of focused firms is highest at while the excess value of diversified firms is highest at 0.00 when it is expected to be lowest under their argument. 10 Managers have discretion in reporting the number of segments. Some firms could report one segment in one year and multiple segments in the next year even if there are no changes in the firm s organization. In the multivariate analysis, we exclude cases that diversified firms disappear due to the managerial discretion in segment reporting. 13
16 perception on diversification. It is also inconsistent with the prediction of the endogenous self-selection story that excess value is unrelated to the firms exit decision. The middle period of our study, , is characterized by a relatively quiet period regarding mergers and refocusing activities. This sub-period fits well with the market perception story and endogenous self-selection story. Excess values appear to be uninformative to the choice to exit during this time period. The excess values of firms that choose to remain diversified are very similar to firms that choose to exit. The mean diversification discount for both the firms that remain diversified and the firms that choose to refocus are around half (around 5% discount) of average discount over the entire period. Note, however, that this quiet period comes only after the restructuring waves in the mid 80 s. It suggests that, as deeper discount firms are eliminated in the previous periods, remaining firms do not experience the value loss from diversification and firms exit decision among these remaining firms are driven by other reasons that are independent from diversification discount. Therefore, when diversified firms trade at relatively moderate discount, excess value is not informative. However, when diversified firms are in deeper discount (greater than 5% discount in our data), excess value appears to be an important measure associated with the exits of diversified firms Excess value and the length of diversification Firm age is widely used in the finance literature to measure the quality of a firm. 11 Intuitively, a long existing strategy is synonymous to the viability of that strategy. If everything else is equal, firms successful in their diversification will maintain their diversification strategies for longer periods. In this section, we investigate the 11 For examples, see Ritter (1984), Michaely and Shaw (1994), and Chemmanur and Paeglis (2005). 14
17 relationship between excess value and the length of diversification. On average, diversification is short lived: average length of diversification is 4.7 years. We find that there are relatively few firms that maintain diversification strategies for long periods. For example, from , there are only 198 firms that are diversified over the entire period. In contrast, there are 1,032 firms that were diversified at some point during These firms that remain diversified for at least 10 years, have a relatively small diversification discount of less than 4%. In table 3, excess values of the remaining firms and the exiting firms are compared according to the years of firms diversification. Firms having lower discount tend to remain diversified for longer time periods. Firms remaining diversified at least for the two consecutive years have average discount of (median of -0.09) while firms remaining diversified at least for the six consecutive years have average discount of (median of -0.05). It appears that the discount below 4% does not have a marginal impact on the survival time as a diversified firm. Figure 2 shows diversification discount and the length of diversification are negatively related. The relationship becomes flat at around 4% of diversification discount. It seems at the odds that remaining firms are also significantly discounted at around 4% (around half of average discount over the entire period). If negative excess value implies the value loss of diversification, should we expect remaining firms have diversification discount of 0%? Graham, Lemmon, and Wolf (2004) argue that this magnitude of diversification discount can be explained by biases in the excess value measure. Lamont and Polk (2004) argue that about half of the diversification discount is due to the difference in expected returns between diversified firms and focused firms. 15
18 Our findings complement this view and suggest that the location of average excess value could be biased downward. Nevertheless, our result indicates that the distribution of excess value is informative: diversification discount greater than 4% is a relevant number in predicting the survival of a firm s diversification strategy. Why excess value is associated with the survival of diversification strategies? As we argued previously, the relationship can not be fully explained by measurement errors in calculating excess value. It is, however, possible that the correlation between excess value and firm characteristics may affect our findings. To address the concern, in the following sections, we provide multivariate tests of the relationship between diversification discount and the length of diversification strategies controlling for endogeniety issue as well as firm s financial characteristics. 4. Duration analysis of diversification 4.1. Excess value and Hazard rate What we are interested in is cases of exits that are driven by the loss from diversification and whether these cases are related to excess value. Some diversified firms may exit with reasons other than diversification discount. For example, poor performance that is not directly related to the value loss from diversification may affect the firm s decision to exit. If such firm characteristics are correlated with excess value, our finding that excess value is related to the firm s exit decision is spurious. It is, however, practically hard to isolate cases that are driven by diversification discount. In the reason, we aggregate all exit cases in univariate tests, but in the multivariate analysis, we control for firm characteristics that could affect firms decision to exit. 16
19 Previous descriptive analysis of the relationship between the length of diversification and excess value is formally tested with a duration analysis, where the duration of interest is survival time of a firm s diversification strategy. Key element of duration analysis is the estimation of hazard rate. 12 The hazard rate, in our models, is the conditional likelihood that a diversified firm drops out of the sample of diversified firms in time period t, given that the firm has survived through time (t-1). We use Cox (1972) s Proportional Hazard Model, which does not require to estimate baseline hazard function as we do not have prior knowledge on the shape of hazard function that affects all diversified firms in reversing their diversification strategies. Cox Proportional Hazard model analysis can accommodate the impact of time varying explanatory variables in panel data settings. The model can also address the right censoring problem. Right censoring occurs when a firm does not have a completed spell within the data observation window. In our data set the survival or diversified firms is right censored at year We require diversified firms stay in the sample at least for two consecutive years. In this way, we exclude firms changing the number of segments due to the managerial discretion in segment reporting. In table 4, explanatory variables are measured annually and they are time-variant. Dependent variable is survivor time as a diversified firm. DISCOUNT is -1 times excess value. Estimated coefficient represents the risk of failure in the next period. For example, coefficient of 1.2 indicates that 1 unit increase in diversification discount increases the hazard by 20%. Coefficient of 0.7 indicates that 1 unit increase in diversification discount 12 See J. M. Wooldrige, Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data, The MIT Press, 2002, pp for more detailed explanation for the hazard model. 17
20 decreases the hazard by 20%. If diversification discount does not predict the failure of diversification strategy, we expect the coefficient on DISCOUNT equals to 1. We include a set of control variables: leverage, sales margin, investment rate and size (sales revenue) in excess forms. EXLEV is excess leverage and it is measured as the difference between the firm s ratio of total debt to the book value of total assets and the firm s imputed leverage. Imputed leverage for each segment is equal to the leverage of the median focused firm operating in the same 3-digit SIC industry. If there are fewer than five focused firms in the industry, industry matching is performed at the 2-digit level. Imputed leverage for the firm is then equal to the sales weighted sum of leverage for the firm s segments. EXSM is excess sales margin and it is measured as the difference between the firm s ratio of EBIT to sales revenues and the firm s imputed sales margin. EXINV is excess investment rate equals to the difference between the firm s net capital investment divided by sales and the firm s imputed investment rate. EXSales is excess size of a firm measured by the difference between the firm s sales revenues and the firm s imputed sales revenues. From model (1) of table 4, the coefficient of DISCOUNT is 1.11 and it is significant. It indicates that the increase in diversification discount by 1% is associated with 11% increase of the probability to exit in the next year. EXLEV is also an important factor in determining the length of diversification; higher leverage carries higher hazard to terminate diversification. The result is consistent with the hypothesis that debt serves a disciplinary role. We also find that more profitable and larger firms tend to stay diversified for longer periods. Investment rate is not related to the survival time as a diversified firm. 18
21 In model (2) (4), we include lagged variables to further control for any endogenous effects associated with the observed diversification discount. The inclusion of lagged DISCOUNT variable alleviates the concern that diversification discount is lowvalued firm phenomenon. The sample size drops to 10,806 observations with one lag and to 8,433 observations with two lags. If diversification discount is low-valued firm phenomenon and, for unknown reasons, the low valued firms are more likely to flip their diversification, we expect that the decision to exit will be more affected by initial discount rather than current discount. Therefore, coefficient on lagged DISCOUNT is expected to be greater than 1 and coefficient on current DISCOUNT is expected to equal to 1. The relationship between the current excess value and hazard rate is stronger. From model (2), after controlling for the previous year s diversification discount, current year s discount is associated with two times higher probability of exit; hazard rate of 22%. Coefficient on lagged DISCOUNT is insignificant 0.91 (hazard rate of -9%). Given that a firm s initial discount, further increase in diversification discount is associated with higher hazard to exit. Although firms might add segments in the current year, it is not clear whether the addition increases diversification discount. Lang and Stulz (1994) and Denis, Denis, and Sarin (1997) argue that the most of diversification discount occurs when a firm diversifies from one segment to two segments and further increase in diversity does not exacerbate diversification discount. The hazard rate associated with diversification discount increases to around 26% in model (3) with second lagged control variables. Parametric estimation of hazard function in model (4) provides similar result. The result confirms our previous findings in the descriptive analysis that excess value correctly predicts which diversified firms 19
22 undo their diversification. As excess value decreases, the probability that a diversified firm reverses its diversification strategy increases. Our result is consistent with the findings of Berger and Ofek (1996) who examine 334 takeovers occurred during period and find that the probability of being targets of hostile takeovers is positively related to diversification discount. We analyze more extended time period ( ) and include all possible reasons for disappearance of diversified firms including being targets of hostile takeovers. In addition, by relating diversification to the merger waves, we provide one possible explanation for the persistence of diversification discount until recent years even after the hostile takeover periods during the 80 s Robustness tests In this section, we discuss some of concerns in interpreting the results in table 4. Although we identify that excess value is related to the length of diversification, it is possible that excess value is correlated with poor performance that is unrelated to the value loss from diversification per se. If poor performing firms are more likely to be disciplined and these firms tend to have lower excess value, the observed relationship between excess value and the length of diversification is spurious. Similarly, financially constrained firms are more likely to restructure their organization and, therefore, could affect our result. To examine whether our result is driven by poor performing firms and financially constrained firms, we re-estimate Cox model after removing firms having (1) interest coverage ratio below 1, (2) Return on Assets lower than bottom 30% in each year, and (3) Kaplan-Zingales Index within top 30% in each year. Kaplan-Zingales Index is a measure of a firm s financial constraints. We follow the specification in Lamont, Polk, 20
23 and Saa-Requejo (2001) to compute the index. Financially constrained firms are designed to have higher scores in the index. From model (1)-(3) in table 5, the coefficients on DISCOUNT are around 1.4, suggesting an increase in diversification discount of 1% increases the possibility of refocusing by amazing 40%. Another test is whether the predictability of excess value is unique to diversified firms. If diversification discount is something to do with diversification, excess value will be useful measure for the survival of diversified firms, but not for focused firms. In model (4), we calculate excess value for focused firms. Because there is only one segment in a focused firm, excess value of focused firms is basically industry-adjusted q. Excess value does not work for focused firms. In model (4), coefficient on DISCOUNT is close to 1, indicating that excess value is not related to the exits of focused firms from the sample of focused firms. Leverage and sales margin are significantly related to the survival of focused firms. The result confirms that excess value captures the value loss associated with diversification itself. Finally, we divided sample of diversified firms into two sub-groups based on the magnitude of discount and re-estimate the Cox models. Descriptive analysis in table 2 and table 3 show that excess value is related to the length of diversification only for deeper discount firms having discount of greater than 5%. This result holds in multivariate analysis settings in model (5) and (6). Coefficient on DISCOUNT is 1.7 among deeper discount firms, but it is insignificant 1.0 among firms with lower than 5% discount. It is possible that low valued firms are more likely to diversify and easy to flip their diversification than premium firms. Matsusaka (2001) argues that low valued firms are in search of a match for the firm s organizational capabilities and abandon their core 21
24 business when they find good matches. The argument, however, is inconsistent with the negative coefficient on DISCOUNT among low-valued firms (discount firms) in model (5); if the diversification by discount firms is equally optimal, why lowest-valued firms are more likely to undo their diversification than less low-valued firms. The result is more consistent with the argument that deep discount represents value loss from diversification and, therefore, deeper discount firms are more likely to reverse their diversification. It is also consistent with agency view that managers tend to delay restructuring unless there is a crisis. In model (6), coefficient on DISCOUNT is insignificantly different from 1. It suggests that the magnitude of gains from diversification does not affect firms exit decision, as long as premium firms have gains from diversification. In sum, tests in table 5 confirm that the relationship between excess value and the length of diversification is not driven by spurious correlation between excess value and poor performance or financial constraints, and it is unique to diversified firms having deeper discount. 5. Performance of premium and discounted firms In the previous sections, we show that excess value is useful measure in predicting the survival of diversification strategy. As we discuss in the previous section, this result, however, does not directly imply that diversification itself destroys value. We rather interpret the result as evidence that (1) diversification is good for some firms, but it is not for other firms; (2) excess value correctly distinguishes successful and unsuccessful diversified firms. 22
25 If premium firms are successful diversified firms and discount firms are failed diversified firms, we expect that premium firms perform better than discount firms when they remain diversified. We compare the performance of these two types of firms when they stay diversified. Lamont and Polk (2002) show that at least a part of the diversification discount is attributable to higher expected returns earned by discount firms. Therefore, it is important to adjust for the differences in expected returns before we compare the performance of these two types of diversified firms. We confirm the existence of the value effect in excess value. In an unreported test, we find that our measure of excess value is negatively related to future changes in excess value among diversified firms. Table 6 reports that this value effect of excess value holds for singlesegment firms as well. We sub-grouped focused firms into 20 portfolios based on their year-by year excess value. For lowest excess value portfolio, the performance over the subsequent two years is positive 0.31 while highest excess value portfolio performs worst at In our effort to understand the changes in excess value over time, we define a measure of the excess change in excess value (ΔEV EXCESS ) that adjusts for this value effect. The excess change in excess value from period t to period t+2 is defined as the difference between the change in excess value for a diversified firm minus the change in excess value for a matched focused firm over the same period. 13 For a given calendar year, focused firms are grouped into twenty portfolios according to the level of excess value at the base year. Diversified firms are also grouped into twenty portfolios according to the excess value cutoff excess value of focused firm portfolios. The average 13 We also examine Excess Changes in Excess Value over the (t, t+1) and (t, t+3) periods. Our inference remains the same. We find stronger result as the time interval increases; outperformance of premium firms are stronger as the time interval increase. 23
26 changes of excess value for the twenty portfolios are assigned to the corresponding diversified firm. Since the value effect is known to be strongly associated with the level of value on the base year, ΔEV EXCESS can, by design, capture the net change in excess value that can not be explained by the value effect. Table 7 reports the change in excess value over two consecutive years. In the first column, diversified firms experience negative change in excess value of on average, while matched focused firms have positive change in excess value of The excess change in excess value (ΔEV EXCESS ) is for the entire diversified firms. In the next two columns, it turns out that premium firms outperform focused firms and discount firms underperform focused firms. ΔEV EXCESS among premium firms is 0.02 while it is among discount firms. The difference in ΔEV EXCESS between premium firms and discount firms are statistically significant at 1% level. This result confirms that premium firms are those successful in their diversification strategies and continue to perform better than focused firms by remaining diversified. Discount firms, however, continue to perform poorly as they remain diversified. This result is consistent with the findings in Maksimovic and Phillips (2002). They find that the surviving diversified firms grow efficiently across industries in which they operate while the growth of the refocusing firms is inconsistent with the neo-classic model of value-maximizing firms. We complement their findings by relating excess value to the survival of diversified firms: these surviving diversified firms that are successful in their diversification can be identified with excess values. The poor performance of discount firms holds as long as they remain diversified regardless of the changes in their diversity. Table 8 reports ΔEV EXCESS for premium firms 24
27 and discount firms according to the change in diversity during subsequent years. The change in diversity is measured with the change in Herfindahl index over the two consecutive years once matching is done. 14 A firm is classified as focus increasing when Herfindahl index increases and otherwise it is grouped as focus decreasing firm. Premium firms perform as good as focused firms even if they diversify further. Discount firms, however, performs poorly even if they increase focus. The result suggests that poor performance of discount firms cannot be eliminated unless they are completely dismantled. 6. Discussion In previous sections, we document that the cross-sectional average diversification discount shows the dynamic patterns corresponding to the merger/restructuring waves. There are two issues related to the efficiency of the entire process. First issue is whether the initial decision to diversify is ex-ante efficient. As long as we are unable to know the exact value of firms when they did not diversify, our result is not supportive of certain agency view that diversification is ex-ante inefficient as it is often driven by managerial objectives at the costs of shareholders wealth. This agency view, however, contradicts the return of the diversification discount and the re-increase in the number of diversified firms in the late 90 s. If diversification is value-decreasing, diversified firms and the discount should be completely eliminated once and for all. As Gomes and Livan (2004) argue, some agency models fail to explain why diversified firms exist at all when it is exante inefficient. 14 The result is quantitatively the same when we measure the change in focus with the number of segments and standard deviation of segment q. 25
28 This agency view is also in odds with bidder announcement return from diversification programs. 15 The agency view predicts that the diversification discount will be eliminated as all diversified firms are forced to be dismantled. Maksimovic and Phillips (2002), however, argue that the growth rate and investment of the remaining diversified firms are consistent with value-maximizing firm behavior. Although there is evidence that some diversification is driven by managerial objectives and, as a result, it is forced to refocus, the number of these cases seems small relative to the entire universe of diversified firms. Our result does not contradict with the claim that initial decision to diversify is efficient on average. In our view, although the ex-ante decision to diversify is efficient on average, some diversification could be ex-ante inefficient or turn out to be a failure expost. Nevertheless, these unsuccessful firms could hold up to their value-losing diversification strategies unless they are forced to refocus. Intuitively, it is harder to reverse existing strategies once assets are already in place than do not make mistakes in the first place. If the restructuring process on the failed diversification is timely, we would not observe the fluctuation of diversification discount over time. The dynamic pattern of diversification discount in Figure 1 suggests that the correction process is slow and value-losing diversified firms may stay for a while until they are disciplined eventually. Although endogeneous self-selection hypothesis recognizes that agency models works well in some cases, it implicitly assumes that the correction process is 15 Bidder announcement returns for diversifying acquisitions are positive during the 60 s (Matsusaka (1993) and Hubbard and Palia (1998). The evidence on bidder returns is at most mixed for the 80 s (see Morck, Shlefer and Vishny (1990), Kaplain and Weisbach (1992), Hyland (1999), and Graham, Lemmon, and Wolf (2002)). 26
Over the last 20 years, the stock market has discounted diversified firms. 1 At the same time,
1. Introduction Over the last 20 years, the stock market has discounted diversified firms. 1 At the same time, many diversified firms have become more focused by divesting assets. 2 Some firms become more
More informationExcess Value and Restructurings by Diversified Firms
Excess Value and Restructurings by Diversified Firms Gayané Hovakimian Fordham University Schools of Business 1790 Broadway, 13 th floor New York, NY10019 Tel.: (212)-636-7021 E-mail: hovakimian@fordham.edu
More informationFirm Diversification and the Value of Corporate Cash Holdings
Firm Diversification and the Value of Corporate Cash Holdings Zhenxu Tong University of Exeter* Paper Number: 08/03 First Draft: June 2007 This Draft: February 2008 Abstract This paper studies how firm
More informationOn Diversification Discount the Effect of Leverage
On Diversification Discount the Effect of Leverage Jin-Chuan Duan * and Yun Li (First draft: April 12, 2006) (This version: May 16, 2006) Abstract This paper identifies a key cause for the documented diversification
More informationAN ANALYSIS OF THE DEGREE OF DIVERSIFICATION AND FIRM PERFORMANCE Zheng-Feng Guo, Vanderbilt University Lingyan Cao, University of Maryland
The International Journal of Business and Finance Research Volume 6 Number 2 2012 AN ANALYSIS OF THE DEGREE OF DIVERSIFICATION AND FIRM PERFORMANCE Zheng-Feng Guo, Vanderbilt University Lingyan Cao, University
More informationDivestitures and Divisional Investment Policies
Divestitures and Divisional Investment Policies Amy Dittmar Kelly School of Business Indiana University Bloomington, IN 47405 Phone: (812) 855-2698 Fax: (812) 855-5875 Email: adittmar@indiana.edu Anil
More informationLong Term Performance of Divesting Firms and the Effect of Managerial Ownership. Robert C. Hanson
Long Term Performance of Divesting Firms and the Effect of Managerial Ownership Robert C. Hanson Department of Finance and CIS College of Business Eastern Michigan University Ypsilanti, MI 48197 Moon H.
More informationNBER WORKING PAPER SERIES DO SHAREHOLDERS OF ACQUIRING FIRMS GAIN FROM ACQUISITIONS? Sara B. Moeller Frederik P. Schlingemann René M.
NBER WORKING PAPER SERIES DO SHAREHOLDERS OF ACQUIRING FIRMS GAIN FROM ACQUISITIONS? Sara B. Moeller Frederik P. Schlingemann René M. Stulz Working Paper 9523 http://www.nber.org/papers/w9523 NATIONAL
More informationThe diversification puzzle revisited: The real options perspective
The diversification puzzle revisited: The real options perspective PABLO DE ANDRÉS-ALONSO AND GABRIEL DE LA FUENTE-HERRERO Department of Financial Economics University of Valladolid Avda. Valle Esgueva
More informationTobin's Q and the Gains from Takeovers
THE JOURNAL OF FINANCE VOL. LXVI, NO. 1 MARCH 1991 Tobin's Q and the Gains from Takeovers HENRI SERVAES* ABSTRACT This paper analyzes the relation between takeover gains and the q ratios of targets and
More informationSources of Financing in Different Forms of Corporate Liquidity and the Performance of M&As
Sources of Financing in Different Forms of Corporate Liquidity and the Performance of M&As Zhenxu Tong * University of Exeter Jian Liu ** University of Exeter This draft: August 2016 Abstract We examine
More informationHow increased diversification affects the efficiency of internal capital market?
How increased diversification affects the efficiency of internal capital market? ABSTRACT Rong Guo Columbus State University This paper investigates the effect of increased diversification on the internal
More informationCorporate Diversification and Overinvestment: Evidence from Asset Write-Offs*
Corporate Diversification and Overinvestment: Evidence from Asset Write-Offs* Gil Sadka and Yuan Zhang November 10, 2008 Preliminary and incomplete Please do not circulate Abstract This paper documents
More informationPrior target valuations and acquirer returns: risk or perception? *
Prior target valuations and acquirer returns: risk or perception? * Thomas Moeller Neeley School of Business Texas Christian University Abstract In a large sample of public-public acquisitions, target
More informationThe Effects of Capital Infusions after IPO on Diversification and Cash Holdings
The Effects of Capital Infusions after IPO on Diversification and Cash Holdings Soohyung Kim University of Wisconsin La Crosse Hoontaek Seo Niagara University Daniel L. Tompkins Niagara University This
More informationAppendix: The Disciplinary Motive for Takeovers A Review of the Empirical Evidence
Appendix: The Disciplinary Motive for Takeovers A Review of the Empirical Evidence Anup Agrawal Culverhouse College of Business University of Alabama Tuscaloosa, AL 35487-0224 Jeffrey F. Jaffe Department
More informationCapital allocation in Indian business groups
Capital allocation in Indian business groups Remco van der Molen Department of Finance University of Groningen The Netherlands This version: June 2004 Abstract The within-group reallocation of capital
More informationAppendices. A Simple Model of Contagion in Venture Capital
Appendices A A Simple Model of Contagion in Venture Capital Given the structure of venture capital financing just described, the potential mechanisms by which shocks might propagate across companies in
More informationDo diversified or focused firms make better acquisitions?
Do diversified or focused firms make better acquisitions? on the 2015 American Finance Association (AFA) Meeting Program Mehmet Cihan Tulane University Sheri Tice Tulane University December 2014 ABSTRACT
More informationThe Effect of Financial Constraints, Investment Policy and Product Market Competition on the Value of Cash Holdings
The Effect of Financial Constraints, Investment Policy and Product Market Competition on the Value of Cash Holdings Abstract This paper empirically investigates the value shareholders place on excess cash
More informationCash Flow Sensitivity of Investment: Firm-Level Analysis
Cash Flow Sensitivity of Investment: Firm-Level Analysis Armen Hovakimian Baruch College and Gayane Hovakimian * Fordham University May 12, 2005 ABSTRACT Using firm level estimates of investment-cash flow
More informationInvestment Policies and Excess Returns in Corporate Spinoffs: Evidence from the U.S. Market. Abstract
Investment Policies and Excess Returns in Corporate Spinoffs: Evidence from the U.S. Market BARBARA ROVETTA* This Draft: January 15, 2005 Abstract Stemming from the most recent contributions of financial
More informationNBER WORKING PAPER SERIES CORPORATE ACQUISITIONS, DIVERSIFICATION, AND THE FIRM S LIFECYCLE. Asli M. Arikan René M. Stulz
NBER WORKING PAPER SERIES CORPORATE ACQUISITIONS, DIVERSIFICATION, AND THE FIRM S LIFECYCLE Asli M. Arikan René M. Stulz Working Paper 17463 http://www.nber.org/papers/w17463 NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC
More informationDeviations from Optimal Corporate Cash Holdings and the Valuation from a Shareholder s Perspective
Deviations from Optimal Corporate Cash Holdings and the Valuation from a Shareholder s Perspective Zhenxu Tong * University of Exeter Abstract The tradeoff theory of corporate cash holdings predicts that
More informationHow do serial acquirers choose the method of payment? ANTONIO J. MACIAS Texas Christian University. P. RAGHAVENDRA RAU University of Cambridge
How do serial acquirers choose the method of payment? ANTONIO J. MACIAS Texas Christian University P. RAGHAVENDRA RAU University of Cambridge ARIS STOURAITIS Hong Kong Baptist University August 2012 Abstract
More informationDOES INFORMATION ASYMMETRY EXPLAIN THE DIVERSIFICATION DISCOUNT? Abstract
The Journal of Financial Research Vol. XXVII, No. 2 Pages 235 249 Summer 2004 DOES INFORMATION ASYMMETRY EXPLAIN THE DIVERSIFICATION DISCOUNT? Ronald W. Best and Charles W. Hodges State University of West
More informationHow Markets React to Different Types of Mergers
How Markets React to Different Types of Mergers By Pranit Chowhan Bachelor of Business Administration, University of Mumbai, 2014 And Vishal Bane Bachelor of Commerce, University of Mumbai, 2006 PROJECT
More informationDo VCs Provide More Than Money? Venture Capital Backing & Future Access to Capital
LV11066 Do VCs Provide More Than Money? Venture Capital Backing & Future Access to Capital Donald Flagg University of Tampa John H. Sykes College of Business Speros Margetis University of Tampa John H.
More informationCan the Source of Cash Accumulation Alter the Agency Problem of Excess Cash Holdings? Evidence from Mergers and Acquisitions ABSTRACT
Can the Source of Cash Accumulation Alter the Agency Problem of Excess Cash Holdings? Evidence from Mergers and Acquisitions ABSTRACT This study argues that the source of cash accumulation can distinguish
More informationThis version: October 2006
Do Controlling Shareholders Expropriation Incentives Derive a Link between Corporate Governance and Firm Value? Evidence from the Aftermath of Korean Financial Crisis Kee-Hong Bae a, Jae-Seung Baek b,
More informationThe Benefits of Market Timing: Evidence from Mergers and Acquisitions
The Benefits of Timing: Evidence from Mergers and Acquisitions Evangelos Vagenas-Nanos University of Glasgow, University Avenue, Glasgow, G12 8QQ, UK Email: evangelos.vagenas-nanos@glasgow.ac.uk Abstract
More informationWorking Paper Series in Finance THE MARKET VALUE OF DIVERSIFIED FIRMS IN AUSTRALIA. Grant Fleming Australian National University
Working Paper Series in Finance 01-04 THE MARKET VALUE OF DIVERSIFIED FIRMS IN AUSTRALIA Grant Fleming Australian National University Barry Oliver Australian National University Steven Skourakis Deloitte
More information50+ Years of Diversification Announcements
The Financial Review 45 (2010) 231 262 50+ Years of Diversification Announcements Mehmet E. Akbulut California State University, Fullerton John G. Matsusaka University of Southern California Abstract This
More informationThe Bright Side of Corporate Diversification:
The Bright Side of Corporate Diversification: Evidence from Policy Uncertainty Brian Clark Lally School of Management, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Troy, NY 12180 clarkb2@rpi.edu Bill B. Francis Lally
More informationOn the Investment Sensitivity of Debt under Uncertainty
On the Investment Sensitivity of Debt under Uncertainty Christopher F Baum Department of Economics, Boston College and DIW Berlin Mustafa Caglayan Department of Economics, University of Sheffield Oleksandr
More informationOwnership Concentration of Family and Non-Family Firms and the Relationship to Performance.
Ownership Concentration of Family and Non-Family Firms and the Relationship to Performance. Guillermo Acuña, Jean P. Sepulveda, and Marcos Vergara December 2014 Working Paper 03 Ownership Concentration
More informationFederal Reserve Bank of Chicago
Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago Merger Momentum and Investor Sentiment: The Stock Market Reaction to Merger Announcements Richard J. Rosen WP 2004-07 Forthcoming, Journal of Business Merger momentum and
More informationCorporate Ownership & Control / Volume 7, Issue 2, Winter 2009 MANAGERIAL OWNERSHIP, CAPITAL STRUCTURE AND FIRM VALUE
SECTION 2 OWNERSHIP STRUCTURE РАЗДЕЛ 2 СТРУКТУРА СОБСТВЕННОСТИ MANAGERIAL OWNERSHIP, CAPITAL STRUCTURE AND FIRM VALUE Wenjuan Ruan, Gary Tian*, Shiguang Ma Abstract This paper extends prior research to
More informationCorporate Governance and Diversification*
Corporate Governance and Diversification* Kimberly C. Gleason Dept of Finance Florida Atlantic University kgleason@fau.edu Inho Kim Dept of Finance University of Cincinnati Inho73@gmail.com Yong H. Kim
More informationDo diversified or focused firms make better acquisitions?
Do diversified or focused firms make better acquisitions? March 15, 2014 Abstract This paper examines the stock market s reaction to merger and acquisition announcements to see if the market perceives
More informationFinancial Constraints and the Risk-Return Relation. Abstract
Financial Constraints and the Risk-Return Relation Tao Wang Queens College and the Graduate Center of the City University of New York Abstract Stock return volatilities are related to firms' financial
More informationDIVERSIFICATION, REFOCUSING, AND FIRM VALUE
DIVERSIFICATION, REFOCUSING, AND FIRM VALUE Gönül Çolak Florida State University The College of Business Department of Finance Rovetta Business Bldg. #522 821 Academic Way Tallahassee, FL 32306-1110 Tel:
More informationDismantling internal capital markets via spinoff: effects on capital allocation efficiency and firm valuation
Journal of Corporate Finance 11 (2005) 253 275 www.elsevier.com/locate/econbase Dismantling internal capital markets via spinoff: effects on capital allocation efficiency and firm valuation Chris R. McNeil
More informationCorporate Liquidity. Amy Dittmar Indiana University. Jan Mahrt-Smith London Business School. Henri Servaes London Business School and CEPR
Corporate Liquidity Amy Dittmar Indiana University Jan Mahrt-Smith London Business School Henri Servaes London Business School and CEPR This Draft: May 2002 We are grateful to João Cocco, David Goldreich,
More informationPreliminary results, please do not cite without first contacting authors.
1 Jeffrey Coy Sam and Irene Black School of Business Penn State Erie, The Behrend College Burke 283 5101 Jordan Rd. Erie, PA 16563 Garrett C. C. Smith Florida Atlantic University Department of Finance
More informationAre Corporate Restructuring Events Driven by Common Factors? Implications for Takeover Prediction
Are Corporate Restructuring Events Driven by Common Factors? Implications for Takeover Prediction RONAN POWELL,* ALFRED YAWSON School of Banking and Finance, the University of New South Wales, Sydney 2052,
More informationLong-run Volatility and Risk Around Mergers and Acquisitions
Long-run Volatility and Risk Around Mergers and Acquisitions Sreedhar T. Bharath University of Michigan Guojun Wu University of Houston This version: February 24, 2006 Abstract In this paper we study the
More informationDissecting Conglomerates
Dissecting Conglomerates November 18, 2017 ABSTRACT We develop a new method to estimate Tobin s qs of conglomerate divisions without relying on standalone firms. Divisional qs differ considerably from
More informationAre Corporate Restructuring Events Driven by Common Factors? Implications for Takeover Prediction
Are Corporate Restructuring Events Driven by Common Factors? Implications for Takeover Prediction Ronan Powell and Alfred Yawson* The authors are respectively, Senior Lecturer in Finance and Lecturer in
More informationThe Impact of Uncertainty on Investment: Empirical Evidence from Manufacturing Firms in Korea
The Impact of Uncertainty on Investment: Empirical Evidence from Manufacturing Firms in Korea Hangyong Lee Korea development Institute December 2005 Abstract This paper investigates the empirical relationship
More informationInternet Appendix for Does Banking Competition Affect Innovation? 1. Additional robustness checks
Internet Appendix for Does Banking Competition Affect Innovation? This internet appendix provides robustness tests and supplemental analyses to the main results presented in Does Banking Competition Affect
More informationEfficiency of Internal Capital Allocation and the Success of Acquisitions
University of New Orleans ScholarWorks@UNO University of New Orleans Theses and Dissertations Dissertations and Theses 12-20-2009 Efficiency of Internal Capital Allocation and the Success of Acquisitions
More informationFirm Complexity and Conglomerates Expected Returns
Firm Complexity and Conglomerates Expected Returns Alexander Barinov School of Business University of California Riverside May 4, 2018 Alexander Barinov (UCR) Complexity Effect May 4, 2018 1 / 30 Introduction
More informationDiversification, Refocusing, and Firm Value
Diversification, Refocusing, and Firm Value by Gönül Çolak Henry B. Tippie College of Business University of Iowa Iowa City, Iowa 52242-1000 (319) 335-0980 gonul-colak@uiowa.edu This draft: January, 2003
More informationCorporate Acquisitions, Diversification, and the Firm s Lifecycle. Asli M. Arikan Ohio State University. and. René M. Stulz* Ohio State University
ACCOUNTING WORKSHOP Corporate Acquisitions, Diversification, and the Firm s Lifecycle By Asli M. Arikan Ohio State University and René M. Stulz* Ohio State University Thursday, May 3 rd, 2012 1:20 2:50
More informationARTICLE IN PRESS. JID:YJFIN AID:499 /FLA [m1g; v 1.36; Prn:26/05/2008; 15:02] P.1 (1-17) J. Finan. Intermediation ( )
JID:YJFIN AID:499 /FLA [m1g; v 1.36; Prn:26/05/2008; 15:02] P.1 (1-17) J. Finan. Intermediation ( ) Contents lists available at ScienceDirect J. Finan. Intermediation www.elsevier.com/locate/fi Executive
More informationRELATIONSHIP BETWEEN NONINTEREST INCOME AND BANK VALUATION: EVIDENCE FORM THE U.S. BANK HOLDING COMPANIES
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN NONINTEREST INCOME AND BANK VALUATION: EVIDENCE FORM THE U.S. BANK HOLDING COMPANIES by Mingqi Li B.Comm., Saint Mary s University, 2015 and Tiananqi Feng B.Econ., Jinan University,
More informationInternet Appendix to Broad-based Employee Stock Ownership: Motives and Outcomes *
Internet Appendix to Broad-based Employee Stock Ownership: Motives and Outcomes * E. Han Kim and Paige Ouimet This appendix contains 10 tables reporting estimation results mentioned in the paper but not
More informationWHAT DRIVES THE PAYMENT OF HIGHER MERGER PREMIUMS?
Soegiharto What Drives the Payment of Higher Merger Premiums? Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business May-August 2009, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 191 228 WHAT DRIVES THE PAYMENT OF HIGHER MERGER PREMIUMS?
More informationARTICLE IN PRESS. Investigating the economic role of mergers. Gregor Andrade *, Erik Stafford
Journal of Corporate Finance 161 (2002) xxx xxx www.elsevier.com/locate/econbase Investigating the economic role of mergers Gregor Andrade *, Erik Stafford Harvard Business School, Soldiers Field, Boston,
More informationFresh Momentum. Engin Kose. Washington University in St. Louis. First version: October 2009
Long Chen Washington University in St. Louis Fresh Momentum Engin Kose Washington University in St. Louis First version: October 2009 Ohad Kadan Washington University in St. Louis Abstract We demonstrate
More informationCash holdings determinants in the Portuguese economy 1
17 Cash holdings determinants in the Portuguese economy 1 Luísa Farinha Pedro Prego 2 Abstract The analysis of liquidity management decisions by firms has recently been used as a tool to investigate the
More informationTwo essays on Corporate Restructuring
University of South Florida Scholar Commons Graduate Theses and Dissertations Graduate School January 2012 Two essays on Corporate Restructuring Dung Anh Pham University of South Florida, dapham@usf.edu
More informationInternal Capital Markets in Financial Conglomerates: Evidence from Small Bank Responses to Monetary Policy
Internal Capital Markets in Financial Conglomerates: Evidence from Small Bank Responses to Monetary Policy Murillo Campello* (This Draft: May 15, 2000) Abstract This paper examines the functioning of internal
More informationCEO Inside Debt and Internal Capital Market Efficiency
CEO Inside Debt and Internal Capital Market Efficiency Abstract Agency theory argues that managerial equity-based incentives are more effective when firm solvency is likely while debt-based incentives
More informationFactor Performance in Emerging Markets
Investment Research Factor Performance in Emerging Markets Taras Ivanenko, CFA, Director, Portfolio Manager/Analyst Alex Lai, CFA, Senior Vice President, Portfolio Manager/Analyst Factors can be defined
More informationDo diversified firms allocate capital inefficiently? Evidence from equity carve-outs. Sudi Sudarsanam, Siyang Tian & Valeriya Vitkova
Do diversified firms allocate capital inefficiently? Evidence from equity carve-outs Sudi Sudarsanam, Siyang Tian & Valeriya Vitkova Mergers & Acquisitions Research Centre (MARC) Cass Business School City
More informationUniversity of Southern California Law School
University of Southern California Law School Law and Economics Working Paper Series Year 2008 Paper 73 50+ Years of Diversification Announcements Mehmet E. Akbulut John G. Matsusaka California State University,
More informationManagerial compensation incentives and merger waves
Managerial compensation incentives and merger waves David Hillier a, Patrick McColgan b, Athanasios Tsekeris c Abstract This paper examines the relation between executive compensation incentives and the
More informationCash holdings, corporate governance, and acquirer returns
Ahn and Chung Financial Innovation (2015) 1:13 DOI 10.1186/s40854-015-0013-6 RESEARCH Open Access Cash holdings, corporate governance, and acquirer returns Seoungpil Ahn 1* and Jaiho Chung 2 * Correspondence:
More informationDissecting Conglomerates
Dissecting Conglomerates Oliver Boguth, Ran Duchin, and Mikhail Simutin September 1, 2017 ABSTRACT We develop a new method to study internal capital allocation in conglomerates by calculating direct estimates
More informationESSAYS IN CORPORATE FINANCE. Cong Wang. Dissertation. Submitted to the Faculty of the. Graduate School of Vanderbilt University
ESSAYS IN CORPORATE FINANCE By Cong Wang Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Vanderbilt University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
More informationThriving on a Short Leash: Debt Maturity Structure and Acquirer Returns
Thriving on a Short Leash: Debt Maturity Structure and Acquirer Returns Abstract This research empirically investigates the relation between debt maturity structure and acquirer returns. We find that short-term
More informationThe Effect of Institutional Factors on the Value of Corporate Diversification
The Effect of Institutional Factors on the Value of Corporate Diversification The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters.
More informationWealth Destruction on a Massive Scale? A Study of Acquiring-Firm Returns in the Recent Merger Wave
THE JOURNAL OF FINANCE VOL. LX, NO. 2 APRIL 2005 Wealth Destruction on a Massive Scale? A Study of Acquiring-Firm Returns in the Recent Merger Wave SARA B. MOELLER, FREDERIK P. SCHLINGEMANN, and RENÉ M.STULZ
More informationWhy Does Global Diversification Still Make Sense? A Cross-Firm Analysis of the Risk and Value of Diversified Firms
Why Does Global Diversification Still Make Sense? A Cross-Firm Analysis of the Risk and Value of Diversified Firms Diego Escobari escobarida@utpa.edu The University of Texas Pan American Mohammad J. Nejad*
More informationHedge Fund Activism and Internal Capital Markets
Hedge Fund Activism and Internal Capital Markets Sehoon Kim Warrington College of Business University of Florida October, 2017 Abstract This paper studies the impact of hedge fund activism on target companies
More informationThe Tangible Value of Experiential Learning in M&A New Evidence from Takeover of Experienced Deal-Makers
The Tangible Value of Experiential Learning in M&A New Evidence from Takeover of Experienced Deal-Makers Dr. Indrajeet Mohite* Abstract Organisational learning theory predicts that firms and their top
More informationThe Effect of Forced Refocusing on the Value of Diversified Firms
The Effect of Forced Refocusing on the Value of Diversified Firms John G. Matsusaka and Yongxiang Wang University of Southern California This paper studies how investors responded when Chinese regulators
More informationManagerial compensation and the threat of takeover
Journal of Financial Economics 47 (1998) 219 239 Managerial compensation and the threat of takeover Anup Agrawal*, Charles R. Knoeber College of Management, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC
More informationDissecting Conglomerates
Dissecting Conglomerates Oliver Boguth, Ran Duchin, and Mikhail Simutin April 6, 2016 ABSTRACT We develop a method to calculate valuation multiples of conglomerate divisions that does not rely on standalone
More informationMarket Variables and Financial Distress. Giovanni Fernandez Stetson University
Market Variables and Financial Distress Giovanni Fernandez Stetson University In this paper, I investigate the predictive ability of market variables in correctly predicting and distinguishing going concern
More informationThe Nature and Persistence of Buyback Anomalies
The Nature and Persistence of Buyback Anomalies Urs Peyer and Theo Vermaelen INSEAD November 2005 ABSTRACT Using recent data on buybacks, we reject the hypothesis that the market has become more efficient
More informationDiversification and Organizational Environment: The Effect of Resource Scarcity and. Complexity on the Valuation of Multi-Segment Firms
Diversification and Organizational Environment: The Effect of Resource Scarcity and Complexity on the Valuation of Multi-Segment Firms Maximilian Sturm, Stephan Nüesch Forthcoming: Journal of Business
More informationInsider Ownership and Shareholder Value: Evidence from New Project Announcements
Insider Ownership and Shareholder Value: Evidence from New Project Announcements Meghana Ayyagari Radhakrishnan Gopalan Vijay Yerramilli April 2013 Abstract Most firms outside the U.S. have one or more
More informationDIVERSIFICATION EFFECTS: A REAL OPTIONS APPROACH
DIVERSIFICATION EFFECTS: A REAL OPTIONS APPROACH A dissertation submitted to the Kent State University Graduate School of Management in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor
More informationAsset Buyers and Leverage. Khaled Amira* Kose John** Alexandros P. Prezas*** and. Gopala K. Vasudevan**** October 2009
Asset Buyers and Leverage Khaled Amira* Kose John** Alexandros P. Prezas*** and Gopala K. Vasudevan**** October 2009 *Assistant Professor of Finance, Sawyer Business School, Suffolk University, **Charles
More informationCorporate diversification strategies and capital structure
The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance 43 (2003) 147 167 Corporate diversification strategies and capital structure Manohar Singh a, Wallace N. Davidson III b,, Jo-Ann Suchard c a Long Island University,
More information15 Week 5b Mutual Funds
15 Week 5b Mutual Funds 15.1 Background 1. It would be natural, and completely sensible, (and good marketing for MBA programs) if funds outperform darts! Pros outperform in any other field. 2. Except for...
More informationNBER WORKING PAPER SERIES DO ACQUIRERS WITH MORE UNCERTAIN GROWTH PROSPECTS GAIN LESS FROM ACQUISITIONS?
NBER WORKING PAPER SERIES DO ACQUIRERS WITH MORE UNCERTAIN GROWTH PROSPECTS GAIN LESS FROM ACQUISITIONS? Sara B. Moeller Frederik P. Schlingemann René M. Stulz Working Paper 10773 http://www.nber.org/papers/w10773
More informationCorporate Leverage and Taxes around the World
Utah State University DigitalCommons@USU All Graduate Plan B and other Reports Graduate Studies 5-1-2015 Corporate Leverage and Taxes around the World Saralyn Loney Utah State University Follow this and
More informationOwnership Structure and Capital Structure Decision
Modern Applied Science; Vol. 9, No. 4; 2015 ISSN 1913-1844 E-ISSN 1913-1852 Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education Ownership Structure and Capital Structure Decision Seok Weon Lee 1 1 Division
More informationPrivate Equity Performance: What Do We Know?
Preliminary Private Equity Performance: What Do We Know? by Robert Harris*, Tim Jenkinson** and Steven N. Kaplan*** This Draft: September 9, 2011 Abstract We present time series evidence on the performance
More informationDO CEOS IN MERGERS TRADE POWER FOR PREMIUM? EVIDENCE FROM MERGERS OF EQUALS
University of Pennsylvania Law School ILE INSTITUTE FOR LAW AND ECONOMICS A Joint Research Center of the Law School, the Wharton School, and the Department of Economics in the School of Arts and Sciences
More informationCAPITAL STRUCTURE AND THE 2003 TAX CUTS Richard H. Fosberg
CAPITAL STRUCTURE AND THE 2003 TAX CUTS Richard H. Fosberg William Paterson University, Deptartment of Economics, USA. KEYWORDS Capital structure, tax rates, cost of capital. ABSTRACT The main purpose
More informationFirm R&D Strategies Impact of Corporate Governance
Firm R&D Strategies Impact of Corporate Governance Manohar Singh The Pennsylvania State University- Abington Reporting a positive relationship between institutional ownership on one hand and capital expenditures
More informationRevisiting Idiosyncratic Volatility and Stock Returns. Fatma Sonmez 1
Revisiting Idiosyncratic Volatility and Stock Returns Fatma Sonmez 1 Abstract This paper s aim is to revisit the relation between idiosyncratic volatility and future stock returns. There are three key
More informationThe benefits and costs of group affiliation: Evidence from East Asia
Emerging Markets Review 7 (2006) 1 26 www.elsevier.com/locate/emr The benefits and costs of group affiliation: Evidence from East Asia Stijn Claessens a, *, Joseph P.H. Fan b, Larry H.P. Lang b a World
More informationEXPLAINING THE DIVERSIFICATION DISCOUNT. José Manuel Campa* Simi Kedia** RESEARCH PAPER No 424 October, 2000
IESE UNIVERSIDAD DE NAVARRA CIIF CENTRO INTERNACIONAL DE INVESTIGACION FINANCIERA EXPLAINING THE DIVERSIFICATION DISCOUNT José Manuel Campa* Simi Kedia** RESEARCH PAPER No 424 October, 2000 * Professor
More informationThe Effect of Functional Diversification on Financial Conglomerates:
Stockholm School of Economics Master Thesis in Finance The Effect of Functional Diversification on Financial Conglomerates: Evidence from European Countries Oskars Cimermanis a Janis Pastars b 02.06.2011
More information