This paper surveys research on corporate governance, with special attention to the importance of legal protection of investors and of ownership concentration in corporate governance systems around the world.

A Survey of Corporate Governance

This article surveys research on corporate governance, with special attention to the importance of legal protection of investors and of ownership concentration in corporate governance systems around the world. CORPORATE GOVERNANCE DEALS WITH the ways in which suppliers of finance to corporations assure themselves of getting a return on their investment. How do the suppliers of finance get managers to return some of the profits to them? How do they make sure that managers do not steal the capital they supply or invest it in bad projects? How do suppliers of finance control managers? At first glance, it is not entirely obvious why the suppliers of capital get anything back. After all, they part with their money, and have little to contribute to the enterprise afterward. The professional managers or entrepreneurs who run the firms might as well abscond with the money. Although they sometimes do, usually they do not. Most advanced market economies have solved the problem of corporate governance at least reasonably well, in that they have assured the flows of enormous amounts of capital to firms, and actual repatriation of profits to the providers of finance. But this does not imply that they have solved the corporate governance problem perfectly, or that the corporate governance mechanisms cannot be improved. In fact, the subject of corporate governance is of enormous practical impor

/pdf/a-survey-of-corporate-governance-36f3yobhy4.pdf

In both corporate finance and asset pricing empirical work, researchers are often confronted with panel data. In these data sets, the residuals may be correlated across firms and across time, and OLS standard errors can be biased. Historically, the two literatures have used different solutions to this problem. Corporate finance has relied on clustered standard errors, while asset pricing has used the Fama-MacBeth procedure to estimate standard errors. This paper examines the different methods used in the literature and explains when the different methods yield the same (and correct) standard errors and when they diverge. The intent is to provide intuition as to why the different approaches sometimes give different answers and give researchers guidance for their use.

/pdf/estimating-standard-errors-in-finance-panel-data-sets-1rry6mh9tl.pdf

Estimating Standard Errors in Finance Panel Data Sets: Comparing Approaches

Since 1973 technological, political, regulatory, and economic forces have been changing the worldwide economy in a fashion comparable to the changes experienced during the nineteenth century Industrial Revolution. As in the nineteenth century, we are experiencing declining costs, increasing average (but decreasing marginal) productivity of labor, reduced growth rates of labor income, excess capacity, and the requirement for downsizing and exit. The last two decades indicate corporate internal control systems have failed to deal effectively with these changes, especially slow growth and the requirement for exit. The next several decades pose a major challenge for Western firms and political systems as these forces continue to work their way through the worldwide economy.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1540-6261.1993.tb04022.x

The Modern Industrial Revolution, Exit, and the Failure of Internal Control Systems

We investigate the relation between founding-family ownership and firm performance. We find that family ownership is both prevalent and substantial; families are present in one-third of the S&P 500 and account for 18 percent of outstanding equity. Contrary to our conjecture, we find family firms perform better than nonfamily firms. Additional analysis reveals that the relation between family holdings and firm performance is nonlinear and that when family members serve as CEO, performance is better than with outside CEOs. Overall, our results are inconsistent with the hypothesis that minority shareholders are adversely affected by family ownership, suggesting that family ownership is an effective organizational structure. FOUNDING-FAMILYOWNERSHIPAND CONTROL in public U.S. firms is commonly perceived as a less efficient, or at the very least, a less profitable ownership structure than dispersed ownership. Fama and Jensen (1983) note that combining ownership and control allows concentrated shareholders to exchange profits for private rents. Demsetz (1983) argues that such owners may choose nonpecuniary consumption and thereby draw scarce resources away from profitable projects. Shleifer and Vishny (1997) observe that the large premiums associated with superiorvoting shares or control rights provide evidence that controlling shareholders seek to extract private benefits from the firm. More generally, firms with large, undiversified owners such as founding families may forgo maximum profits because they are unable to separate their financial preferences with those of outside owners.1 Families also often limit executive management positions to family

https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/3094581.pdf

Founding-Family Ownership and Firm Performance: Evidence from the S&P 500

We provide evidence on the agency cost explanation for corporate diversification. We find that the level of diversification is negatively related to managerial equity ownership and to the equity ownership of outside blockholders. In addition, we report that decreases in diversification are associated with external corporate control threats, financial distress, and management turnover. These findings suggest that agency problems are responsible for firms maintaining value-reducing diversification strategies and that the recent trend toward increased corporate focus is attributable to market disciplinary forces.

Agency Problems, Equity Ownership, and Corporate Diversification

Autors document that forced resignations of top managers are preceded by large and significant declines in operating performance and followed by large improvements in performance. However, forced resignations are rare and are due more often to external factors (e.g., blockholder pressure, takeover attempts, etc.) than to normal board monitoring. Following the management change, these firms significantly downsize their operations and are subject to a high rate of corporate control activity. Normal retirements are followed by small increases in operating income and are also subject to a slightly higher than normal incidence of postturnover corporate control activity.

Performance Changes Following Top Management Dismissals

We provide robust evidence that cash holdings are more valuable for financially constrained firms than for unconstrained firms and investigate why this is so. Our results indicate that greater cash holdings are associated with higher levels of investment for both constrained and unconstrained firms, but that the marginal value of investment is greater for constrained firms. These findings suggest that higher cash holdings allow constrained firms to undertake value-increasing projects that might otherwise be bypassed. As such, the evidence is consistent with the hypothesis that greater cash holdings of constrained firms are a value-increasing response to costly external financing.

Financial Constraints, Investment, and the Value of Cash Holdings

In the U.S., Canada, U.K., Germany, France, and Japan, the propensity to pay dividends is higher among larger, more profitable firms, and those for which retained earnings comprise a large fraction of total equity. Although there are hints of reductions in the propensity to pay dividends in most of the sample countries over the 1994 to 2002 period, they are driven by a failure of newly listed firms to initiate dividends when expected to do so. Dividend abandonment and the failure to initiate by existing nonpayers are economically unimportant except in Japan. Moreover, in each country, aggregate dividends have not declined and are concentrated among the largest, most profitable firms. Finally, outside of the U.S. there is little evidence of a systematic positive relation between relative prices of dividend paying and non-paying firms and the propensity to pay dividends. Overall, these findings cast doubt on signaling, clientele, and catering explanations for dividends, but support agency cost-based lifecycle theories.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID991026_code415748.pdf?abstractid=887643&rulid=9365897&mirid=3

David J. Denis

Papers

Agency Problems, Equity Ownership, and Corporate Diversification

Performance Changes Following Top Management Dismissals

Financial Constraints, Investment, and the Value of Cash Holdings

Why Do Firms Pay Dividends? International Evidence on the Determinants of Dividend Policy

Ownership structure and top executive turnover