Are liquidity and corporate control priced by shareholders? Empirical evidence from Swiss dual class shares

1997 ◽  
Vol 3 (4) ◽  
pp. 299-323 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lucien Gardiol ◽  
Rajna Gibson-Asner ◽  
Nils S. Tuchschmid
1986 ◽  
Vol 42 (1) ◽  
pp. 58-67 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vijay M. Jog ◽  
Allan L. Riding

2014 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
pp. 261-276 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fei Kang

SYNOPSIS This study examines how family firms' unique ownership structure and agency problems affect their selection of industry-specialist auditors. Using data from Standard & Poor's (S&P) 1500 firms, the results show that family firms are more likely to appoint industry-specialist auditors than non-family firms, which suggests that family firms have strong incentives to signal the quality of financial reporting. Additional analysis indicates that due to the potential entrenchment problems, family firms with family member CEOs or with dual-class shares have even a higher tendency to hire industry-specialist auditors to signal their disclosure quality.


Author(s):  
David Kershaw

This Chapter introduces the market for corporate control and provides theoretical and empirical context about the functioning and effects of the market for corporate control. Ideally such context should inform the analysis and evaluation of the Takeover Code’s regulation of the UK market for corporate control. However, as the Chapter shows, neither our understanding of the likely effects of the market for corporate control on companies, boards, shareholders and stakeholders, nor the state of empirical evidence provide clear cut guidance on how to regulate the market for corporate control. The Chapter considers evidence on the value effects of takeovers and shows that evidence from the short term market response to announced takeovers supports claims that takeovers in aggregate generate value, but the longer term evidence is more mixed and inconclusive. It also considers the methodological limitations of both the short term and long term evidence. The Chapter then proceeds to consider the effect of the market for corporate control on stakeholders. It explores the commonly held view that takeovers are detrimental for employees but finds again that the empirical evidence is inconclusive, although the theoretical case that takeover activity may undermine employee investment in the business remains compelling. The Chapter then explores the role of the market for corporate control as a governance device. It is often assumed that the market for corporate control acts as a disciplinary device holding managers to account, but as the Chapter shows the disciplinary effects work differently and less precisely than regulators and the public debate commonly assume. The Chapter also shows that such indirect effects may also mould management and board behaviour in economically suboptimal ways, which the Chapter considers in the context of the debate about the possible short term orientation of UK boards.


2020 ◽  
Vol 23 (01) ◽  
pp. 2050007
Author(s):  
Lei Gao ◽  
Andrey Zagorchev

We examine the effect of dual-class shares on U.S. firm innovation after the exogenous shock of the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which intensified international competition. Using difference-in-differences models, we find that dual-class structure firms become less innovative but improve operating efficiency following NAFTA. We show that dual-class firms in many manufacturing industries reduce innovation, but marginally increase capital expenditures after the agreement, and thus substitute risky innovation with safer, long-term investments. The findings indicate that firms with dual-class structures facing lower competition decrease their stock market related innovation activities. We find that dual-class firms with entrenched managers decrease innovation and improve operating efficiency following NAFTA. Based on the robust results, agency costs and managerial entrenchment could explain these changes in innovations, efficiency, and investments.


2003 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
pp. 191-202 ◽  
Author(s):  
Owen A Lamont ◽  
Richard H Thaler

The Law of One price states that identical goods (or securities) should sell for identical prices. In financial markets the law of one price is thought to hold almost exactly, and is the basis for much of financial economic theory. We present evidence on several examples of violations of this law, including closed-end country funds, twin shares, dual class shares, and corporate spinoffs. We analyze the causes of these violations, and show they all stem from some limits on the extent to which rational arbitrageurs can intervene.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document