IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/uwarer/269335.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Shareholder Voting Power and Ownership Control of Companies

Author

Listed:
  • Leech, Dennis

Abstract

The pattern of ownership and control of British industry is unusual compared with most other countries in that ownership is relatively dispersed. Typically the largest shareholder in any large listed company is likely to own a voting minority of the shares. Majority ownership by a single shareholder is unusual. It is not uncommon for the largest shareholding to be under 20 percent and in many cases it is much less than that. A broadly similar pattern is observed in the USA. Two inferences about corporate governance are conventionally drawn from this, following the early work of Berle and Means: (1) All but the very largest shareholders are typically too small to have any real incentive to participate in decision making; (2) All but the very largest shareholdings are too small to have any real voting power. The question of voting power is the focus of this paper. Conventional analyses use a rule of thumb of 20%, assuming shareholders to be fundamentally passive in relation to the running of the company, whatever their style of investment management, unless one of them is above this figure. The London Stock Exchange defines a controlling holding to be one greater than 30 percent. Much empirical work uses declarable stakes, which in the UK are those of 3 percent or more, and disregards anything smaller assuming it to be powerless. In fact, however, a 1% stake in the 100th largest company (Smiths Industries) is worth about £29million, which suggests its owner has strong incentives to be active, and might wish to use his voting power. Theoretical voting power of minority shareholding blocks is studied using the gametheoretic idea of voting power indices. This is applied to a model of ownership control based on the definition of control used by Berle and Means in their classic study. The results give support for use of a 20 percent rule in many cases but not all. Also they support the idea that many companies are potentially controlled by a block of a few large shareholders working in concert.

Suggested Citation

  • Leech, Dennis, 2002. "Shareholder Voting Power and Ownership Control of Companies," Economic Research Papers 269335, University of Warwick - Department of Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:uwarer:269335
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.269335
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/269335/files/twerp564a.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/269335/files/twerp564a.pdf?subformat=pdfa
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.269335?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Leech, Dennis, 1987. "Ownership Concentration and the Theory of the Firm: A Simple-Game-Theoretic Approach," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(3), pages 225-240, March.
    2. Pohjola, Matti, 1988. " Concentration of Shareholder Voting Power in Finnish Industrial Companies," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 90(2), pages 245-253.
    3. Shleifer, Andrei & Vishny, Robert W, 1997. "A Survey of Corporate Governance," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 52(2), pages 737-783, June.
    4. Leech, Dennis & Leahy, John, 1991. "Ownership Structure, Control Type Classifications and the Performance of Large British Companies," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 101(409), pages 1418-1437, November.
    5. Dan S. Felsenthal & Moshé Machover, 1998. "The Measurement of Voting Power," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 1489.
    6. Dennis Leech, 2002. "An Empirical Comparison of the Performance of Classical Power Indices," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 50(1), pages 1-22, March.
    7. Dennis Leech, 1988. "The Relationship Between Shareholding Concentration and Shareholder Voting Power in British Companies: A Study of the Application of Power Indices for Simple Games," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 34(4), pages 509-527, April.
    8. Rafael La Porta & Florencio Lopez‐De‐Silanes & Andrei Shleifer, 1999. "Corporate Ownership Around the World," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 54(2), pages 471-517, April.
    9. Short, Helen, 1994. "Ownership, Control, Financial Structure and the Performance of Firms," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 8(3), pages 203-249, September.
    10. J. W. Milnor & L. S. Shapley, 1978. "Values of Large Games II: Oceanic Games," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 3(4), pages 290-307, November.
    11. Shapley, L. S. & Shubik, Martin, 1954. "A Method for Evaluating the Distribution of Power in a Committee System," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 48(3), pages 787-792, September.
    12. Stephen L. Nesbitt, 1994. "LONG‐TERM REWARDS FROM SHAREHOLDER ACTIVISM: A STUDY OF THE “CalPERS EFFECT”," Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, Morgan Stanley, vol. 6(4), pages 75-80, January.
    13. Straffin, Philip Jr., 1994. "Power and stability in politics," Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications, in: R.J. Aumann & S. Hart (ed.), Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 32, pages 1127-1151, Elsevier.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Hamadi, Malika & Heinen, Andréas, 2015. "Firm performance when ownership is very concentrated: Evidence from a semiparametric panel," Journal of Empirical Finance, Elsevier, vol. 34(C), pages 172-194.
    2. Renneboog, L.D.R. & Trojanowski, G., 2005. "Patterns in Payout Policy and Payout Channel Choice of UK Firms in the 1990s," Other publications TiSEM bf59de69-bfcd-462e-a933-2, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    3. Renneboog, Luc & Szilagyi, Peter, 2020. "How relevant is dividend policy under low shareholder protection?," Other publications TiSEM 9fab895c-69f2-4056-8df8-8, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    4. Renneboog, L.D.R. & Trojanowski, G., 2005. "Control Structures and Payout Policy," Other publications TiSEM a82281ef-f247-479f-a0e3-1, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    5. T. Biebuyck & Ariane Chapelle & Ariane Szafarz, 2002. "Les leviers de contrôle des actionnaires majoritaires," Working Papers CEB 03-001.RS, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    6. Renneboog, Luc & Szilagyi, Peter G., 2020. "How relevant is dividend policy under low shareholder protection?," Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    7. Levy, Marc, 2011. "The Banzhaf index in complete and incomplete shareholding structures: A new algorithm," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 215(2), pages 411-421, December.
    8. Shanti Chakravarty & Anthony Dobbins & Lynn Hodgkinson, 2013. "Poverty of Agency Theory and Poverty of Managerial Practice: The Royal Bank of Scotland Fiasco," Working Papers 13013, Bangor Business School, Prifysgol Bangor University (Cymru / Wales).
    9. Szilagyi, P.G., 2007. "Corporate governance and the agency costs of debt and outside equity," Other publications TiSEM 9520d40a-224f-43a8-9bf9-b, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Leech, Dennis, 1999. "Minority Control: An Analysis of British Companies using Voting Power Indices," Economic Research Papers 269251, University of Warwick - Department of Economics.
    2. Crama, Yves & Leruth, Luc, 2007. "Control and voting power in corporate networks: Concepts and computational aspects," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 178(3), pages 879-893, May.
    3. Edwards, Jeremy S.S. & Weichenrieder, Alfons J., 2009. "Control rights, pyramids, and the measurement of ownership concentration," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 72(1), pages 489-508, October.
    4. Jeremy Edwards & Alfons J. Weichenrieder & Alfons Weichenrieder, 2004. "How Weak is the Weakest-Link Principle? On the Measurement of Firm Owners’ Control Rights," CESifo Working Paper Series 1255, CESifo.
    5. Leech, Dennis, 2001. "An Empirical Comparison of the Performance of Classical Power Indices," Economic Research Papers 269334, University of Warwick - Department of Economics.
    6. Crespi, R. & Renneboog, L.D.R., 2000. "United we stand : Corporate Monitoring by Shareholder Coalitions in the UK," Other publications TiSEM 226b4a58-7d8a-436c-8376-c, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    7. Taylan Mavruk & Conny Overland & Stefan Sjögren, 2020. "Keeping it real or keeping it simple? Ownership concentration measures compared," European Financial Management, European Financial Management Association, vol. 26(4), pages 958-1005, September.
    8. Dennis Leech, 2002. "An Empirical Comparison of the Performance of Classical Power Indices," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 50(1), pages 1-22, March.
    9. Dennis Leech, 2001. "Shareholder Voting Power and Corporate Governance: A Study of Large British Companies," Nordic Journal of Political Economy, Nordic Journal of Political Economy, vol. 27, pages 33-54.
    10. Gary Gorton & Frank Schmid, 2000. "Class Struggle Inside the Firm: A Study of German Codetermination," NBER Working Papers 7945, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    11. Leech, Dennis, 2002. "Computation of Power Indices," The Warwick Economics Research Paper Series (TWERPS) 644, University of Warwick, Department of Economics.
    12. Takayuki Mizuno & Shohei Doi & Shuhei Kurizaki, 2020. "The power of corporate control in the global ownership network," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(8), pages 1-19, August.
    13. Gur Aminadav & Elias Papaioannou, 2020. "Corporate Control around the World," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 75(3), pages 1191-1246, June.
    14. Rünger, Silke, 2011. "The effect of Germany's Tax Reform Act 2001 on corporate ownership: Insights from disposals of minority blocks," arqus Discussion Papers in Quantitative Tax Research 114, arqus - Arbeitskreis Quantitative Steuerlehre.
    15. Muravyev, Alexander, 2004. "The puzzle of dual class stock in Russia: Explaining the price differential between common and preferred shares," MPRA Paper 27726, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    16. Dennis Leech & Robert Leech, 2006. "Voting power and voting blocs," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 127(3), pages 285-303, June.
    17. Balsmeier, Benjamin & Bermig, Andreas & Dilger, Alexander, 2013. "Corporate governance and employee power in the boardroom: An applied game theoretic analysis," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 51-74.
    18. Crespi, R. & Renneboog, L.D.R., 2003. "Corporate monitoring by shareholder coalitions in the UK," Other publications TiSEM f7b7fa79-dcc7-4499-8281-e, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    19. Nicodano, Giovanna & Sembenelli, Alessandro, 2004. "Private benefits, block transaction premiums and ownership structure," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 13(2), pages 227-244.
    20. Fabrice Barthélémy & Mathieu Martin, 2006. "Analyse spatiale du pouvoir de vote : application au cas de l'intercommunalité dans le département du Val d'Oise," THEMA Working Papers 2006-17, THEMA (THéorie Economique, Modélisation et Applications), Université de Cergy-Pontoise.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Industrial Organization; Political Economy;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:uwarer:269335. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/research/workingpapers/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.