The Structure of Corporate Control and Ownership in a Regulatory Environment Unbiased toward One‐Share‐One‐Vote

This paper seeks to identify the determinants of corporate ownership and control that emerge in regulatory environments which do not inhibit the issue of shares with differential voting rights and/or the establishment of pyramid holding companies (which serve exactly the same purpose). [Methodologically, the paper follows the seminal study of the US corporate structure by Demsetz & Lehn (1985).] Such settings tend to produce very concentrated control structures, which contrast sharply with those of the USA, the UK and Australia, where the distribution of shareholder votes in the large public corporations is relatively diffuse. Relatively lenient listing regulations have produced in South Africa a corporate landscape dominated by pyramid holding companies and multilayered diversified corporate groupings. These structures have effectively concentrated the control of most of the large public companies in the hands of a few entrepreneurial families (as well as the two large life insurance mutuals). This setting has enabled us to advance and test hypotheses about control and ownership which would be more difficult to test in a US, UK or Australian setting. Almost all the companies in our sample were found to be under the absolute control of a single identifiable shareholder coalition (usually one or two families) but the underlying percentage shareholding of the controlling group in each company was found to vary dramatically and systematically. We sought to explain that variation and to identify the role of the market as a constraint on the ability of controlling shareholders who wish to dilute their equity stake without surrendering control for the purpose of expanding their companies (without incurring additional debt) and/or diversifying their personal wealth. Demsetz & Lehn had already identified the factors that determine the demand by shareholders for equity dilution but not those constraining their ability to do so. This paper, therefore, attempts to shed light on the way in which principal/agent problems affecting shareholders and managers are resolved when one‐share‐one‐vote is neither enforced nor encouraged by the regulatory environment.