IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/corfin/v14y2008i3p274-288.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Undoing the powerful anti-takeover force of staggered boards

Author

Listed:
  • Guo, Re-Jin
  • Kruse, Timothy A.
  • Nohel, Tom

Abstract

We examine cases where managers announce an intention to de-stagger their boards via proxy proposals or board action. The literature has established the staggered board as the most consequential of all takeover defenses and one that destroys wealth. Thus, dismantling staggered boards benefits shareholders. We study the wealth effects and motives behind this change in governance within a conditional event study. We find that de-staggering the board creates wealth and that shareholder activism is an important catalyst for pushing through this change. Moreover, in the period preceding Sarbanes-Oxley, investor reaction indicates a perception that de-staggering firms are more likely to be takeover targets.

Suggested Citation

  • Guo, Re-Jin & Kruse, Timothy A. & Nohel, Tom, 2008. "Undoing the powerful anti-takeover force of staggered boards," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 14(3), pages 274-288, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:corfin:v:14:y:2008:i:3:p:274-288
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0929-1199(08)00025-4
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Comment, Robert & Schwert, G. William, 1995. "Poison or placebo? Evidence on the deterrence and wealth effects of modern antitakeover measures," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 3-43, September.
    2. McWilliams, Victoria B, 1990. " Managerial Share Ownership and the Stock Price Effects of Antitakeover Amendment Proposals," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 45(5), pages 1627-1640, December.
    3. Bebchuk, Lucian A. & Cohen, Alma, 2005. "The costs of entrenched boards," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(2), pages 409-433, November.
    4. Agrawal, Anup & Mandelker, Gershon N., 1990. "Large Shareholders and the Monitoring of Managers: The Case of Antitakeover Charter Amendments," Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 25(02), pages 143-161, June.
    5. Nagpurnanand R. Prabhala, 1997. "Conditional Methods in Event-Studies and an Equilibrium Justification for Standard Event-Study Procedures," Yale School of Management Working Papers ysm55, Yale School of Management.
    6. McWilliams, Victoria B. & Sen, Nilanjan, 1997. "Board Monitoring and Antitakeover Amendments," Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 32(04), pages 491-505, December.
    7. K. J. Martijn Cremers & Vinay B. Nair, 2005. "Governance Mechanisms and Equity Prices," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 60(6), pages 2859-2894, December.
    8. Lucian Arye Bebchuk & John C. Coates IV & Guhan Subramanian, 2002. "The Powerful Antitakeover Force of Staggered Boards: Theory, Evidence and Policy," NBER Working Papers 8974, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    9. Heckman, James, 2013. "Sample selection bias as a specification error," Applied Econometrics, Publishing House "SINERGIA PRESS", vol. 31(3), pages 129-137.
    10. Thomas, Randall S. & Cotter, James F., 2007. "Shareholder proposals in the new millennium: Shareholder support, board response, and market reaction," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 13(2-3), pages 368-391, June.
    11. Jarrell, Gregg A. & Poulsen, Annette B., 1987. "Shark repellents and stock prices : The effects of antitakeover amendments since 1980," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(1), pages 127-168, September.
    12. Jensen, Michael C, 1986. "Agency Costs of Free Cash Flow, Corporate Finance, and Takeovers," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 76(2), pages 323-329, May.
    13. Yermack, David, 1996. "Higher market valuation of companies with a small board of directors," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(2), pages 185-211, February.
    14. Schlingemann, Frederik P. & Stulz, Rene M. & Walkling, Ralph A., 2002. "Divestitures and the liquidity of the market for corporate assets," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(1), pages 117-144, April.
    15. Prabhala, N R, 1997. "Conditional Methods in Event Studies and an Equilibrium Justification for Standard Event-Study Procedures," Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 10(1), pages 1-38.
    16. DeAngelo, Harry & Rice, Edward M., 1983. "Antitakeover charter amendments and stockholder wealth," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 11(1-4), pages 329-359, April.
    17. Davis, Gerald F. & Kim, E. Han, 2007. "Business ties and proxy voting by mutual funds," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 85(2), pages 552-570, August.
    18. Dittmar, Amy & Mahrt-Smith, Jan, 2007. "Corporate governance and the value of cash holdings," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(3), pages 599-634, March.
    19. John E. Core & Wayne R. Guay & Tjomme O. Rusticus, 2006. "Does Weak Governance Cause Weak Stock Returns? An Examination of Firm Operating Performance and Investors' Expectations," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 61(2), pages 655-687, April.
    20. Acharya, Sankarshan, 1993. " Value of Latent Information: Alternative Event Study Methods," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 48(1), pages 363-385, March.
    21. Bhagat, Sanjai & Jefferis, Richard H., 1991. "Voting power in the proxy process : The case of antitakeover charter amendments," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 193-225, November.
    22. Eckbo, B Espen & Maksimovic, Vojislav & Williams, Joseph, 1990. "Consistent Estimation of Cross-Sectional Models in Event Studies," Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 3(3), pages 343-365.
    23. Karpoff, Jonathan M. & Malatesta, Paul H., 1989. "The wealth effects of second-generation state takeover legislation," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 291-322, December.
    24. Guercio, Diane Del & Hawkins, Jennifer, 1999. "The motivation and impact of pension fund activism," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(3), pages 293-340, June.
    25. Daines, Robert & Klausner, Michael, 2001. "Do IPO Charters Maximize Firm Value? Antitakeover Protection in IPOs," Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 17(1), pages 83-120, April.
    26. Linn, Scott C. & McConnell, John J., 1983. "An empirical investigation of the impact of `antitakeover' amendments on common stock prices," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 11(1-4), pages 361-399, April.
    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. Chen, Dong, 2012. "Classified boards, the cost of debt, and firm performance," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 36(12), pages 3346-3365.
    2. Vincent C. Ma & John S. Liu, 2016. "Exploring the research fronts and main paths of literature: a case study of shareholder activism research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(1), pages 33-52, October.
    3. Ian R. Appel & Todd A. Gormley & Donald B. Keim, 2016. "Standing on the Shoulders of Giants: The Effect of Passive Investors on Activism," NBER Working Papers 22707, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. Fabel, Oliver & Kolmar, Martin, 2012. "Do parachutes discipline managers? An analysis of takeover battles," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 224-232.
    5. repec:eee:jbrese:v:79:y:2017:i:c:p:161-172 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Thomas Smythe & Chris McNeil & Philip English, 2015. "When does CalPERS’ activism add value?," Journal of Economics and Finance, Springer;Academy of Economics and Finance, vol. 39(4), pages 641-660, October.
    7. Ertimur, Yonca & Ferri, Fabrizio & Stubben, Stephen R., 2010. "Board of directors' responsiveness to shareholders: Evidence from shareholder proposals," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 16(1), pages 53-72, February.
    8. Ahn, Seoungpil & Shrestha, Keshab, 2013. "The differential effects of classified boards on firm value," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 37(11), pages 3993-4013.
    9. repec:bla:stratm:v:38:y:2017:i:7:p:1499-1517 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Appel, Ian R. & Gormley, Todd A. & Keim, Donald B., 2016. "Passive investors, not passive owners," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 121(1), pages 111-141.
    11. Cohen, Alma & Wang, Charles C.Y., 2013. "How do staggered boards affect shareholder value? Evidence from a natural experiment," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 110(3), pages 627-641.
    12. Weili Ge & Lloyd Tanlu & Jenny Li Zhang, 2016. "What are the consequences of board destaggering?," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 21(3), pages 808-858, September.
    13. Caspar Rose, 2012. "The new European shareholder rights directive: removing barriers and creating opportunities for more shareholder activism and democracy," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 16(2), pages 269-284, May.
    14. Otsubo, Minoru, 2017. "Why do firms underwrite private placement shares of other firms? Case of Japanese firms," Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 75-92.

    More about this item

    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:eee:corfin:v:14:y:2008:i:3:p:274-288. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jcorpfin .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.