IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jfinec/v110y2013i3p627-641.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How do staggered boards affect shareholder value? Evidence from a natural experiment*

* This paper has been replicated

Author

Listed:
  • Cohen, Alma
  • Wang, Charles C.Y.

Abstract

The well-established negative correlation between staggered boards (SBs) and firm value could be due to SBs leading to lower value or a reflection of low-value firms' greater propensity to maintain SBs. We analyze the causal question using a natural experiment involving two Delaware court rulings—separated by several weeks and going in opposite directions—that affected the antitakeover force of SBs. We contribute to the long-standing debate on staggered boards by presenting empirical evidence consistent with the market viewing SBs as leading to lower firm value for the affected firms.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jfinec:v:110:y:2013:i:3:p:627-641
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jfineco.2013.08.005
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304405X13002067
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.jfineco.2013.08.005?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
    ---><---

    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. Stein, Jeremy C, 1988. "Takeover Threats and Managerial Myopia," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 96(1), pages 61-80, February.
    2. Bebchuk, Lucian A. & Cohen, Alma, 2005. "The costs of entrenched boards," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(2), pages 409-433, November.
    3. Larcker, David F. & Ormazabal, Gaizka & Taylor, Daniel J., 2011. "The market reaction to corporate governance regulation," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 101(2), pages 431-448, August.
    4. Bo Becker & Daniel Bergstresser & Guhan Subramanian, 2013. "Does Shareholder Proxy Access Improve Firm Value? Evidence from the Business Roundtable's Challenge," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 56(1), pages 127-160.
    5. Yael V. Hochberg & Paola Sapienza & Annette Vissing‐Jørgensen, 2009. "A Lobbying Approach to Evaluating the Sarbanes‐Oxley Act of 2002," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47(2), pages 519-583, May.
    6. Huberman, Gur & Kandel, Shmuel, 1989. "Firms' fiscal years, size and industry," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 69-75.
    7. Lucian A. Bebchuk & Alma Cohen & Charles C.Y. Wang, 2011. "Staggered Boards and the Wealth of Shareholders: Evidence from Two Natural Experiments," NBER Working Papers 17127, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    8. Paul Gompers & Joy Ishii & Andrew Metrick, 2003. "Corporate Governance and Equity Prices," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 118(1), pages 107-156.
    9. 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.
    10. Fama, Eugene F & French, Kenneth R, 1996. "Multifactor Explanations of Asset Pricing Anomalies," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 51(1), pages 55-84, March.
    11. Stulz, ReneM., 1988. "Managerial control of voting rights : Financing policies and the market for corporate control," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(1-2), pages 25-54, January.
    12. Henry G. Manne, 1965. "Mergers and the Market for Corporate Control," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 73, pages 110-110.
    13. John J. Binder, 1985. "Measuring the Effects of Regulation with Stock Price Data," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 16(2), pages 167-183, Summer.
    14. Bates, Thomas W. & Becher, David A. & Lemmon, Michael L., 2008. "Board classification and managerial entrenchment: Evidence from the market for corporate control," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(3), pages 656-677, March.
    15. Faleye, Olubunmi, 2007. "Classified boards, firm value, and managerial entrenchment," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(2), pages 501-529, February.
    16. 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.
    17. K. J. Martijn Cremers & Vinay B. Nair & Kose John, 2009. "Takeovers and the Cross-Section of Returns," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 22(4), pages 1409-1445, April.
    18. 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.
    19. Ronald W. Masulis & Cong Wang & Fei Xie, 2007. "Corporate Governance and Acquirer Returns," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 62(4), pages 1851-1889, August.
    20. Vidhi Chhaochharia & Yaniv Grinstein, 2007. "Corporate Governance and Firm Value: The Impact of the 2002 Governance Rules," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 62(4), pages 1789-1825, August.
    21. Lucian Bebchuk & Alma Cohen & Allen Ferrell, 2009. "What Matters in Corporate Governance?," Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 22(2), pages 783-827, February.
    22. Fama, Eugene F. & French, Kenneth R., 1993. "Common risk factors in the returns on stocks and bonds," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 3-56, February.
    23. Henry G. Manne, 1965. "Mergers and the Market for Corporate Control," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 73, pages 351-351.
    24. Smith, David B. & Pourciau, Susan, 1988. "A comparison of the financial characteristics of December and non-December year-end companies," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 10(4), pages 335-344, December.
    25. Sanjeev Bhojraj & Charles M. C. Lee & Derek K. Oler, 2003. "What's My Line? A Comparison of Industry Classification Schemes for Capital Market Research," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(5), pages 745-774, December.
    26. Schwert, G William, 1981. "Using Financial Data to Measure Effects of Regulation," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 24(1), pages 121-158, April.
    27. Sanford J. Grossman & Oliver D. Hart, 1980. "Takeover Bids, the Free-Rider Problem, and the Theory of the Corporation," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 11(1), pages 42-64, Spring.
    28. A. Craig MacKinlay, 1997. "Event Studies in Economics and Finance," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 35(1), pages 13-39, March.
    29. Alberto Abadie & Guido W. Imbens, 2006. "Large Sample Properties of Matching Estimators for Average Treatment Effects," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 74(1), pages 235-267, January.
    30. Steven N. Kaplan & Luigi Zingales, 1997. "Do Investment-Cash Flow Sensitivities Provide Useful Measures of Financing Constraints?," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 112(1), pages 169-215.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Lucian A. Bebchuk & Alma Cohen & Charles C.Y. Wang, 2011. "Staggered Boards and the Wealth of Shareholders: Evidence from Two Natural Experiments," NBER Working Papers 17127, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Cremers, K.J. Martijn & Litov, Lubomir P. & Sepe, Simone M., 2017. "Staggered boards and long-term firm value, revisited," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 126(2), pages 422-444.
    3. Bebchuk, Lucian A. & Cohen, Alma & Wang, Charles C.Y., 2013. "Learning and the disappearing association between governance and returns," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 108(2), pages 323-348.
    4. Cremers, K. J. Martijn & Litov, Lubomir P. & Sepe, Simone M., 2013. "Staggered Boards and Firm Value, Revisited," Working Papers 13-36, University of Pennsylvania, Wharton School, Weiss Center.
    5. Sokolyk, Tatyana, 2011. "The effects of antitakeover provisions on acquisition targets," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 17(3), pages 612-627, June.
    6. Daniel Ferreira & David Kershaw & Tom Kirchmaier & Edmund Schuster, "undated". "Shareholder Empowerment and Bank Bailouts," FMG Discussion Papers dp714, Financial Markets Group.
    7. Bebchuk, Lucian A. & Cohen, Alma, 2005. "The costs of entrenched boards," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(2), pages 409-433, November.
    8. Chen, Dong, 2012. "Classified boards, the cost of debt, and firm performance," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 36(12), pages 3346-3365.
    9. Cohen, Alma & Wang, Charles C.Y., 2017. "Reexamining staggered boards and shareholder value," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 125(3), pages 637-647.
    10. Bhojraj, Sanjeev & Sengupta, Partha & Zhang, Suning, 2017. "Takeover defenses: Entrenchment and efficiency," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 142-160.
    11. Becker, Bo & Cronqvist, Henrik & Fahlenbrach, Rüdiger, 2011. "Estimating the Effects of Large Shareholders Using a Geographic Instrument," Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 46(4), pages 907-942, August.
    12. Cain, Matthew D. & McKeon, Stephen B. & Solomon, Steven Davidoff, 2017. "Do takeover laws matter? Evidence from five decades of hostile takeovers," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 124(3), pages 464-485.
    13. Amihud, Yakov & Stoyanov, Stoyan, 2017. "Do staggered boards harm shareholders?," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 123(2), pages 432-439.
    14. Chen, I-Ju & Hsu, Po-Hsuan & Wang, Yanzhi, 2022. "Staggered boards and product innovations: Evidence from Massachusetts State Bill HB 5640," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(4).
    15. 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.
    16. Bhargava, Rahul & Faircloth, Sheri & Zeng, Hongchao, 2017. "Takeover protection and stock price crash risk: Evidence from state antitakeover laws," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 177-184.
    17. Guernsey, Scott & Sepe, Simone M. & Serfling, Matthew, 2022. "Blood in the water: The value of antitakeover provisions during market shocks," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 143(3), pages 1070-1096.
    18. Rowoldt, Maximilian & Starke, Dennis, 2016. "The role of governments in hostile takeovers – Evidence from regulation, anti-takeover provisions and government interventions," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 1-15.
    19. Drobetz, W. & Momtaz, Paul P., 2020. "Antitakeover Provisions and Firm Value: New Evidence from the M&A Market," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 62(C).
    20. Tristan Oliver Stenzaly, 2023. "The effect of staggered boards on firm value during market shocks," Financial Markets and Portfolio Management, Springer;Swiss Society for Financial Market Research, vol. 37(4), pages 457-497, December.

    Replication

    This item has been replicated by:
  • Amihud, Yakov & Stoyanov, Stoyan, 2017. "Do staggered boards harm shareholders?," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 123(2), pages 432-439.

    • More about this item

    Keywords

    Corporate governance; Staggered board; Takeover defense; Antitakeover provision; Proxy fight; Tobin's; Firm value; Agency cost; Delaware; Chancery Court; Airgas;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • G14 - Financial Economics - - General Financial Markets - - - Information and Market Efficiency; Event Studies; Insider Trading
    • G34 - Financial Economics - - Corporate Finance and Governance - - - Mergers; Acquisitions; Restructuring; Corporate Governance
    • K22 - Law and Economics - - Regulation and Business Law - - - Business and Securities Law

    Lists

    This item is featured on the following reading lists, Wikipedia, or ReplicationWiki pages:
    1. How do staggered boards affect shareholder value? Evidence from a natural experiment (JFE 2013) in ReplicationWiki

    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:jfinec:v:110:y:2013:i:3:p:627-641. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/505576 .

    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.