IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ucp/jlawec/y2006v49i2p651-80.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Variation in the Monitoring Incentives of Outside Stockholders

Author

Listed:
  • Borokhovich, Kenneth A
  • Brunarski, Kelly
  • Harman, Yvette S
  • Parrino, Robert

Abstract

We examine abnormal returns around the announcement of antitakeover amendment proposals for evidence on variation in the effectiveness of monitoring by outside stockholders. The evidence suggests that the market views large stockholders who are outsiders but have potential business ties to a firm (affiliated blockholders) as less effective monitors than other outside blockholders (unaffiliated blockholders). Abnormal returns tend to be lower at firms where holdings of affiliated blockholders exceed holdings of unaffiliated blockholders than at firms where the reverse is true. The difference in the stock ownership of these two classes of blockholders explains more of the variation in abnormal returns than factors such as management stock ownership and board composition. The evidence for affiliated and unaffiliated blockholders is consistent when we focus on the relation between abnormal returns and institutional ownership. No evidence is found of systematic variation in the effectiveness of monitoring by institutional stockholders who are not blockholders.

Suggested Citation

  • Borokhovich, Kenneth A & Brunarski, Kelly & Harman, Yvette S & Parrino, Robert, 2006. "Variation in the Monitoring Incentives of Outside Stockholders," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 49(2), pages 651-680, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:ucp:jlawec:y:2006:v:49:i:2:p:651-80
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/505368
    Download Restriction: Access to the online full text or PDF requires a subscription.

    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. Brown, Stephen J. & Warner, Jerold B., 1985. "Using daily stock returns : The case of event studies," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 14(1), pages 3-31, March.
    2. Stein, Jeremy C, 1988. "Takeover Threats and Managerial Myopia," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 96(1), pages 61-80, February.
    3. Chun I. Lee & Stuart Rosenstein & Nanda Rangan & Wallace N. Davidson III, 1992. "Board Composition and Shareholder Wealth: The Case of Management Buyouts," Financial Management, Financial Management Association, vol. 21(1), Spring.
    4. Pound, John, 1987. "The Effects of Antitakeover Amendments on Takeover Activity: Some Direct Evidence," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 30(2), pages 353-367, October.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. Byrd, John W. & Hickman, Kent A., 1992. "Do outside directors monitor managers? *1: Evidence from tender offer bids," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 195-221, October.
    9. Karpoff, Jonathan M. & Malatesta, Paul H. & Walkling, Ralph A., 1996. "Corporate governance and shareholder initiatives: Empirical evidence," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(3), pages 365-395, November.
    10. 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.
    11. Gordon, Lilli A & Pound, John, 1993. " Information, Ownership Structure, and Shareholder Voting: Evidence from Shareholder-Sponsored Corporate Governance Proposals," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 48(2), pages 697-718, June.
    12. 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.
    13. Brickley, James A. & Coles, Jeffrey L. & Terry, Rory L., 1994. "Outside directors and the adoption of poison pills," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 371-390, June.
    14. Del Guercio, Diane, 1996. "The distorting effect of the prudent-man laws on institutional equity investments," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 31-62, January.
    15. 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.
    16. Parrino, Robert & Sias, Richard W. & Starks, Laura T., 2003. "Voting with their feet: institutional ownership changes around forced CEO turnover," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(1), pages 3-46, April.
    17. 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.
    18. 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.
    19. Mark R. Huson, 2001. "Internal Monitoring Mechanisms and CEO Turnover: A Long-Term Perspective," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 56(6), pages 2265-2297, December.
    20. Willard T. Carleton & James M. Nelson & Michael S. Weisbach, 1998. "The Influence of Institutions on Corporate Governance through Private Negotiations: Evidence from TIAA-CREF," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 53(4), pages 1335-1362, August.
    21. Caspar Rose, 2002. "Corporate Financial Performance and the Use of Takeover Defenses," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 13(2), pages 91-112, March.
    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. Peng, Fei & Kang, Lili & Jiang, Jun, 2011. "Selection and institutional shareholder activism in Chinese acquisitions," MPRA Paper 38701, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Borokhovich, Kenneth A. & Boulton, Thomas J. & Brunarski, Kelly R. & Harman, Yvette S., 2014. "The incentives of grey directors: Evidence from unexpected executive and board chair turnover," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 28(C), pages 102-115.
    3. Ruiz-Mallorquí, María Victoria & Santana-Martín, Domingo J., 2011. "Dominant institutional owners and firm value," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 118-129, January.
    4. Renneboog, Luc & Szilagyi, Peter G., 2011. "The role of shareholder proposals in corporate governance," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 17(1), pages 167-188, February.
    5. 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.
    6. Bi, XiaoGang & Wang, Danni, 2015. "Role of single largest investors: Examples of mutual funds and acquisitions," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 14(C), pages 104-110.
    7. Nain, Amrita & Yao, Tong, 2013. "Mutual fund skill and the performance of corporate acquirers," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 110(2), pages 437-456.
    8. Renneboog, L.D.R. & Szilagyi, P.G., 2009. "Shareholder Activism through the Proxy Process," Discussion Paper 2009-65, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    9. Stuart L. Gillan & Laura T. Starks, 2007. "The Evolution of Shareholder Activism in the United States," Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, Morgan Stanley, vol. 19(1), pages 55-73.
    10. Anderson, Christopher W. & Huang, Jian, 2017. "Institutional investment in IPOs and post-IPO M&A activity," Journal of Empirical Finance, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 1-18.
    11. Knill, April M. & Lee, Bong Soo & Mauck, Nathan, 2012. "Sovereign wealth fund investment and the return-to-risk performance of target firms," Journal of Financial Intermediation, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 315-340.
    12. Abdioglu, Nida & Bamiatzi, Vassiliki & Cavusgil, S.Tamer & Khurshed, Arif & Stathopoulos, Konstantinos, 2015. "Information asymmetry, disclosure and foreign institutional investment: An empirical investigation of the impact of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 24(5), pages 902-915.
    13. Devos, Erik & Dhillon, Upinder & Jagannathan, Murali & Krishnamurthy, Srinivasan, 2012. "Why are firms unlevered?," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 664-682.
    14. Huang, Haozhi & Li, Mingsheng & Shi, Jing, 2016. "Which matters: “Paying to play” or stable business relationship? Evidence on analyst recommendation and mutual fund commission fee payment," Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 40(PB), pages 403-423.
    15. Chen, Xia & Harford, Jarrad & Li, Kai, 2007. "Monitoring: Which institutions matter?," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(2), pages 279-305, November.
    16. 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.
    17. Agrawal, Ashwini K., 2012. "Corporate governance objectives of labor union shareholders: evidence from proxy voting," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 69609, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.

    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:ucp:jlawec:y:2006:v:49:i:2:p:651-80. 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: (Journals Division). General contact details of provider: http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/JLE/ .

    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.