IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/rdg/icmadp/icma-dp2006-11.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Return Differences Between Family and Non-Family Firms: Absolute and Index Differences

Author

Listed:
  • Suranjita Mukherjee

    () (ICMA Centre, University of Reading)

  • Carol Padgett

    () (ICMA Centre, University of Reading)

Abstract

The objective of the paper is to determine if family firms are able to provide a return premium compared to their non-family counterparts. The assumption is that some of the benefits and costs related to family ownership can be absorbed into the business model. This may mean that family characteristics could actually impact the perception of the market and in turn affect their returns. We test this by using a unique sample of 152 family firms and matching them with non-family firms on the basis their sector, stock market index and size. Three models – CAPM, Fama-French 3-factor model and Carhart model – are used to test a trading strategy, i.e. buying family firms and selling short non-family firms, on the FTSE All Share, Fledgling and AIM Index. The results showed that the strategy is able to generate an abnormal profit for the firms on the FTSE All Share and Fledgling but fails to do so on the AIM in the presence of the ‘momentum’ factor-mimicking portfolio. It is far more profitable to use a trading strategy of buying past winners and selling short past losers on the AIM. We further investigate into the factors that drive the returns of family and non-family firms. Using factors related to risk, price-level, liquidity and growth-potential, we find that family firm returns are driven by their growth potential where as non-family firms’ need to balance their risk in order to increase returns. A similar application on the 3 indices mentioned above reveals that the AIM and the Fledgling index behave similarly but differ from the FTSE All Share portfolio of firms.

Suggested Citation

  • Suranjita Mukherjee & Carol Padgett, 2006. "Return Differences Between Family and Non-Family Firms: Absolute and Index Differences," ICMA Centre Discussion Papers in Finance icma-dp2006-11, Henley Business School, Reading University.
  • Handle: RePEc:rdg:icmadp:icma-dp2006-11
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.icmacentre.ac.uk/pdf/discussion/DP2006-11.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    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. Lakonishok, Josef & Shleifer, Andrei & Vishny, Robert W, 1994. " Contrarian Investment, Extrapolation, and Risk," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 49(5), pages 1541-1578, December.
    3. Barclay, Michael J. & Holderness, Clifford G., 1989. "Private benefits from control of public corporations," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 371-395, December.
    4. 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.
    5. Basu, Sanjoy, 1983. "The relationship between earnings' yield, market value and return for NYSE common stocks : Further evidence," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 129-156, June.
    6. Shleifer, Andrei & Vishny, Robert W, 1986. "Large Shareholders and Corporate Control," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 94(3), pages 461-488, June.
    7. Ram Mudambi & Carmela Nicosia, 1998. "Ownership structure and firm performance: evidence from the UK financial services industry," Applied Financial Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(2), pages 175-180.
    8. Morck, Randall & Shleifer, Andrei & Vishny, Robert W., 1988. "Management ownership and market valuation," Scholarly Articles 29407535, Harvard University Department of Economics.
    9. Brown, Stephen J & Goetzmann, William N, 1995. " Performance Persistence," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 50(2), pages 679-698, June.
    10. Jeremy C. Stein, 1989. "Efficient Capital Markets, Inefficient Firms: A Model of Myopic Corporate Behavior," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 104(4), pages 655-669.
    11. James S. Ang & Rebel A. Cole & James Wuh Lin, 2000. "Agency Costs and Ownership Structure," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 55(1), pages 81-106, February.
    12. Carhart, Mark M, 1997. " On Persistence in Mutual Fund Performance," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 52(1), pages 57-82, March.
    13. Jegadeesh, Narasimhan, 1990. " Evidence of Predictable Behavior of Security Returns," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 45(3), pages 881-898, July.
    14. McConnell, John J. & Servaes, Henri, 1990. "Additional evidence on equity ownership and corporate value," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 595-612, October.
    15. Amihud, Yakov & Mendelson, Haim, 1986. "Asset pricing and the bid-ask spread," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(2), pages 223-249, December.
    16. Bhandari, Laxmi Chand, 1988. " Debt/Equity Ratio and Expected Common Stock Returns: Empirical Evidence," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 43(2), pages 507-528, June.
    17. Demsetz, Harold & Lehn, Kenneth, 1985. "The Structure of Corporate Ownership: Causes and Consequences," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 93(6), pages 1155-1177, December.
    18. Fama, Eugene F. & French, Kenneth R., 1988. "Dividend yields and expected stock returns," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 3-25, October.
    19. Banz, Rolf W., 1981. "The relationship between return and market value of common stocks," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(1), pages 3-18, March.
    20. Ball, Ray & Kothari, S. P. & Shanken, Jay, 1995. "Problems in measuring portfolio performance An application to contrarian investment strategies," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 79-107, May.
    21. Kothari, S P & Shanken, Jay & Sloan, Richard G, 1995. " Another Look at the Cross-Section of Expected Stock Returns," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 50(1), pages 185-224, March.
    22. Fama, Eugene F & Jensen, Michael C, 1983. "Separation of Ownership and Control," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 26(2), pages 301-325, June.
    23. De Bondt, Werner F M & Thaler, Richard, 1985. " Does the Stock Market Overreact?," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 40(3), pages 793-805, July.
    24. Fama, Eugene F. & French, Kenneth R., 1989. "Business conditions and expected returns on stocks and bonds," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 23-49, November.
    25. 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.
    26. DeAngelo, Harry & DeAngelo, Linda, 2000. "Controlling stockholders and the disciplinary role of corporate payout policy: a study of the Times Mirror Company," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 56(2), pages 153-207, May.
    27. Morck, Randall & Shleifer, Andrei & Vishny, Robert W., 1988. "Management ownership and market valuation : An empirical analysis," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(1-2), pages 293-315, January.
    28. Mike Burkart & Denis Gromb & Fausto Panunzi, 1997. "Large Shareholders, Monitoring, and the Value of the Firm," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 112(3), pages 693-728.
    29. Chen, Nai-fu, 1983. " Some Empirical Tests of the Theory of Arbitrage Pricing," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 38(5), pages 1393-1414, December.
    30. Haugen, Robert A. & Baker, Nardin L., 1996. "Commonality in the determinants of expected stock returns," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 401-439, July.
    31. Chan, K C & Chen, Nai-Fu, 1991. " Structural and Return Characteristics of Small and Large Firms," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 46(4), pages 1467-1484, September.
    32. Chen, Nai-Fu, 1991. " Financial Investment Opportunities and the Macroeconomy," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 46(2), pages 529-554, June.
    33. repec:hrv:faseco:30721347 is not listed on IDEAS
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Corporate Govenance; Family Businesses; Returns; Investment; Trading Strategy;

    JEL classification:

    • G34 - Financial Economics - - Corporate Finance and Governance - - - Mergers; Acquisitions; Restructuring; Corporate Governance
    • G32 - Financial Economics - - Corporate Finance and Governance - - - Financing Policy; Financial Risk and Risk Management; Capital and Ownership Structure; Value of Firms; Goodwill

    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:rdg:icmadp:icma-dp2006-11. 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: (Marie Pearson). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/bsrdguk.html .

    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.