Abstract not found

In this paper, we show that Tobin's q and firm diversification are negatively related. This negative relation holds for different diversification measures and when we control for other known determinants of q. We show further that diversified firms have lower q's than equivalent portfolios of specialized firms. This negativerelation holds throughout the 1980s in our sample. Finally, it holds for firms that have kept their number of segments constant over a number of years as well as for firms that have not. In our sample, firms that increase their number of segments have lower q's than firms that keep their number of segment constant. Our evidence is consistent with the view that firms seek growth through diversification when they have exhausted internal growth opportunities. We fail to find evidence supportive of the view that diversification provides firms with a valuable intangible asset.

As in previous decades, merger activity clusters by industry during the 1990s. One particular kind of industry shock, deregulation, becomes a dominant factor, accounting for nearly half of the merger activity since the late 1980s. In contrast to the 1980s, mergers in the 1990s are mostly stock swaps, and hostile takeovers virtually disappear. Over our 1973 to 1998 sample period, the announcement-period stock market response to mergers is positive for the combined merging parties, suggesting that mergers create value on behalf of shareholders. Consistent with that, we find evidence of improved operating performance following mergers, relative to industry peers.

SEQUELS ARE RARELY AS good as the originals, so I approach this review of the market efflciency literature with trepidation. The task is thornier than it was 20 years ago, when work on efficiency was rather new. The literature is now so large that a full review is impossible, and is not attempted here. Instead, I discuss the work that I find most interesting, and I offer my views on what we have learned from the research on market efficiency. I. The Theme I take the market efficiency hypothesis to be the simple statement that security prices fully reflect all available information. A precondition for this strong version of the hypothesis is that information and trading costs, the costs of getting prices to reflect information, are always 0 (Grossman and Stiglitz (1980)). A weaker and economically more sensible version of the efficiency hypothesis says that prices reflect information to the point where the marginal benefits of acting on information (the profits to be made) do not exceed the marginal costs (Jensen (1978)). Since there are surely positive information and trading costs, the extreme version of the market efficiency hypothesis is surely false. Its advantage, however, is that it is a clean benchmark that allows me to sidestep the messy problem of deciding what are reasonable information and trading costs. I can focus instead on the more interesting task of laying out the evidence on the adjustment of prices to various kinds of information. Each reader is then free to judge the scenarios where market efficiency is a good approximation (that is, deviations from the extreme version of the efficiency hypothesis are within information and trading costs) and those where some other model is a better simplifying view of the world. Ambiguity about information and trading costs is not, however, the main obstacle to inferences about market efficiency. The joint-hypothesis problem is more serious. Thus, market efficiency per se is not testable. It must be

Abstract not found

Center at MIT and the Division of Research at HBS for financial support. This

Does CEO overconfidence help to explain merger decisions? Overconfident CEOs overestimate their ability to generate returns. As a result, they overpay for target companies and undertake value-destroying mergers. The effects are strongest if they have access to internal financing. We test these predictions using two proxies for overconfidence: CEOs' personal overinvestment in their company and their press portrayal. We find that the odds of making an acquisition are 65 % higher if the CEO is classified as overconfident. The effect is largest if the merger is diversifying and does not require external financing. The market reaction at merger announcement (–90 basis points) is significantly more negative than for non-overconfident CEOs (–12 basis points). We consider alternative interpretations including inside information, signaling, and risk tolerance.

We analyze the market for corporate assets. There is an active market for corporate assets, with close to seven percent of plants changing ownership annually through mergers, acquisitions, and asset sales in peak expansion years. The probability of asset sales and whole-firm transactions is related to firm organization and ex ante efficiency of buyers and sellers. The timing of sales and the pattern of efficiency gains suggests that the transactions that occur, especially through asset sales of plants and divisions, tend to improve the allocation of resources and are consistent with a simple neoclassical model of profit maximizing by firms.

Agency Problems, Equity Ownership, and Corporate Diversification We provide evidence on the agency cost explanation for corporate diversification by documenting three principal findings. First, there is a strong negative relation between the extent of diversification and managerial equity ownership after controlling for other factors related to diversification. Second, there is a weak negative relation between the value loss from diversification and managerial ownership. Third, decreases in diversification are associated with external corporate control threats, financial distress, and management turnover. These findings are consistent with the hypotheses that agency problems are responsible for firms maintaining value-reducing diversification strategies and that the recent trend towards increased corporate focus is attributable to market disciplinary forces. 3 Agency Problems, Equity Ownership, and Corporate Diversification Several recent studies examine the valuation consequences ...

We study shareholder returns for firms that acquired five or more public, private, and0or subsidiary targets within a short time period. Since the same bidder chooses different types of targets and methods of payment, any variation in returns must be due to the characteristics of the target and the bid. Results indicate bidder shareholders gain when buying a private firm or subsidiary but lose when purchasing a public firm. Further, the return is greater the larger the target and if the bidder offers stock. These results are consistent with a liquidity discount, and tax and control effects in this market. Takeovers are one of the most important events in corporate finance, both for a firm and the economy. Extensive research has shown that shareholders in target firms gain significantly and that wealth is created at the announcement of takeovers ~i.e., combined bidder and target returns are positive!. However, we know much less about the effects of takeovers on the shareholders of acquiring firms. Evidence suggests that these shareholders earn,