The Corporate Investment Benefits of Mutual Fund Dual Holdings
Rex Wang Renjie, Patrick Verwijmeren, Shuo Xia
Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis,
forthcoming
Abstract
Mutual fund families increasingly hold bonds and stocks from the same firm. We present evidence that dual ownership allows firms to increase valuable investments and refinance by issuing bonds with lower yields and fewer restrictive covenants, especially when firms face financial distress. Dual holders also prevent overinvestment by firms with entrenched managers. Overall, our results suggest that mutual fund families internalize the agency conflicts of their portfolio companies, highlighting the positive governance externalities of intra-family cooperation.
Read article
Homepage
Chinese mass imports strengthen extreme parties Globalisation has led to an increase in votes for the political fringes...
See page
IWH Bankruptcy Research
IWH Bankruptcy Research The Bankruptcy Research Unit of the Halle Institute for...
See page
Department Profiles
Research Profiles of the IWH Departments All doctoral students are allocated to one...
See page
Department Profiles
Research Profiles of the IWH Departments All doctoral students are allocated to one...
See page
Weigt
Who Buffers Income Losses after Job Displacement? The Role of Alternative Income Sources, the Family, and the State ...
See page
East Germany
The Nasty Gap 30 years after unification: Why East Germany is still 20% poorer than the...
See page
Corporate Governance Benefits of Mutual Fund Cooperation
Rex Wang Renji, Patrick Verwijmeren, Shuo Xia
IWH Discussion Papers,
No. 21,
2022
Abstract
Mutual fund families increasingly hold bonds and stocks from the same firm. We study the implications of such dual holdings for corporate governance and firm decision-making. We present evidence that dual ownership allows financially distressed firms to increase investments and to refinance by issuing bonds with lower yields and fewer restrictive covenants. As such, dual ownership reduces shareholder-creditor conflicts, especially when families encourage cooperation among their managers. Overall, our results suggest that mutual fund families internalize the shareholder-creditor agency conflicts of their portfolio companies, highlighting the positive governance externalities of intra-family cooperation.
Read article
Family Firms and Management Practices
Margarita Tsoutsoura
Oxford Review of Economic Policy,
No. 2,
2021
Abstract
This article reviews the existing literature about management practices in family firms, the most prevalent form of corporate ownership around the world. I summarize the existing evidence that shows family firms are less likely to adopt structured management practices, especially ‘dynastic’ family firms that combine family ownership and control. I discuss what might be the unique features of family firms that drive the lower adoption of management practices, despite the evidence that improving management boosts their productivity and performance.
Read article
Lack of Selection and Limits to Delegation: Firm Dynamics in Developing Countries
Ufuk Akcigit, Harun Alp, Michael Peters
American Economic Review,
No. 1,
2021
Abstract
Delegating managerial tasks is essential for firm growth. Most firms in developing countries, however, do not hire outside managers but instead rely on family members. In this paper, we ask if this lack of managerial delegation can explain why firms in poor countries are small and whether it has important aggregate consequences. We construct a model of firm growth where entrepreneurs have a fixed time endowment to run their daily operations. As firms grow large, the need to hire outside managers increases. Firms’ willingness to expand therefore depends on the ease with which delegation can take place. We calibrate the model to plant-level data from the U.S. and India. We identify the key parameters of our theory by targeting the experimental evidence on the effect of managerial practices on firm performance from Bloom et al. (2013). We find that inefficiencies in the delegation environment account for 11% of the income per capita difference between the U.S. and India. They also contribute to the small size of Indian producers, but would cause substantially more harm for U.S. firms. The reason is that U.S. firms are larger on average and managerial delegation is especially valuable for large firms, thus making delegation efficiency and other factors affecting firm growth complements.
Read article