Amy K. Dittmar

International Corporate Governance and Corporate Cash Holdings

Agency problems are an important determinant of corporate cash holdings. For a sample of more than 11,000 firms from 45 countries, we find that corporations in countries where shareholders rights are not well protected hold up to twice as much cash as corporations in countries with good shareholder protection. In addition, when shareholder protection is poor, factors that generally drive the need for cash holdings, such as investment opportunities and asymmetric information, actually become less important. These results are stronger after controlling for capital market development. Indeed, consistent with the importance of agency costs, we find that firms hold larger cash balances when access to funds is easier. Our evidence is consistent with the conjecture that investors in countries with poor shareholder protection cannot force managers to disgorge excessive cash balances.

Why Do Firms Repurchase Stock

In this article, I investigate the relation between stock repurchases and distribution, investment, capital structure, corporate control, and compensation policies over the 1977-96 period. I allow the significance of each motive to change over time to account for adjustments in the percentage of firms influenced by each motive. I find that, throughout the sample period, firms repurchase stock to take advantage of potential undervaluation and, in many periods, to distribute excess capital. However, firms also repurchase stock during certain periods to alter their leverage ratio, fend off takeovers, and counter the dilution effects of stock options. Copyright 2000 by University of Chicago Press.

Looking in the Rearview Mirror: The Effect of Managers' Professional Experience on Corporate Financial Policy

Firms hold unprecedentedly high levels of cash with aggregate balances reaching

It Pays to Follow the Leader: Acquiring Targets Picked by Private Equity

1.5 trillion in 2011. Roughly 80% of this cash is concentrated in a small number of large, mature firms with high earnings, low volatility, few investment opportunities and high credit ratings that slowly adjust cash toward a target. These attributes are inconsistent with the precautionary savings motive. We find that managers’ conservatism explains the cash holdings of the cash-richest firms. Conservative managers hold higher cash balances, save more cash out of cash flow and security issuance, and the value of their firms’ cash holdings is substantially lower.

Does Capital Market Myopia Affect Plant Productivity? Evidence from Going Private Transactions

This paper examines the impact of financial sponsor competition on corporate buyers. We find that corporate acquirers who purchase targets that financial buyers also bid on outperform corporate acquirers who buy targets bid on by corporate firms only. Deal characteristics, acquirer abilities, and observable target characteristics cannot explain this difference in returns. Corporate acquirers have higher returns when they follow a first bid by a financial buyer rather than a first bid by another corporate buyer. The results suggest that financial bidders identify targets with high potential for value improvement and winning corporate bidders are competent in exploiting this potential.

Corporate Governance and the Value of Cash Holdings

One influential criticism of the stock market oriented U.S. financial system is that its excessive focus on short term quarterly earnings forces public firms to behave in a myopic manner. We hypothesize that if capital markets pressure listed firms to be myopic in a way that impacts efficiency, then going private (when myopia is eliminated) should cause U.S. firms to improve their establishment level productivity relative to a peer control groups of firms. We find no evidence that this is the case. Our key finding is that while there is evidence for substantial within-establishment increases in productivity after going private, there is little evidence of difference-in-differences efficiency gains relative to peer groups of establishments constructed to control for industry, age, size at the time of going private, and the endogeneity of the going private decision effects. Also, we do not find evidence that myopic markets lead to under-investment at the establishment level. On the contrary, we find that after going private, firms shrink capital and employment, and close plants more quickly, relative to peer groups. Our findings cast doubt on the view that public markets cause listed firms to make sub-optimal, productivity-decreasing choices, or under-invest at the establishment level.