Marieke van der Poel

Does Familiarity with Business Segments Affect CEOs' Divestment Decisions?

We examine the impact of familiarity with business segments on CEOs’ divestment decisions. We find CEOs are less likely to divest assets from familiar than from non-familiar segments. We attribute this effect to CEOs’ comparative information advantage with respect to familiar segments. Consistent with this information advantage, we document that the familiarity effect is particularly strong in R&D intensive industries. We further find the familiarity effect to be most pronounced for longer-tenured CEOs who have built up sufficient political power over the course of several years in office to enable implementation of their preferred divestment choices. We also document the value effects of divestments and show that familiarity affects returns on divestment announcements.

The changing relation between CEOs and shareholders: A case study on Royal Philips NV, 1971-2001

Purpose This paper aims to present case study evidence on the changes in the relations between chief executive officers (CEOs) of large firms and shareholders in the past three decades of the twentieth century. In line with insights from agency theory, the CEOs have experienced increased scrutiny from their principals, the shareholders. This development has affected financial communication and investor relations as well as stock market prices. Design/methodology/approach The Dutch electronics firm Royal Philips NV in the transition period of 1971-2001 has been studied using publicly available disclosures and stock market prices. A descriptive case study approach is combined with event study methodology. Findings It was observed that the increased emphasis on shareholder interests has affected the interactions between Philips’ respective CEOs and the shareholders’ reactions to strategic decisions as measured by stock price changes. Around the beginning of the twenty-first century, clarity and openness in CEO communication was the norm and deviations were punished with volatile stock prices. Research limitations/implications The study relies on publicly available data. Originality/value The case study of Philips can be extrapolated to other exchange-listed firms in the late twentieth century, which faced changed expectations about the role of the CEO, investor relations and the CEO’s accountability toward shareholders. This transition is relevant not only as a historical observation, but also as a background to studies in finance and management about top management and financial markets.

Corporate governance and acquisitions

We examine 865 acquisitions by Dutch industrial firms over the period 1993–2004. Theoretical work based on principal–agent problems predicts that managers of exchange-listed corporations may pursue acquisitions even when these do not add value for the shareholders. Corporate governance structures serve to constrain managers in their acquisition activity. In this chapter we measure the shareholder wealth effects of acquisitions and the factors that determine these wealth effects, including the governance characteristics of corporations. Firms in the Netherlands are interesting from the perspective of corporate governance, because the managerial board has a relatively strong position vis-a-vis shareholders. Several takeover defenses commonly used in the Netherlands not only limit shareholder influence during takeover battles, but also in absence of such fights. On the other hand, ownership is relatively concentrated, which may provide shareholders with the incentives and power to monitor the management. The average abnormal stock return following acquisition announcements is 1.1%, which is a significant positive effect. There is only a significant negative impact of the so-called structured regime, a situation where several shareholder rights are delegated to the supervisory board. This result suggests that governance improves acquisition decisions.

Corporate Governance and Acquisitions: Acquirer Wealth Effects in the Netherlands

We examine 865 acquisitions by Dutch industrial firms over the period 1993–2004. Theoretical work based on principal–agent problems predicts that managers of exchange-listed corporations may pursue acquisitions even when these do not add value for the shareholders. Corporate governance structures serve to constrain managers in their acquisition activity. In this chapter we measure the shareholder wealth effects of acquisitions and the factors that determine these wealth effects, including the governance characteristics of corporations. Firms in the Netherlands are interesting from the perspective of corporate governance, because the managerial board has a relatively strong position vis-a-vis shareholders. Several takeover defenses commonly used in the Netherlands not only limit shareholder influence during takeover battles, but also in absence of such fights. On the other hand, ownership is relatively concentrated, which may provide shareholders with the incentives and power to monitor the management. The average abnormal stock return following acquisition announcements is 1.1%, which is a significant positive effect. There is only a significant negative impact of the so-called structured regime, a situation where several shareholder rights are delegated to the supervisory board. This result suggests that governance improves acquisition decisions.

6 – Corporate governance and acquisitions1: acquirer wealth effects in the Netherlands

We examine 865 acquisitions by Dutch industrial firms over the period 1993–2004. Theoretical work based on principal–agent problems predicts that managers of exchange-listed corporations may pursue acquisitions even when these do not add value for the shareholders. Corporate governance structures serve to constrain managers in their acquisition activity. In this chapter we measure the shareholder wealth effects of acquisitions and the factors that determine these wealth effects, including the governance characteristics of corporations. Firms in the Netherlands are interesting from the perspective of corporate governance, because the managerial board has a relatively strong position vis-a-vis shareholders. Several takeover defenses commonly used in the Netherlands not only limit shareholder influence during takeover battles, but also in absence of such fights. On the other hand, ownership is relatively concentrated, which may provide shareholders with the incentives and power to monitor the management. The average abnormal stock return following acquisition announcements is 1.1%, which is a significant positive effect. There is only a significant negative impact of the so-called structured regime, a situation where several shareholder rights are delegated to the supervisory board. This result suggests that governance improves acquisition decisions.