Explaining the Diversification Discount PDF Download
Are you looking for read ebook online? Search for your book and save it on your Kindle device, PC, phones or tablets. Download Explaining the Diversification Discount PDF full book. Access full book title Explaining the Diversification Discount by José Manuel Campa. Download full books in PDF and EPUB format.
Author: José Manuel Campa
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category :
Languages : en
Pages : 50
Get Book Here
Book Description
Diversified firms trade at a discount relatively to similar single-segment firms. We argue in this paper that this observed discount is not per se evidence that diversification destroys value. Firms choose to diversify. Firm characteristics, which make firms diversify, might also causethem to be discounted. Not taking into account these firm characteristics might wrongly attribute the observed discount to diversification. Data from the Compustat Industry Segment File from 1978 to 1996 is used to select a sample of single segment and diversifying firms. We use three alternative econometric techniques to control for the endogeneity of the diversification decision.All three methods suggest the presence of self-selection in the decision to diversify and that a negative correlation exists between firm's choice to diversify and firm value. We do a similar analysis in a sample of refocusing firms. Again, some evidence of self-selection by firms exists and we now find a positive correlation between firm's choice to refocus and firm value. Theseresults consistently suggest the importance of taking the endogeneity of the diversification status into account in analyzing its effect on firm value.
Author: José Manuel Campa
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category :
Languages : en
Pages : 50
Get Book Here
Book Description
Diversified firms trade at a discount relatively to similar single-segment firms. We argue in this paper that this observed discount is not per se evidence that diversification destroys value. Firms choose to diversify. Firm characteristics, which make firms diversify, might also causethem to be discounted. Not taking into account these firm characteristics might wrongly attribute the observed discount to diversification. Data from the Compustat Industry Segment File from 1978 to 1996 is used to select a sample of single segment and diversifying firms. We use three alternative econometric techniques to control for the endogeneity of the diversification decision.All three methods suggest the presence of self-selection in the decision to diversify and that a negative correlation exists between firm's choice to diversify and firm value. We do a similar analysis in a sample of refocusing firms. Again, some evidence of self-selection by firms exists and we now find a positive correlation between firm's choice to refocus and firm value. Theseresults consistently suggest the importance of taking the endogeneity of the diversification status into account in analyzing its effect on firm value.
Author: Bill B. Francis
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category :
Languages : en
Pages : 51
Get Book Here
Book Description
We examine why some diversified firms trade at a discount and others at a premium. Specifically, we examine if the value premium (discount) of premium (discount) diversified firms can be explained by lower (higher) risk exposures and, hence, expected returns, relative to a portfolio of matching focused firms. Using a four-factor conditional asset-pricing model, we find that premium firms have higher expected returns while discount firms have lower expected returns than their corresponding portfolios of matching focused firms. This indicates that the value premium (discount) of premium (discount) diversified firms is due entirely to higher (lower) expected cash flows. In addition, we find that the average diversified firm has significantly lower mean risk exposures and expected returns than a portfolio of matching focused firms. This means that its value discount is due entirely to lower expected cash flows. This is in contrast to Lamont and Polk (2001) who attribute just over 50% of the variation in excess values to future cash flows. Our results also indicate that the value discount of the average diversified firm can be attributed entirely to the expected cash-flow dissipation of discount diversified firms.
Author: Belen Villalonga
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category :
Languages : en
Pages : 42
Get Book Here
Book Description
This paper examines whether the discount of diversified firms can actually be attributed to diversification itself, using recent econometric developments about causal inference with non-experimental data. The effect of diversification on firm value is unbiasedly estimated by matching diversified and single-segment firms on the propensity score??the predicted values from a probit model of a firm?s propensity to diversify. I apply this method on a sample of diversified firms that trade at a significant mean and median discount relative to single-segment firms of similar size and industry. I find that, when a more comparable benchmark based on the propensity score is used, the diversification discount as such disappears. Therefore, I find no reason to interpret the finding that diversified firms trade at a discount as evidence that diversification destroys value. In fact, my analysis of the propensity to diversify yields support to both value-creating and value-destroying arguments for diversification. I find that diversified firms trade at a significant industry-adjusted discount prior to diversification, which however does not seem to result from their future diversification. In addition, diversifying firms are present in industries with a lower q than those of their non-diversifying counterparts. I also find that, as predicted by agency theory, diversified firms prior to diversifying have a smaller percentage of their stock owned by institutions, insiders, and blockholders, a higher risk, and are likely to diversify into industries with a lower average leverage than their own. I find support for the resource-based theory of diversification as well in that firms are more likely to diversify when faced with opportunities for exploiting potential synergies and when they have enough financial resources to do so. As required for market power-based theories of diversification to hold, firms that diversify are present in industries with higher levels of concentration. More generally, certain industries appear to lend themselves more than others to either inward or outward diversification.
Author:
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category :
Languages : en
Pages : 59
Get Book Here
Book Description
When firms choose to acquire others, those acquisitions can either be considered diversifying or non-diversifying. Whether the firm diversifies or not has been shown to affect the post-acquisition performance of that firm. Past merger and acquisition (M & A) research has identified a "diversification discount" when firms diversify through M & A activity. However managers continue to diversify, posing the question, "Why do firms continue to diversify in the face of research indicating negative post-acquisition performance"? The answer may be found in that much of the past research has treated all acquisitions the same by analyzing a wide cross-section of acquisitions from industries of all types. This assumption may be wrong, as not all acquisitions are the same. The present research attempts to build on past research by analyzing only a single segment of M & A activity the high-technology industry between the years 1994 and 1998. In addition, this study differs from past research by analyzing firm post-acquisition performance over a longer three-year period. The present research did achieve significant results that may help eliminate some of the clouds over diversification's true impact on M & A activity. A "diversification discount" was identified by the present research, confirming the findings of much of the past M & A literature.
Author:
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category :
Languages : en
Pages : 59
Get Book Here
Book Description
When firms choose to acquire others, those acquisitions can either be considered diversifying or non-diversifying. Whether the firm diversifies or not has been shown to affect the post-acquisition performance of that firm. Past merger and acquisition (M & A) research has identified a "diversification discount" when firms diversify through M & A activity. However managers continue to diversify, posing the question, "Why do firms continue to diversify in the face of research indicating negative post-acquisition performance"? The answer may be found in that much of the past research has treated all acquisitions the same by analyzing a wide cross-section of acquisitions from industries of all types. This assumption may be wrong, as not all acquisitions are the same. The present research attempts to build on past research by analyzing only a single segment of M & A activity the high-technology industry between the years 1994 and 1998. In addition, this study differs from past research by analyzing firm post-acquisition performance over a longer three-year period. The present research did achieve significant results that may help eliminate some of the clouds over diversification's true impact on M & A activity. A "diversification discount" was identified by the present research, confirming the findings of much of the past M & A literature.
Author: Donald F. Adkins
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category : High technology industries
Languages : en
Pages : 94
Get Book Here
Book Description
Author: Raghuram Rajan
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category :
Languages : en
Pages : 50
Get Book Here
Book Description
Author: Jin-Chuan Duan
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category :
Languages : en
Pages : 0
Get Book Here
Book Description
This paper identifies a key cause for the documented diversification discount, namely diversified firms being traded at a discount relative to focused firms. We attribute such empirical findings to different distributions of diversified firms vis-à-vis focused firms over leverage in the data sample. We replicate Lang and Stulz's (1994) and Berger and Ofek's (1995) main results using a sample from 1985 to 2003 inclusive, and find a significant diversification discount using three different value measures (i.e., Tobin's q, Lang and Stulz's industry-adjusted Tobin's q, and Berger and Ofek's excess value measure). However, diversification discount disappears in almost all sample years once the data sample is first balanced across diversified and focused firms for each of leverage deciles. Our conclusion remains largely intact when various firm characteristics are controlled for in a multiple-regression setting, which in turn suggests that simply including leverage as an explanatory variable fails to properly account for the impact of leverage. Furthermore, we examine the impact caused by endogeneity of the diversification decision. We find no evidence for diversification discount when the leverage-balanced sample is used. However, our results indicate that refocusing premium may still be present after the sample is leverage-balanced.
Author: José Campa
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category : Diversification in industry
Languages : en
Pages : 49
Get Book Here
Book Description
Author: Raghuram G. Rajan
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category :
Languages : en
Pages : 79
Get Book Here
Book Description
In a simple model of capital budgeting in a diversified firm where headquarters has limited power, we show that funds are allocated towards the most inefficient divisions The distortion is greater the more diverse are the investment opportunities of the firm's divisions. We test these implications on a panel of diversified firms in the U.S. during the period 1979-1993. We find that i) diversified firms mis-allocate investment funds; ii) the extent of mis-allocation is positively related to the diversity of the investment opportunities across divisions; iii) the discount at which these diversified firms trade is positively related to the extent of the investment mis-allocation and to the diversity of the investment opportunities across divisions.
