LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects:
Using firm level data from India, we examine the impact of ownership concentration on post-M&A performance of firms. Our analysis has implications for both the M&A literature, which emphasises the role of agency conflict between managers and owners of widely held companies as a key reason for M&A failures, and the corporate governance literature, especially in the context of emerging market economies. A cautious interpretation of our results suggests that while ownership concentration may reduce the manager–owner agency conflict, it may nevertheless precipitate other forms of agency conflict such that ownership concentration may not necessarily improve post-M&A performance. In particular, our results have implications for the literature on the agency conflict between large (or majority) shareholders and small (or minority) shareholders of a company, especially in contexts such as emerging market economies where corporate governance quality is weak.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Agrawal, M., Sensarma, R., 2007. Determinants of merger activity: Evidence from India. International Journal of Financial Services Management. 2, 277-288.
    • Almeida, H.V., D. Wolfenzon, D., 2006. A theory of pyramidal ownership and family business groups. Journal of Finance. 61, 2637-2680.
    • Almeida, H.V. et al., 2011. The structure and formation of business groups: Evidence from the Korean chaebols. Journal of Financial Economics. 99, 447-475.
    • Asquith, P., 1983. Merger bids, uncertainty and stockholder returns. Journal of Financial Economics. 11, 51-83.
    • Bebchuk, L.A. et al., 2000. Stock pyramids, cross-ownership and dual class equity: The mechanisms and agency costs of separating control from cash flow rights, in: Morck, R. (Ed.) Concentrated Corporate Ownership, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 445-460.
    • Beena, P.L., 2004. Towards understanding the merger wave in the Indian corporate sector: A corporate perspective. Working paper no. 355, Centre for Development Studies, Trivandrum, India.
    • Bertrand, M. et al., 2002. Ferreting out tunnelling: An application to Indian business groups. Quarterly Journal of Economics. 117, 121-148.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article