IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/2347.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

One Share/One Vote and the Market for Corporate Control

Author

Listed:
  • Sanford J. Grossman
  • Oliver D. Hart

Abstract

A corporation's securities provide the holder with particular claims on the firm's income stream and particular voting rights. These securities can be designed in various ways: one share of a particular class may have a claim to votes which is disproportionately larger or smaller than its claim to income. In this paper we analyze some of the forces which make it desirable to set up the corporation so that all securities have the same proportion of votes as their claim to income ("one share/one vote"). We show that security structure influences both the conditions under which a control change takes place and the terms on which it occurs. First, the allocation of voting rights to securities determines which securities a party must acquire in order to win control. Secondly, the assignment of income claims to the same securities determines the cost of acquiring these voting rights. We will show that it is in shareholders' interest to set the cost of acquiring control to be as large as possible, consistent with a control change occurring whenever this increases shareholder wealth. Under certain assumptions, one share/one vote best achieves this goal. We distinguish between two classes of benefits from control: private benefits and security benefits. The private benefits of control refer to benefits the current management or the acquirer obtain for themselves, but which the target security holders do not obtain. The security benefits refer to the total market value of the corporation's securities. The assignment of income claims to voting rights determines the extent 'to which an acquirer must face competition from parties who value the firm for its security benefits rather than its private benefits.

Suggested Citation

  • Sanford J. Grossman & Oliver D. Hart, 1987. "One Share/One Vote and the Market for Corporate Control," NBER Working Papers 2347, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    • Handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:2347
    Note: ME
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w2347.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dodd, Peter & Warner, Jerold B., 1983. "On corporate governance : A study of proxy contests," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 11(1-4), pages 401-438, April.
    2. Mayers, David & Smith, Clifford Jr., 1986. "Ownership structure and control : The mutualization of stock life insurance companies," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(1), pages 73-98, May.
    3. Ken Binmore & Ariel Rubinstein & Asher Wolinsky, 1986. "The Nash Bargaining Solution in Economic Modelling," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 17(2), pages 176-188, Summer.
    4. Henry G. Manne, 1965. "Mergers and the Market for Corporate Control," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 73(2), pages 110-110.
    5. Shleifer, Andrei & Vishny, Robert W, 1986. "Large Shareholders and Corporate Control," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 94(3), pages 461-488, June.
    6. Jensen, Michael C. & Meckling, William H., 1976. "Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 305-360, October.
    7. Grossman, Sanford J & Hart, Oliver D, 1986. "The Costs and Benefits of Ownership: A Theory of Vertical and Lateral Integration," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 94(4), pages 691-719, August.
    8. Grossman, Sanford J & Hart, Oliver D, 1981. "The Allocational Role of Takeover Bids in Situations of Asymmetric Information," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 36(2), pages 253-270, May.
    9. DeAngelo, Harry & DeAngelo, Linda & Rice, Edward M, 1984. "Going Private: Minority Freezeouts and Stockholder Wealth," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 27(2), pages 367-401, October.
    10. Levy, Haim, 1983. "Economic Evaluation of Voting Power of Common Stock," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 38(1), pages 79-93, March.
    11. Jensen, Michael C. & Ruback, Richard S., 1983. "The market for corporate control : The scientific evidence," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 11(1-4), pages 5-50, April.
    12. Caplin, Andrew S & Nalebuff, Barry J, 1988. "On 64%-Majority Rule," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 56(4), pages 787-814, July.
    13. Baron, David P, 1983. "Tender Offers and Management Resistance," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 38(2), pages 331-343, May.
    14. Henry G. Manne, 1965. "Mergers and the Market for Corporate Control," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 73(4), pages 351-351.
    15. Easterbrook, Frank H & Fischel, Daniel R, 1983. "Voting in Corporate Law," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 26(2), pages 395-427, June.
    16. Lease, Ronald C & McConnell, John J & Mikkelson, Wayne H, 1984. "The Market Value of Differential Voting Rights in Closely Held Corporations," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 57(4), pages 443-467, October.
    17. Demsetz, Harold, 1983. "The Structure of Ownership and the Theory of the Firm," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 26(2), pages 375-390, June.
    18. DeAngelo, Harry & DeAngelo, Linda, 1985. "Managerial ownership of voting rights : A study of public corporations with dual classes of common stock," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 14(1), pages 33-69, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Shleifer, Andrei & Vishny, Robert W, 1997. "A Survey of Corporate Governance," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 52(2), pages 737-783, June.
    2. Mike Burkart & Samuel Lee, 2008. "One Share - One Vote: the Theory," Review of Finance, European Finance Association, vol. 12(1), pages 1-49.
    3. Charlie Weir, 1997. "Corporate governance, performance and take-overs: an empirical analysis of UK mergers," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 29(11), pages 1465-1475.
    4. Daniel Ferreira & Emanuel Ornelas & John L. Turner, 2015. "Unbundling Ownership and Control," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 24(1), pages 1-21, March.
    5. Noel O'Sullivan & Pauline Wong, 1999. "Board composition, ownership structure and hostile takeovers: some UK evidence," Accounting and Business Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 29(2), pages 139-155.
    6. João A. C. Santos & Kristin E. Wilson, 2017. "Does Banks’ Corporate Control Lower Funding Costs? Evidence from US Banks’ Control Over Firms’ Voting Rights," Journal of Financial Services Research, Springer;Western Finance Association, vol. 51(3), pages 283-311, June.
    7. Matthias Kiefer & Edward Jones & Andrew Adams, 2016. "Principals, Agents and Incomplete Contracts: Are Surrender of Control and Renegotiation the Solution?," CFI Discussion Papers 1603, Centre for Finance and Investment, Heriot Watt University.
    8. Khachaturyan, Arman, 2006. "The One-Share-One-Vote Controversy in the EU," ECMI Papers 1203, Centre for European Policy Studies.
    9. Daniel Ferreira & Emanuel Ornelas & John L. Turner, 2005. "Ownership Structure and the Market for Corporate Control," IBMEC RJ Economics Discussion Papers 2005-09, Economics Research Group, IBMEC Business School - Rio de Janeiro.
    10. Derek Horstmeyer & Kara Wells, 2020. "When Do Governance Mechanisms Matter Most?," Quarterly Journal of Finance (QJF), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 10(01), pages 1-52, February.
    11. Noel O'Sullivan & Pauline Wong, 1998. "Internal versus External Control: An Analysis of Board Composition and Ownership in UK Takeovers," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 2(1), pages 17-35, March.
    12. Peck, Sarah W., 1996. "The influence of professional investors on the failure of management buyout attempts," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(2), pages 267-294, February.
    13. Lehmann, Erik, 2018. "Corporate governance," UO Working Papers 01-18, University of Augsburg, Chair of Management and Organization.
    14. Peter M Clarkson & Shams Pathan & Andrew Tellam, 2016. "Do private equity target firms exhibit less effectual governance structures?," Australian Journal of Management, Australian School of Business, vol. 41(2), pages 244-270, May.
    15. Gorton, Gary & Schmid, Frank, 1999. "Corporate governance, ownership dispersion and efficiency: Empirical evidence from Austrian cooperative banking," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 5(2), pages 119-140, June.
    16. Becker, Bo & Cronqvist, Henrik & Fahlenbrach, Rüdiger, 2011. "Estimating the Effects of Large Shareholders Using a Geographic Instrument," Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 46(4), pages 907-942, August.
    17. Oesterle, Michael-Jörg & Richta, Hannah Noriko & Fisch, Jan Hendrik, 2013. "The influence of ownership structure on internationalization," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 187-201.
    18. Agyenim Boateng & XiaoGang Bi & Sanjukta Brahma, 2017. "The impact of firm ownership, board monitoring on operating performance of Chinese mergers and acquisitions," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 49(4), pages 925-948, November.
    19. repec:dau:papers:123456789/9321 is not listed on IDEAS
    20. Gardner, L. A. & M. F. Grace, "undated". "Efficiency Comparisons between Mutual and Stock Life Insurance Companies," Working Papers 012, Risk and Insurance Archive.
    21. Bhaumik, Sumon Kumar & Dimova, Ralitza, 2004. "How important is ownership in a market with level playing field?: The Indian banking sector revisited," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 165-180, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:2347. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/nberrus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.
    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy