IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cdl/oplwec/qt1z97645j.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A Defense of Shareholder Favoritism

Author

Listed:
  • Choi, Stephen J.
  • Talley, Eric L.

Abstract

This paper considers the efficiency implications of managerial "favoritism" towards block shareholders of public corporations. While favoritism can take any number of forms (including the payment of greenmail, diversion of opportunities, selective information disclosure, and the like), each may have the effect (if not the intent) of securing a block shareholder's loyalty in order to entrench management. Accordingly, the practice of making side payments is commonly perceived to be contrary to other shareholders' interests and, more generally, inefficient. In contrast to this received wisdom, we argue that when viewed ex ante, permissible acts of patronage toward block shareholders may play an important efficiency role that benefits all shareholders alike. We demonstrate that the prospect of having to share rents with a third party may itself have a deterrent effect on managerial self-dealing - an off-equilibrium benefit that would not be readily apparent if one looked only at instances where favoritism actually occurs in practice.

Suggested Citation

  • Choi, Stephen J. & Talley, Eric L., 2001. "A Defense of Shareholder Favoritism," Berkeley Olin Program in Law & Economics, Working Paper Series qt1z97645j, Berkeley Olin Program in Law & Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:cdl:oplwec:qt1z97645j
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/1z97645j.pdf;origin=repeccitec
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Neeman, Z. & Orosel, G.O., 1999. "Corporate Vote-Trading as an Instrument of Corporate Governance," Papers 9904, Washington St. Louis - School of Business and Political Economy.
    2. Andrei Shleifer & Lawrence H. Summers, 1988. "Breach of Trust in Hostile Takeovers," NBER Chapters, in: Corporate Takeovers: Causes and Consequences, pages 33-68, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. 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.
    4. Nash, John, 1950. "The Bargaining Problem," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 18(2), pages 155-162, April.
    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. 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.
    2. Renneboog, Luc & Vansteenkiste, Cara, 2017. "Leveraged Buyouts : A Survey of the Literature," Other publications TiSEM 573ebdd5-a720-4110-8ed1-e, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    3. Mike Burkart & Samuel Lee, 2008. "One Share - One Vote: the Theory," Review of Finance, European Finance Association, vol. 12(1), pages 1-49.
    4. Philippe Desbrières, 2002. "Les actionnaires salariés," Revue française de gestion, Lavoisier, vol. 141(5), pages 255-281.
    5. Susan Christoffersen & Christopher C. Geczy & David K. Musto & Adam V. Reed, 2004. "How and Why do Investors Trade Votes, and What Does it Mean?," CIRANO Working Papers 2004s-23, CIRANO.
    6. Nenova, Tatiana, 2006. "Takeover laws and financial development," Policy Research Working Paper Series 4029, The World Bank.
    7. Shleifer, Andrei & Vishny, Robert W, 1997. "A Survey of Corporate Governance," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 52(2), pages 737-783, June.
    8. Renneboog, Luc & Vansteenkiste, Cara, 2017. "Leveraged Buyouts : A Survey of the Literature," Discussion Paper 2017-015, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    9. Olivier MEIER & Aurélie SANNAJUST, 2014. "Public to Private transactions and cognitive biases: A European study," Working Papers 2014-345, Department of Research, Ipag Business School.
    10. Maurizio Zanardi, 2004. "Antidumping law as a collusive device," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 37(1), pages 95-122, February.
    11. M. Hinojosa & A. Mármol & J. Zarzuelo, 2008. "Inequality averse multi-utilitarian bargaining solutions," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 37(4), pages 597-618, December.
    12. Matsui, Kenji, 2020. "Optimal bargaining timing of a wholesale price for a manufacturer with a retailer in a dual-channel supply chain," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 287(1), pages 225-236.
    13. Simon G�chter & Arno Riedl, "undated". "Moral Property Rights in Bargaining," IEW - Working Papers 113, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
    14. H Peyton Young, 2014. "The Evolution of Social Norms," Economics Series Working Papers 726, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
    15. Erkki Koskela & Ronnie Schöb, 2002. "Alleviating Unemployment: The Case for Green Tax Reforms," Chapters, in: Lawrence H. Goulder (ed.), Environmental Policy Making in Economies with Prior Tax Distortions, chapter 20, pages 355-378, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    16. Magni, Carlo Alberto, 2009. "Splitting up value: A critical review of residual income theories," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 198(1), pages 1-22, October.
    17. Stefano Vannucci, 2015. "La teoria dei giochi e John Nash," Department of Economics University of Siena 722, Department of Economics, University of Siena.
    18. Chiaki Moriguchi, 2005. "Did American Welfare Capitalists Breach Their Implicit Contracts during the Great Depression? Preliminary Findings from Company-Level Data," ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 59(1), pages 51-81, October.
    19. Heinrich, Ralph P., 1999. "Complementarities in Corporate Governance - A Survey of the Literature with Special Emphasis on Japan," Kiel Working Papers 947, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    20. Roland Kirstein & Matthias Peiss, 2013. "Quantitative Machtkonzepte in der Ökonomik," FEMM Working Papers 130004, Otto-von-Guericke University Magdeburg, Faculty of Economics and Management.

    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:cdl:oplwec:qt1z97645j. 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: Lisa Schiff (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/lebrkus.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.