IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ehl/lserod/112118.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Wolf pack activism

Author

Listed:
  • Brav, Alon
  • Dasgupta, Amil
  • Mathews, Richmond D.

Abstract

Blockholder monitoring is central to corporate governance, but blockholders large enough to exercise significant unilateral influence are rare. Mechanisms that enable moderately sized blockholders to exert collective influence are therefore important. Existing theory suggests that engagement by moderately sized blockholders is unlikely, especially when the blocks are held by delegated asset managers who have limited skin in the game. We present a model in which multiple delegated blockholders engage target management in parallel, that is, “wolf pack activism.” Delegation reduces skin in the game, which decreases incentives for engagement. However, it also induces competition over investor capital (i.e., competition for flow). We show that this increases engagement incentives and helps ameliorate the problem of insufficient engagement, although it can also foster excess engagement. Under competition for flow, the total amount of capital seeking skilled activist managers is relevant to engagement incentives, which helps to predict when and where wolf packs arise. Flow incentives are particularly valuable in incentivizing engagement by packs with smaller members.

Suggested Citation

  • Brav, Alon & Dasgupta, Amil & Mathews, Richmond D., 2022. "Wolf pack activism," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 112118, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
  • Handle: RePEc:ehl:lserod:112118
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/112118/
    File Function: Open access version.
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Simi Kedia & Laura T. Starks & Xianjue Wang, 2021. "Institutional Investors and Hedge Fund Activism," The Review of Corporate Finance Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 10(1), pages 1-43.
    2. Jongha Lim & Berk A. Sensoy & Michael S. Weisbach, 2016. "Indirect Incentives of Hedge Fund Managers," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 71(2), pages 871-918, April.
    3. Lucian A. Bebchuk & Alon Brav & Wei Jiang & Thomas Keusch, 2019. "Dancing With Activists," NBER Working Papers 26171, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. 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.
    5. Gantchev, Nickolay, 2013. "The costs of shareholder activism: Evidence from a sequential decision model," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(3), pages 610-631.
    6. Marco Becht & Julian Franks & Jeremy Grant & Hannes F. Wagner, 2017. "Returns to Hedge Fund Activism: An International Study," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 30(9), pages 2933-2971.
    7. Sergey Kovbasyuk & Marco Pagano, 2022. "Advertising Arbitrage [Synchronization risk and delayed arbitrage]," Review of Finance, European Finance Association, vol. 26(4), pages 799-827.
    8. Antoine Faure-Grimaud, 2004. "Public Trading and Private Incentives," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 17(4), pages 985-1014.
    9. Winton, Andrew, 1993. "Limitation of Liability and the Ownership Structure of the Firm," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 48(2), pages 487-512, June.
    10. Rafael La Porta & Florencio Lopez‐De‐Silanes & Andrei Shleifer, 1999. "Corporate Ownership Around the World," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 54(2), pages 471-517, April.
    11. Franklin Allen, 2001. "Do Financial Institutions Matter?," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 56(4), pages 1165-1175, August.
    12. Francesca Cornelli & David D. Li, 2002. "Risk Arbitrage in Takeovers," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 15(3), pages 837-868.
    13. Alex Edmans & Gustavo Manso, 2011. "Governance Through Trading and Intervention: A Theory of Multiple Blockholders," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 24(7), pages 2395-2428.
    14. Dasgupta, Amil & Piacentino, Giorgia, 2015. "The Wall Street walk when blockholders compete for flows," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 63144, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    15. Clifford G. Holderness, 2009. "The Myth of Diffuse Ownership in the United States," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 22(4), pages 1377-1408, April.
    16. Amil Dasgupta & Giorgia Piacentino, 2015. "The Wall Street Walk when Blockholders Compete for Flows," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 70(6), pages 2853-2896, December.
    17. Sanford J. Grossman & Oliver D. Hart, 1980. "Takeover Bids, the Free-Rider Problem, and the Theory of the Corporation," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 11(1), pages 42-64, Spring.
    18. repec:bla:jfinan:v:53:y:1998:i:1:p:65-98 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Mark Bagnoli, Barton L. Lipman, 1988. "Successful Takeovers without Exclusion," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 1(1), pages 89-110.
    20. Wei Jiang & Kai Li & Wei Wang, 2012. "Hedge Funds and Chapter 11," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 67(2), pages 513-560, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Sergey Kovbasyuk & Marco Pagano, 2022. "Advertising Arbitrage [Synchronization risk and delayed arbitrage]," Review of Finance, European Finance Association, vol. 26(4), pages 799-827.

    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. Alon Brav & Amil Dasgupta & Richmond Mathews, 2022. "Wolf Pack Activism," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(8), pages 5557-5568, August.
    2. Dasgupta, Amil & Fos, Vyacheslav & Sautner, Zacharias, 2021. "Institutional investors and corporate governance," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 112114, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    3. Dasgupta, Amil & Brav, Alon & Mathews, Richmond, 2016. "Wolf Pack Activism," CEPR Discussion Papers 11507, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    4. Edmans, Alex & Holderness, Clifford, 2016. "Blockholders: A Survey of Theory and Evidence," CEPR Discussion Papers 11442, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    5. Mike Burkart & Samuel Lee, 2022. "Activism and Takeovers," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 35(4), pages 1868-1896.
    6. Mike Burkart & Amil Dasgupta, 2014. "Activist Funds, Leverage, and Procyclicality," FMG Discussion Papers dp733, Financial Markets Group.
    7. Cvijanović, Dragana & Dasgupta, Amil & Zachariadis, Konstantinos E., 2022. "The Wall Street stampede: Exit as governance with interacting blockholders," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 144(2), pages 433-455.
    8. Alex Edmans, 2014. "Blockholders and Corporate Governance," Annual Review of Financial Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 6(1), pages 23-50, December.
    9. Konijn, Sander J.J. & Kräussl, Roman & Lucas, Andre, 2011. "Blockholder dispersion and firm value," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 17(5), pages 1330-1339.
    10. Mike Burkart & Denis Gromb & Fausto Panunzi, 2006. "Minority Blocks and Takeover Premia," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 162(1), pages 32-49, March.
    11. Sabri Boubaker & Pascal Nguyen & Wael Rouatbi, 2016. "Multiple Large Shareholders and Corporate Risk†taking: Evidence from French Family Firms," European Financial Management, European Financial Management Association, vol. 22(4), pages 697-745, September.
    12. de La Bruslerie, Hubert, 2013. "Equal opportunity rule vs. market rule in transfer of control: How can private benefits help to provide an answer?," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 88-107.
    13. Gillan, Stuart L. & Nguyen, Nga & Nishikawa, Takeshi, 2023. "Heterogeneity in shareholder activism: Evidence from Japan," Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 77(C).
    14. Travis L. Johnson & Nathan Swem, 2017. "Reputation and Investor Activism: A Structural Approach," Finance and Economics Discussion Series 2017-036r1, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (U.S.), revised 15 Oct 2020.
    15. Pombo, Carlos & Taborda, Rodrigo, 2017. "Stock liquidity and second blockholder as drivers of corporate value: Evidence from Latin America," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 214-234.
    16. Dasgupta, Amil & Piacentino, Giorgia, 2015. "The Wall Street walk when blockholders compete for flows," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 63144, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    17. Corum, Adrian Aycan, 2021. "Fighting Fire with Fire: Optimality of Value Destruction to Mitigate Short-Termism," OSF Preprints xhwmg, Center for Open Science.
    18. Alex Edmans & Gustavo Manso, 2011. "Governance Through Trading and Intervention: A Theory of Multiple Blockholders," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 24(7), pages 2395-2428.
    19. Li, Zhan, 2017. "Shareholder Activism Externalities," MPRA Paper 91635, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 21 Jan 2019.
    20. Stepanov, Sergey & Suvorov, Anton, 2017. "Agency problem and ownership structure: Outside blockholder as a signal," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 133(C), pages 87-107.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    corporate governance; blockholder monitoring; institutional investors; reputation concerns; strategic complementarity; activist hedge funds; competition for flow; shareholder activism;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • G34 - Financial Economics - - Corporate Finance and Governance - - - Mergers; Acquisitions; Restructuring; Corporate Governance
    • G23 - Financial Economics - - Financial Institutions and Services - - - Non-bank Financial Institutions; Financial Instruments; Institutional Investors

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:ehl:lserod:112118. 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: LSERO Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/lsepsuk.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.