IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ehl/lserod/119060.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Wall Street walk when blockholders compete for flows

Author

Listed:
  • Dasgupta, Amil
  • Piacentino, Giorgia

Abstract

An important recent theoretical literature argues that the threat of exit can represent an effective form of governance when the blockholder is a principal. However, a significant fraction of equity blocks is held by delegated portfolio managers. How do agency frictions arising from the delegation of portfolio management affect the ability of blockholders to govern via the threat of exit? We show that when blockholders are sufficiently career concerned exit will fail as a disciplining device. Our results have testable implications on the relative degree to which different classes of delegated portfolio managers use exit as a form of governance.

Suggested Citation

  • Dasgupta, Amil & Piacentino, Giorgia, 2011. "The Wall Street walk when blockholders compete for flows," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 119060, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    • Handle: RePEc:ehl:lserod:119060
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/119060/
    File Function: Open access version.
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Antoine Faure-Grimaud, 2004. "Public Trading and Private Incentives," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 17(4), pages 985-1014.
    2. Chevalier, Judith & Ellison, Glenn, 1997. "Risk Taking by Mutual Funds as a Response to Incentives," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 105(6), pages 1167-1200, December.
    3. Veronica Guerrieri & Peter Kondor, 2012. "Fund Managers, Career Concerns, and Asset Price Volatility," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(5), pages 1986-2017, August.
    4. Davis, Gerald F. & Kim, E. Han, 2007. "Business ties and proxy voting by mutual funds," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 85(2), pages 552-570, August.
    5. Agarwal, Vikas & Daniel, Naveen D. & Naik, Narayan Y., 2009. "Role of managerial incentives and discretion in hedge fund performance," CFR Working Papers 04-04, University of Cologne, Centre for Financial Research (CFR).
    6. Admati, Anat R & Pfleiderer, Paul & Zechner, Josef, 1994. "Large Shareholder Activism, Risk Sharing, and Financial Market Equilibrium," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 102(6), pages 1097-1130, December.
    7. 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.
    8. Nishant Dass & Massimo Massa & Rajdeep Patgiri, 2008. "Mutual Funds and Bubbles: The Surprising Role of Contractual Incentives," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 21(1), pages 51-99, January.
    9. Dasgupta, Amil & Prat, Andrea, 2008. "Information aggregation in financial markets with career concerns," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 143(1), pages 83-113, November.
    10. 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.
    11. Vikas Agarwal & Naveen D. Daniel & Narayan Y. Naik, 2009. "Role of Managerial Incentives and Discretion in Hedge Fund Performance," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 64(5), pages 2221-2256, October.
    12. April Klein & Emanuel Zur, 2009. "Entrepreneurial Shareholder Activism: Hedge Funds and Other Private Investors," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 64(1), pages 187-229, February.
    13. Mello, Antonio S. & Repullo, Rafael, 2004. "Shareholder activism is non-monotonic in market liquidity," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 2-10, March.
    14. repec:bla:jfinan:v:53:y:1998:i:1:p:65-98 is not listed on IDEAS
    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. Mike Burkart & Amil Dasgupta, 2014. "Activist Funds, Leverage, and Procyclicality," FMG Discussion Papers dp733, Financial Markets Group.

    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. Amil Dasgupta & Giorgia Piacentino, 2011. "The Wall Street Walk when Blockholders Compete for Flows," FMG Discussion Papers dp692, Financial Markets Group.
    2. 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.
    3. Mike Burkart & Amil Dasgupta, 2014. "Activist Funds, Leverage, and Procyclicality," FMG Discussion Papers dp733, Financial Markets Group.
    4. Burkart, Mike & Dasgupta, Amil, 2013. "Why is hedge fund activism procyclical?," CEPR Discussion Papers 9409, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    5. 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.
    6. Edmans, Alex & Holderness, Clifford, 2016. "Blockholders: A Survey of Theory and Evidence," CEPR Discussion Papers 11442, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    7. Alex Edmans, 2014. "Blockholders and Corporate Governance," Annual Review of Financial Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 6(1), pages 23-50, December.
    8. Mike Burkart & Samuel Lee, 2022. "Activism and Takeovers," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 35(4), pages 1868-1896.
    9. Dasgupta, Amil & Zachariadis, Konstantinos, 2011. "Delegated Activism and Disclosure," CEPR Discussion Papers 8587, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    10. Drobetz, Wolfgang & Ehlert, Sebastian & Schröder, Henning, 2021. "Institutional ownership and firm performance in the global shipping industry," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 146(C).
    11. Dasgupta, Amil & Brav, Alon & Mathews, Richmond, 2016. "Wolf Pack Activism," CEPR Discussion Papers 11507, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    12. 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.
    13. Jing Huang & Steven R. Matsunaga & Z. Jay Wang, 2020. "The Role of Pension Business Benefits in Institutional Block Ownership and Corporate Governance," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(4), pages 1959-1989, December.
    14. Crane, Alan D. & Koch, Andrew & Michenaud, Sébastien, 2019. "Institutional investor cliques and governance," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 133(1), pages 175-197.
    15. 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.
    16. Yangyang Chen & Rui Ge & Henock Louis & Leon Zolotoy, 2019. "Stock liquidity and corporate tax avoidance," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 24(1), pages 309-340, March.
    17. Alex Edmans & Vivian W. Fang & Emanuel Zur, 2013. "The Effect of Liquidity on Governance," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 26(6), pages 1443-1482.
    18. 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.
    19. Nicole Boyson & Robert Mooradian, 2011. "Corporate governance and hedge fund activism," Review of Derivatives Research, Springer, vol. 14(2), pages 169-204, July.
    20. Achleitner, Ann-Kristin & Betzer, André & Gider, Jasmin, 2008. "Do corporate governance motives drive hedge funds and private equity activities?," CEFS Working Paper Series 2008-11, Technische Universität München (TUM), Center for Entrepreneurial and Financial Studies (CEFS).

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • G00 - Financial Economics - - General - - - General

    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:119060. 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.