Some of the largest listed firms in Western and Northern Europe are partly owned by foundations. So far, little research exists about the shareholder value effects of foundation ownership. This study aims to close this gap using an event study method. We find that equity markets show a positive reaction following the announcement by a foundation that it intends to decrease its ownership share, whereas we find no reaction when a foundation announces that it intends to increase its ownership share. The positive reaction to an announcement of an ownership share decrease is particularly strong when a foundation holds an equity stake of less than 25%. Further investigations show that our findings are specific for foundations as blockholders and do not occur with other blockholders. Overall, our study shows that equity markets are skeptical about foundations as shareholders. Future research is needed to determine whether this skepticism is due to monitoring problems of foundations, goal divergences between foundations and firms, foundations being hybrid organizations with multiple goals, or legal restrictions that come with this particular form of firm ownership.

Using annual survey-based investor relations (IR) data for a panel of European companies, we document that the supply and effectiveness of IR varies with country- and firm-level demand. Relative to their industry peers, firms from insider-oriented countries have larger IR staff, which predicts better IR rankings. Better IR is associated with greater visibility, information assimilation, and valuation, with visibility and assimilation being significantly greater for firms from insider-oriented countries. Within such countries, firms with greater outsider orientation have higher capital market benefits. Furthermore, using Markets in Financial Instruments Directive II as a shock to analyst coverage, we find an incrementally larger association between IR and visibility in insider-oriented countries after 2017. Overall, the evidence suggests that the supply of IR in insider-oriented markets has reached a high level, acting as a viable mechanism to improve firms’ information environment. However, within those countries, IR demand still varies significantly, with outsider-oriented firms showing greater IR effectiveness. This paper was accepted by Brian Bushee, accounting.

No abstract

Some of the largest listed firms in Western and Northern Europe are partly owned by foundations. So far, little research exists about the shareholder value effects of foundation ownership. This study aims to close this gap using an event study method. We find that equity markets show a positive reaction following the announcement by a foundation that it intends to decrease its ownership share, whereas we find no reaction when a foundation announces that it intends to increase its ownership share. The positive reaction to an announcement of an ownership share decrease is particularly strong when a foundation holds an equity stake of less than 25%. Further investigations show that our findings are specific for foundations as blockholders and do not occur with other blockholders. Overall, our study shows that equity markets are skeptical about foundations as shareholders. Future research is needed to determine whether this skepticism is due to monitoring problems of foundations, goal divergences between foundations and firms, foundations being hybrid organizations with multiple goals, or legal restrictions that come with this particular form of firm ownership.

Most studies on beta estimation look at the whole universe of stocks. We focus on a small subset that consists of stocks of companies which are subject to European network regulation. This allows us to examine beta time series of individual stocks and small peer groups in great detail. Our most important conclusions are: (1) Sudden beta increases or decreases occur that often last only short periods of time and may therefore cause a significant misestimation of the future beta. (2) Three- and especially five-year betas are much more stable than one-year betas. (3) The choice between purely local, European or global betas may matter considerably. (4) Weekly or daily betas seem to be better than monthly ones. (5) Vasicek and Blume adjustments towards one lead to beta predictions that are too high.