Skip to main content
Article thumbnail
Location of Repository

Corporate control and multiple large shareholders

By Amrita Dhillon and Silvia Rossetto


Many firms have more than one blockholder, but finance theory suggests that one blockholder should be sufficient to bestow all benefits on a firm that arise from concentrated ownership. This paper identifies a reason why more blockholders may arise endogenously. We consider a setting where multiple shareholders have endogenous conflicts of interest depending on the size of their stake. Such conflicts arise because larger shareholders tend to be less well diversified and would therefore prefer the firm to pursue more conservative investment policies. When the investment policy is determined by a shareholder vote, a single blockholder may be able to choose an investment policy that is far away from the dispersed shareholders' preferred policy. Anticipating this outcome reduces the price at which shares trade. A second blockholder (or more) can mitigate the conflict by shifting the voting outcome more towards the dispersed shareholders' preferred investment policy and this raises the share price. The paper derives conditions under which there are blockholder equilibria.The model shows how different ownership structures affect firm value and the degree of underpricing in an IPO

Topics: HD
Publisher: University of Warwick, Department of Economics
Year: 2009
OAI identifier:

Suggested articles


  1. (2002). A Review of IPO Activity, Pricing, and Allocations," doi
  2. (1995). Block Investment and Partial Bene of Corporate Control," doi
  3. (2008). Complex Ownership Structures and Corporate Valuations," doi
  4. (2004). Corporate Governance and Valuation of IPOs," doi
  5. (2001). Corporate Governance," doi
  6. (1999). Corporate Ownership Around the World," doi
  7. (2004). Corporate Ownership Structure and Performance in Europe," doi
  8. (1985). Credit Markets and the Control of Capital," doi
  9. (2006). Do Board Members Pay Attention When Institutional Investors 'Just Vote No'? CEO and Director Turnover Associated with Shareholder Activism,"
  10. (2000). Does the Governed Corporation Perform Better? Governance Structures and Corporate Performance in Germany," doi
  11. (2003). Finance, investment, and growth,"
  12. (2001). Going Public: The Theory and Evidence on How Companies Raise Equity Finance.
  13. (2008). Governance Through Exit and Voice: A Theory of Multiple Blockholders," doi
  14. (2002). Governance with poor investor protection: evidence from top executive turnover in Italy," doi
  15. (2006). Hedge Fund Activism, Corporate Governance, and Firm Performance," doi
  16. (2000). How Do Financial Systems Aect Economic Performance?," doi
  17. (2002). Investor Activism and Financial Market Structure," doi
  18. (2006). IPO Underpricing and the Market for Corporate Control," doi
  19. (1998). IPO-Mechanisms, Monitoring and Ownership Structure,"
  20. (1994). Large Shareholder Activism, Risk Sharing, and Financial Market Equilibrium," doi
  21. (1986). Large Shareholders and Corporate Control," doi
  22. (1998). Large Shareholders as Monitors: Is there a tradeo between liquidity and control?,," doi
  23. (1997). Large Shareholders, Monitoring, and the Value of the Firm," doi
  24. (1993). Market Liquidity and Performance Monitoring," doi
  25. (2006). Monitoring the Monitor: Evaluating CalPERS' Activism," doi
  26. (2005). Multiple Large Shareholders and Firm Value," doi
  27. (2001). Multiple Shareholders and Control Contest," doi
  28. (2006). Ownership Dynamics and Asset Pricing with a Large Shareholder," doi
  29. (2005). Poliltical Parties and Coalition Formation,"
  30. (2002). Prediction of Ownership and Control Concentration in German and UK Initial Public Oerings," doi
  31. (1989). Private Bene from Control of Public Corporations," doi
  32. (2001). Sharing of Control as a Corporate Governance Mechanism," Discussion Paper PIER Working paper 01-029,
  33. Spindt (2003): \Are Share Price Levels Informative? Evidence from the Ownership, Pricing, Turnover, and Performance of IPO Firms," doi
  34. Stulz (2005): \Why do Firms Become Widely Held? An Analysis of the Dynamics of Corporate Ownership," Unpublished manuscript. doi
  35. (1980). Takeover Bids, the Free-Rider Problem: and the Theory of Corporation," doi
  36. (2000). The balance of power in closely held corporations," doi
  37. (1998). The Choice of Stock Ownership Structure: Agency Costs, Monitoring, and the Decision to Go Public,"
  38. (2000). The Emergence of Concentrated Ownership and the Rebalancing of Portfolios Due to Shareholder Activism in a Financial Market Equilibrium," Discussion Paper SOR-2000-1, doi
  39. (1991). The Logic and (Uncertain) Signi of Institutional Shareholder Activism,"
  40. (2003). The Performance of Initial Public Oerings and the Cross Section of Institutional Ownership," doi
  41. (2006). The price of power: Valuing the controlling position of owner-managers in French IPO doi
  42. (2004). The Role of Corporate Governance in Initial Public Oerings: Evidence from Real Estate Investment Trusts," doi
  43. Tribo (2004): \Private Bene Extraction In Closely-Held Corporations: The Case For Multiple Large Shareholders,"
  44. (1997). Underpricing, ownership and control in initial public oerings of equity securities in the UK," doi
  45. (1998). Von Thadden doi
  46. (2001). Who Disciplines Management in Poorly Performing Companies?,"

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.