Board Share-Ownership and Takeover Performance

We investigate the relation between takeover performance and board share-ownership in the acquiring company for a sample of 363 UK takeovers completed in the period 1985-96. In investigating this relationship we pay particular attention to the composition of board shareholdings as well as their size. Thus, in addition to the analysis of total board holdings, we analyse the separate impact of CEO shareholdings and of the pattern of non-executive and executive holdings within the board. In addition to our detailed examination of board holdings we assess the impact of non-board holdings. Our analysis controls for a number of non-shareholding constraints on discretionary director behaviour and for a variety of other influences on takeover outcomes including: the means of payment; acquirer size and market to book value; the relative size of the acquirer and the target; the nature of the bid in terms of hostility and industrial direction; and the pre-takeover performance of the acquiring company. We assess performance in terms of announcement returns, long run share returns and a portfolio of accounting measures. We find evidence that overall board ownership has a strong positive impact on long run share returns and a weak positive impact on operating performance. However, much stronger effects are found when the overall board measure is split into CEO, executive, and non-executive directors. We find strong evidence of a positive relation between takeover performance and CEO ownership, which holds for both long run returns and operating performance measures. This finding is robust to controlling for other factors that determine takeover performance and holds in a two stage least squares framework that controls for endogeneity effects. Shareholdings of other executive directors, non-executive directors, and non-board holdings are found to have no significant effect on takeover performance. Copyright Blackwell Publishers Ltd, 2006.

Scarcity in the age of abundance: paradox and remedies

Purpose This paper aims to examine the concepts of scarcity and abundance from an interdisciplinary perspective. It argues that the idea of economics, as the study of human behavior with regard to scarce resources and unlimited wants, leads to competition, confrontation and conflict, whereas the nature of humans is that of kindness, cooperation and sharing. Design/methodology/approach The paper uses content analysis of texts from multiple disciplines, using both deductive and inductive logic, to study the situation of scarcity and abundance, explore reasons and offer remedies. The paper consists of seven sections, five of which are the main discussion. Section 2 looks at the concepts of scarcity and abundance. Section 3 presents reasons for scarcity: economic and behavioral. Section 4 discusses the civilization perspective of poverty and wealth. Section 5 briefly looks at sustainable development and good governance. Section 6 argues in favor of simplicity and spirituality as remedies for the problem of scarcity, and Section 7 concludes the paper. Findings The paper demonstrates the relativity of the concepts of scarcity and abundance, points out the paradox of the modern consumer economies and argues that simplicity, spirituality and universal values are necessary to remedy the ills of overconsumption/overproduction, waste and inequality. Originality/value This paper offers spirituality and ethics-based remedies for the negative consequences of neo-classical economics and social Darwinism