No description available.

Cette thèse a pour objectif d'étudier le rôle que la diversification des entreprises et la structure de propriété jouent dans le processus de création de valeur. Le deuxième chapitre est consacré à une revue de littérature portant sur les travaux théoriques et empiriques qui analysent l’impact de la structure d’actionnariat et de la diversification des entreprises sur leur valeur de marché. Le troisième chapitre approfondit l'analyse de la diversification des entreprises en étudiant l'effet d'interaction entre diversification des produits et diversification internationale. Ce chapitre considère la relation entre diversification et structure du capital sur un échantillon d’entreprises manufacturières italiennes. Nos conclusions nous permettent de soutenir que cet effet d’interaction a un impact négatif sur la capacité d'endettement. Enfin, le quatrième chapitre étudie l'impact d’une structure d’actionnaires multiples sur la prise de risque des entreprises. L’analyse est menée sur les firmes cotées sur le marché financier américain. La plupart des études antérieures sur la structure de propriété se concentre sur les différences entre les entreprises avec au moins un actionnaire de référence par rapport aux entreprises à l’actionnariat éparpillé, sans tenir compte de l'effet potentiel de l'existence de multiples détenteurs de blocs d’actions sur la volatilité et la performance des titres boursiers. Nous montrons que les détenteurs de blocs jouent un rôle important dans l'atténuation des conflits d'intérêts entre actionnaire majoritaire et actionnaires minoritaires. / The purpose of this thesis is to examine how corporate diversification and ownership structure affect value creation for firms. In Chapter 2, we review the relevant theoretical models in the field of corporate finance. The chapter also summarizes the empirical results found regarding the relationship between corporate diversification, ownership concentration and the firm’s value. In Chapter 3, we extend the analysis of corporate diversification and consider the effects of the interaction of both product and international diversification on a firm. Empirically, this chapter considers the impact of diversification decisions on the capital structure for a sample of Italian manufacturing firms. We find that the interaction of both international and product diversification has a negative impact on debt capacity. Finally, in Chapter 4, we empirically examine the impact of complex ownership structures on the risk choices of U.S. firms. Most previous studies on ownership structure focus on the differences between firms with at least one blockholder and widely held firms, without considering the potential effect that the existence of other blockholders might have on the financial variables. We find that the blockholders with intermediate holdings play a mitigating role in the conflicts of interest between the largest blockholder and the minority shareholders.

Thesis (M.B.M. 1976) from the Department of Commerce, University of Adelaide.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--Arizona State University, 2008. / Includes bibliographical references.

Prior research shows that family firms are generally less likely to diversify, but it remains unclear which mode of diversification in terms of internal versus external diversification family firms are more likely to choose once they decide to diversify. Similarly, it is unclear which type of diversification in terms of product versus international diversification family firms are more likely to focus on in comparison to nonfamily firms. Based on insights drawn from the goals, governance, and resources framework, this dissertation investigates the modes/types of diversification in family and nonfamily firms, as well as among various types of family firms. Specifically, I propose that family firms will prefer internal to external diversification to a larger extent than nonfamily firms. I further propose the strength of preference for internal to external diversification is likely to vary among different types of family firms manifested in the level of family ownership, family participation in the top management team and board, and generation of family members owning and controlling the family firm. Likewise, I theorize that family firms would prefer product to international diversification to a larger extent than nonfamily firms and that the strength of preference for product diversification is likely to vary among different types of family firms. A sample of 573 firms drawn from the S&P 1500 index was used toexamine the difference between family and nonfamily firms, and 136 family firms to test the heterogeneity hypotheses. No significant differences were found between family and nonfamily firms in their relative choice on internal over external diversification (Essay 1) and product over international diversification(Essay 2). Consistent with my prediction, I found family representation in the top management team has a significantly positive effect on a firm's tendency to engage in product rather than international diversification. However, in both Essay1 and Essay 2,I did not find significant effects of the other heterogeneous variables on a family firm's tendency to engage in one mode/type of diversification over the other. A rationale for these non-significant relationships is provided. Contributions and implications of this study are also discussed.

Thesis (M.Soc.Sc.)--University of Hong Kong, 1988. / Also available in print.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

This study examines the price reaction to the announcements of joint venture and strategic alliance formation, the main determinants of the partnering firm's choices to enter a specific joint venture and a specific strategic alliance, and the impact of such alliance formation on partnering firms' valuation. The analysis of the price reaction at the announcement of alliance formation indicates that market can distinguish between value creating and non-value creating alliances. I also provide evidence supporting the argument that alliance formation is not a random process. A firm's choice of entering an alliance designed as diversifying or non-diversifying strategy is a result of a complex interaction of external factors and internal needs. Finally, using the change in excess value from the year prior to the year following the alliance formation, I document that alliance formation negatively impacts the valuation of the single segment partnering firms relative to their industry peers, and has no impact on the valuation of multiple segment firms. Thus, single segment firms entering alliances are facing the trade-off between the longterm benefit provided by the alliance and the immediate costs affecting the activity developed in the house.