控制权私有收益研究

很多研究表明,控股股东经常可以得到与其所持股份比例不相称的、比小股东多的额外收益。这部分额外收益是大股东利用控制权谋求的私利,是大股东对小股东实施侵害所获得的收益,即所谓的控制权私有收益。它的大小表明了控股股东对其他股东侵害的程度。获取控制权私有收益往往成为控股股东经营管理的主要动机。     

上市公司控制权私有收益相关研究综述

随着近年对公司治理研究的深入,控制权私有收益已成为控股股东与小股东之间的核心问题。本文拟从上市公司控股股东的控制权私有收益构成与来源出发,对如何量化以及防止过大的控股股东的控制权私人收益进行了理论分析,使得我们对控股股东的控制权私有收益有个清晰的认识。     

控制权私有收益的实证分析

通过1998年～2004年间发生的54个非流通股协议转让事件估计中国上市公司的控制权私有收益,用两个指标来度量控制权私有收益,第一个指标是协议转让的每股价格相对于每股净资产的溢价,第二个指标是协议转让的溢价总值与企业净资产的比率.研究发现,买方为获得上市公司的控制权平均支付的每股溢价达45%,平均总溢价水平达17%.进一步对控制权私有收益的影响因素进行横截面分析发现,股权转让规模和交易完成后买方的持股比例越大控制权私有收益越高,业绩较差的企业的控制权私有收益反而较高,其他大股东和债权人可以在一定程度上制约控股股东攫取控制权私有收益.研究结果表明,掌握了企业控制权的大股东能够排他性地享有控制权私有收益.     

上市公司控制权私有收益的产生环境分析

在世界范围内,控制权收益都成为了公司治理的顽疾,侵害了大部分股东和债权人的利益,也不利于金融市场健康发展。本文通过对导致上市公司控制权私有收益产生的内外部环境分析,试图挖掘控制权私有收益产生的背景和动因,并提出在我国当年的公司治理环境下上市公司的控制权私有收益问题。     

控制权私有收益与公司价值的研究述评

本文从控制权私有收益的涵义出发,分析了大宗股权转移价格差异的控制权溢价法、投票权差异的控制权溢价法和ST公司累积超额收益率法等计算方法,然后就所有权结构、控制权私有收益与公司价值作进一步分析.     

现金流权与控制权分离对控制权私有收益影响分析

在集中的股权结构下,上市公司控股股东享有的控制权可能超过其持有的现金流权,造成控制权和现金流权的"两权分离"。两权分离使得终极控制股东有能力侵害小股东利益。本文以70家发生股权交易的上市公司为样本,对现金流权、控制权、现金流权与控制权分离影响控制权私有收益情况进行实证研究。试图为我国上市公司治理结构的完善以及中小股东利益保护提供一些有益的思考。     

基于控制权私有收益的企业非效率投资行为研究

大、小股东委托代理冲突问题反映在企业的投资决策上就是,大股东为追求控制权私有收益而产生的过度投资和投资不足两种非效率投资行为。本文的研究通过建立模型,将过度投资与投资不足两种非效率投资行为纳入到同一个框架下,探讨了大股东控制条件下的不同控制权配置方式及其企业非效率投资行为。结果表明:基于对控制权私有收益的追求,过度投资和投资不足两种非效率投资行为同时存在于大股东控制条件下的企业投资行为中;绝对控股条件下的企业投资行为,会随着控制性大股东的所有权比例变化而呈现出不同的非效率投资行为的特征;多个大股东相互监督或合谋都会同时缓解过度投资,以及加强投资不足,且合谋对企业非效率投资行为的影响取决于合谋成本的大小。     

大股东控制权成本补偿与超控制权私利约束机制

对控制权私人收益作了新的理论解释,并进一步提出了大股东的控制权成本需要得到合理的补偿,大股东侵害小股东的实质是攫取超控制权私利。私有非货币性收益是对大股东控制权成本的补偿且对小股东无害的最好选择。增加大股东掏空行为成本可以有效遏止大股东攫取超控制权私利。     

实验市场中的股权结构、信息与控制权收益

实验室环境下的决策过程研究可以较好地考察决策变量的行为基础和动态临界值.本文以中国股市中的股权结构为背景,在实验框架下考察了股权结构、信息披露和控制权收益的关系.文章先从理论上计算股东的夏普利值并以此代表股东控制权.再分不同设置变量来实验地考察控制权收益.结果表明:(1)股东控制权越平均,控制权收益越少;大股东与小股东形成"核"联盟的机会越多,其取得控制权的机会越少.(2)信息对控制权收益的影响主要体现在信息在联盟的形成和维持中的作用.(3)大股东夏普利值的高低和信息情况决定了联盟的方式.(4)控制权溢价并不一定就是控制权收益,也许只是大股东为防止自身利益被侵害而支付的成本.(5)信息不完全不一定是坏事,部分信息的隐含更能增加公司的分配效率.     

潜在风险对大股东获取控制权私利行为的影响研究——兼析部分控制权私利的合理性

在大小股东冲突框架下,基于大股东对控制权私利可持续性偏好,构建大股东获取控制权私利行为模型,研究了潜在风险对大股东获取控制权私利行为的影响及对公司价值的影响,对部分控制权私利的合理性进行了探讨。而后,利用研究结论给出一个控制权私利悖论的解释。研究表明:(1)因潜在风险(成本)的存在,大股东会谋取位于控制权私利容忍区间内的控制权私利,达到既能让自己的控制权成本得到补偿,又能维持收益的可持续性目的。(2)获取适当控制权私利对大股东具有激励作用,能够保证中小股东利益和公司价值不受到损失。(3)超额控制权私利具有侵害性质,会导致中小股东利益和公司价值受损,它才是控制与治理的对象。最后文章在理论分析的基础上给出了一些结论和建议。     

控股股东利益动机、成长期权与投资时机决策

以控股股东的不同控制权利益动机为切入点,考察了公司成长期权对控股股东投资时机的影响及其差异,进而对公司价值产生的影响,并解释其内在机理.研究结论表明,成长期权对控股股东投资时机决策的影响会随着控股股东所持利益动机的不同而存在差异.以成本补偿为动机的控股股东,其投资时机与公司目标较为接近,偏离程度远小于在利益侵占动机的驱使下的偏离程度.公司所拥有的成长期权对控股股东修正延迟投资行为具有激励作用,但是这种激励作用在控股股东持成本补偿动机时更为明显.另外,这种激励作用随着成长因子的增大和控股股东所占股份的增多而更加明显.     

终极控制、利益一致性与公司价值

在我国上市公司终极控制背景下,对代表不同利益一致性的控制权私利的定性与作用进行了理论阐释,并以1998 ～2006年的数据为样本对代表不同利益一致性的控制权私利作用及其对公司价值的影响进行了研究.结果发现:(1)我国的上市公司当中,存在超额控制权私利和合理控制权私利.(2)超额控制权私利具有侵害性质,会对公司产生负面影...     

Adapting production for private label goods

Linear Programming (LP) is a valuable tool of operational research and has been applied successfully to problems of production scheduling, particularly in the process industries. It is dependent to a large degree on forecasts of demand for the products: when demand is erratic, production scheduling suffers, whatever the technique employed. LP is sometimes adopted, however, in situations which do not necessarily warrant its use. Such a case arose when considering the production difficulties of private label goods in the food industry. The problem was eventually modified with the full cooperation of management, despite initial opposition. The solution found was to adapt as a company to market conditions, instead of forcing the production function to operate within artificial constraints.     

Regulating private monopolies and promoting competition

This article describes developments in the British telecommunications industry in its transition from the public to the private sector. These developments are not particular to this industry alone. The 1980s are seeing a movement away from direct government control in large organizations in the public sector and towards privatization, for reasons that are both political and economic. The experience of the telecommunications industry has both particular and general relevance.     

Conflicts between public and private opinion

The opportunities for research in the 1980s will be much affected by changes in society. In particular, by a clash between two powerful forces—the producer bureaucracy and the new individualism. It will be a clash of values and opinions; and research will be needed to measure them.However, there are dangers in the way that opinion research will be used, and especially in the way that it will be publicized. The protagonists in the arguments on many social issues are likely to make increasing use of published ‘research events’— that is, over-simplified and superficial figures on public opinion, designed mainly to appeal to the media's need for simple and dramatic news, and thence to affect public policies.In fact, the evidence is very strong that there is a genuine difference between people's private opinions and their public opinions. But the requirements of media contests will tend to force research methods to concentrate heavily on public opinions. The danger is not so much that this would distort social policies (though it might) as that it could damage the reputation of market research in general—especially if, as is likely, the findings of one group's ‘research events’ appeared to be directly opposed to those of another's.One important challenge of the 1980s will be to identify these risks and do something to guard against them. Five simple guidelines are suggested which I hope can contribute to a joint campaign to educate in the proper use and presentation of opinion research.     

A cross-national comparison of public project benefits management practices – the effectiveness of benefits management frameworks in application

Abstract

Benefits are the principal reason why an organization may seek to enact change through programmes and projects. The discipline of identification, definition, planning, tracking and realization of benefits is recognized to be instrumental in achieving organizational strategy. In this study, we describe the results of a cross-national comparison of public sector benefits management (BM) practices in Australia, Canada, the UK and the USA. It explores ‘BM practices in action’, considering to what extent ‘espoused’ or ‘mandated’ frameworks are actually practised and perceived by their users. Employing qualitative analysis, semi-structured interview data were analysed from 46 participants with experience in sponsoring, managing and/or reviewing government projects. The results expose considerable variation in the adoption and standardization of BM frameworks from inter and intragovernmental perspectives. We evidence a strong focus on benefits identification across the data set, specifically at the outset (the business case stage seeking project approval) and observe deterioration in focus as the project or programme progresses through the authorization (or assurance) approval gates towards close-out and operations. The results further emphasize the prominence of political interest, leadership buy-in, a benefits-driven culture and a transparent benefits reporting mechanism in the implementation of ‘effective’ BM frameworks.