对冲基金与治理目标:长期结果

W. Bratton
{"title":"对冲基金与治理目标:长期结果","authors":"W. Bratton","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1677517","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article takes a second look at a database of 114 activist hedge fund engagements commenced between 2002 and 2006. The first look at the database, published as “Hedge Funds and Governance Targets,” 95 Georgetown Law Journal 1375 (2007), covered developments through December 31, 2006, and so caught most of the engagements at midstream. This second look tracks the engagements through mid 2009, providing an extended look at governance engagements by activist hedge funds. The number of engagements remaining open has fallen from 63 percent of the sample to 20 percent. Closure across most of the sample facilitates deeper inspection of the results. The financial yield, however, is disappointing. The hedge funds prove better at extracting target concessions and getting into boardrooms than at yielding long-term, market-beating financial gain. On the one hand, activist intervention led to something tangible in 88 percent of the cases, whether an asset sale, a stepped up cash payout, a board seat, or a legislative concession. On the other hand, only a minority of the targets’ stock prices beat market indices over the period of engagement, with financial underperformance being particularly notable in cases where the hedge fund entered the target boardroom. Overall, the hedge funds’ talents appear best suited to address matters that can be interrogated from outside the target. Any of a cash disgorgement, an asset sale, or a sale of the target as a whole can be planned based on publicly available information. Other value-creating initiatives, like reducing operating costs or otherwise enhancing business plans, call for hands on confrontation with the fuller set of information available only on the inside. The results here yield no overall evidence of constructive input at this level.","PeriodicalId":286147,"journal":{"name":"Corporate Law: Corporate & Financial Law: Interdisciplinary Approaches eJournal","volume":"27 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2010-08-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"90","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Hedge Funds and Governance Targets: Long-Term Results\",\"authors\":\"W. Bratton\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.1677517\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article takes a second look at a database of 114 activist hedge fund engagements commenced between 2002 and 2006. The first look at the database, published as “Hedge Funds and Governance Targets,” 95 Georgetown Law Journal 1375 (2007), covered developments through December 31, 2006, and so caught most of the engagements at midstream. This second look tracks the engagements through mid 2009, providing an extended look at governance engagements by activist hedge funds. The number of engagements remaining open has fallen from 63 percent of the sample to 20 percent. Closure across most of the sample facilitates deeper inspection of the results. The financial yield, however, is disappointing. The hedge funds prove better at extracting target concessions and getting into boardrooms than at yielding long-term, market-beating financial gain. On the one hand, activist intervention led to something tangible in 88 percent of the cases, whether an asset sale, a stepped up cash payout, a board seat, or a legislative concession. On the other hand, only a minority of the targets’ stock prices beat market indices over the period of engagement, with financial underperformance being particularly notable in cases where the hedge fund entered the target boardroom. Overall, the hedge funds’ talents appear best suited to address matters that can be interrogated from outside the target. Any of a cash disgorgement, an asset sale, or a sale of the target as a whole can be planned based on publicly available information. Other value-creating initiatives, like reducing operating costs or otherwise enhancing business plans, call for hands on confrontation with the fuller set of information available only on the inside. The results here yield no overall evidence of constructive input at this level.\",\"PeriodicalId\":286147,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Corporate Law: Corporate & Financial Law: Interdisciplinary Approaches eJournal\",\"volume\":\"27 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2010-08-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"90\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Corporate Law: Corporate & Financial Law: Interdisciplinary Approaches eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1677517\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Corporate Law: Corporate & Financial Law: Interdisciplinary Approaches eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1677517","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 90

摘要

本文重新审视了一个数据库,其中包含2002年至2006年间启动的114个维权对冲基金项目。第一次查看数据库发表在《对冲基金和治理目标》95 Georgetown Law Journal 1375(2007)上,涵盖了截至2006年12月31日的发展,因此涵盖了大多数中流业务。第二篇文章追踪了2009年中期的参与情况,对维权对冲基金的治理参与进行了更深入的研究。未结清业务的数量已从样本的63%下降到20%。大多数样本的封闭有助于对结果进行更深入的检查。然而,金融收益却令人失望。事实证明,对冲基金更善于获得目标让步和进入董事会,而不是获得长期的、超越市场的财务收益。一方面,在88%的案件中,激进分子的干预导致了一些有形的东西,无论是资产出售,增加现金支付,董事会席位,还是立法让步。另一方面,在参与期间,只有少数目标公司的股价跑赢了市场指数,在对冲基金进入目标公司董事会的情况下,财务表现不佳的情况尤为明显。总的来说,对冲基金的人才似乎最适合处理那些可以从目标公司外部询问的问题。现金分割、资产出售或整个目标的出售都可以根据公开信息进行计划。其他创造价值的举措,如降低运营成本或以其他方式加强商业计划,则需要与只有内部人才能获得的更全面的信息进行面对面的交流。这里的结果没有在这个水平上产生建设性投入的总体证据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Hedge Funds and Governance Targets: Long-Term Results
This article takes a second look at a database of 114 activist hedge fund engagements commenced between 2002 and 2006. The first look at the database, published as “Hedge Funds and Governance Targets,” 95 Georgetown Law Journal 1375 (2007), covered developments through December 31, 2006, and so caught most of the engagements at midstream. This second look tracks the engagements through mid 2009, providing an extended look at governance engagements by activist hedge funds. The number of engagements remaining open has fallen from 63 percent of the sample to 20 percent. Closure across most of the sample facilitates deeper inspection of the results. The financial yield, however, is disappointing. The hedge funds prove better at extracting target concessions and getting into boardrooms than at yielding long-term, market-beating financial gain. On the one hand, activist intervention led to something tangible in 88 percent of the cases, whether an asset sale, a stepped up cash payout, a board seat, or a legislative concession. On the other hand, only a minority of the targets’ stock prices beat market indices over the period of engagement, with financial underperformance being particularly notable in cases where the hedge fund entered the target boardroom. Overall, the hedge funds’ talents appear best suited to address matters that can be interrogated from outside the target. Any of a cash disgorgement, an asset sale, or a sale of the target as a whole can be planned based on publicly available information. Other value-creating initiatives, like reducing operating costs or otherwise enhancing business plans, call for hands on confrontation with the fuller set of information available only on the inside. The results here yield no overall evidence of constructive input at this level.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信