机构投资者积极分子的异质性及其反直觉的策略互动

IF 3.1 Q2 BUSINESS
Jason Cavich
{"title":"机构投资者积极分子的异质性及其反直觉的策略互动","authors":"Jason Cavich","doi":"10.1108/sbr-02-2022-0035","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nPurpose\nFollowing the traditions of stakeholder salience theory, this paper aims to contend that some institutional investor activists and tactics have more power, legitimacy and urgency than others.\n\n\nDesign/methodology/approach\nThe author undertakes an empirical test of a saliency table looking at the effects of institutional investor heterogeneity on portfolio firm responses using ordinal logistic regression.\n\n\nFindings\nThis study found heterogeneity for institutional investor type to drive firm responses but not tactic type raising the importance of the attributes of each type of investor activist. The author found a rank ordering of public pension plans, hedge funds and then private multiemployer funds in saliency to portfolio firms. In addition, the use of proxy-based tactics did not help or hurt each investor type. Both findings challenge prior empirical work.\n\n\nOriginality/value\nThe rank ordering based upon the heterogeneity of institutional investor activists and their tactical interactions are tested providing empirical evidence of the most influential activist investors and tactics in one study, which is rare in the literature.\n","PeriodicalId":44608,"journal":{"name":"Society and Business Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The heterogeneity of institutional investor activists and their counterintuitive tactical interactions\",\"authors\":\"Jason Cavich\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/sbr-02-2022-0035\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\nPurpose\\nFollowing the traditions of stakeholder salience theory, this paper aims to contend that some institutional investor activists and tactics have more power, legitimacy and urgency than others.\\n\\n\\nDesign/methodology/approach\\nThe author undertakes an empirical test of a saliency table looking at the effects of institutional investor heterogeneity on portfolio firm responses using ordinal logistic regression.\\n\\n\\nFindings\\nThis study found heterogeneity for institutional investor type to drive firm responses but not tactic type raising the importance of the attributes of each type of investor activist. The author found a rank ordering of public pension plans, hedge funds and then private multiemployer funds in saliency to portfolio firms. In addition, the use of proxy-based tactics did not help or hurt each investor type. Both findings challenge prior empirical work.\\n\\n\\nOriginality/value\\nThe rank ordering based upon the heterogeneity of institutional investor activists and their tactical interactions are tested providing empirical evidence of the most influential activist investors and tactics in one study, which is rare in the literature.\\n\",\"PeriodicalId\":44608,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Society and Business Review\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-06-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Society and Business Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/sbr-02-2022-0035\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Society and Business Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/sbr-02-2022-0035","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

目的遵循利益相关者显著性理论的传统,本文旨在论证一些机构投资者活动家和策略比其他人更有权力、合法性和紧迫性。设计/方法论/方法作者使用有序逻辑回归对显著性表进行了实证检验,考察了机构投资者异质性对投资组合公司反应的影响。发现这项研究发现,机构投资者类型的异质性推动了公司的反应,而不是策略类型,这提高了每种类型投资者活动家属性的重要性。作者发现,公共养老金计划、对冲基金和私人多雇主基金在投资组合公司中的排名顺序显著。此外,使用基于代理的策略并没有帮助或伤害每种投资者类型。这两个发现都挑战了先前的实证工作。原创性/价值在一项研究中,基于机构投资者积极分子的异质性及其战术互动的排名顺序得到了检验,为最具影响力的积极投资者和策略提供了经验证据,这在文献中是罕见的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The heterogeneity of institutional investor activists and their counterintuitive tactical interactions
Purpose Following the traditions of stakeholder salience theory, this paper aims to contend that some institutional investor activists and tactics have more power, legitimacy and urgency than others. Design/methodology/approach The author undertakes an empirical test of a saliency table looking at the effects of institutional investor heterogeneity on portfolio firm responses using ordinal logistic regression. Findings This study found heterogeneity for institutional investor type to drive firm responses but not tactic type raising the importance of the attributes of each type of investor activist. The author found a rank ordering of public pension plans, hedge funds and then private multiemployer funds in saliency to portfolio firms. In addition, the use of proxy-based tactics did not help or hurt each investor type. Both findings challenge prior empirical work. Originality/value The rank ordering based upon the heterogeneity of institutional investor activists and their tactical interactions are tested providing empirical evidence of the most influential activist investors and tactics in one study, which is rare in the literature.
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
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
18.80%
发文量
35
×
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