Separation of ownership from control and agency? Flashcards
(39 cards)
Separation of ownership from control?
- Berle and Means
- likely to be goal divergence in a modern corporation
- owner controlled firms should be more profitable
- not much empirical support for this
- powerful mechanisms must mitigate against on the job consumption?
- we see large firms where security ownership is diverse from management, must tell us this type of organisation is efficient?
- Behavioural theory
- Baumol, Williamson, Penrose, Marris
- Jensen and Meckling – agency problems
- dealing w agency problems – reward structures – principle and agent
- other mechanisms to curb managerial discretion
- links to corporate gov systems
March, Simon and Cyert
- focus on how a firm makes decisions
- firm max profits and actors united in aim – focus on comp in L market, market for final products and capital market
- firms are groups of participants w own obj
- each group inducements to make contributions (labour hours, ideas) inc non monetary benefits
- vector of inducements – responsibility, privilege working w peers
The firm as a coalition of groups of participants?
- wide range of stakeholders – diff for managers to focus on just SWM (shareholder wealth max)
- goals developed through bargaining – power dep on how unique to contrib to coalition is
- goals in terms of aspiration levels
Slack?
- diff between total resources and total payments needed to preserve the coalition
- LT exp aspiration levels of stakeholder groups to equal actual payments and alt available elsewhere, so no organisational slack
- But, theory shows due to imperfect markets and info problems, aspiration levels change slower so may always be slack
Ramifications of behavioural theory?
- profit max may be diff to operationalise at sub level goals - conflict between sales and production – who takes responsibility
- firms don’t max obj function but make rough est of several consequences of a decision alt
- may satisfice – bounded rationality
Perhaps managers have utility function of their own?
- Williamson
- managerial motives – financial reward, status, power, security
- encompassed in 3 policy variables
- MaxU = f(S,M,D)
- staff exp, emoluments, discretionary investment
- discretionary investment – amount of resources left at managers disposal spent on own discretion – above amount req for firm survival
Growth as an objective - Penrose?
Limits for how much managers can push for growth
One of Penrose key insights is learning through experience causes managers to become more efficient at what they can do
Thus rising efficiency causes previously utilised managerial resources to become slack, although not idle, and these unused productive resources are, for the enterprising firm a challenge to innovate, an incentive to expand and source of competitive advantage
The capacities of the existing managerial personnel of the firm necessarily set a limit to expansion of the firm, a bottleneck, sometimes referred to as Penrose effect
Penrose effect?
Current management resources -> inducement for company growth, means of expansion, but also limit on expansion
Managerial resources will grow at a rate some what faster than the growth of the firm - implications -> firm growth -> managerial intensity increases -> decreasing growth returns to managerial resources
Penrose curves?
- curve X = managerial team increases, but firm grows at dim rate
- faster growth means more managerial talent needed to push growth beyond given level
- growth means more diff project needed – greater strains on managerial team
- But also, additions to managerial services from each new recruit decrease w rate of recruitment – services management can provide are a function of their training and their efficient integration – speed of integration partly a function of the time existing managers can spend training – declines faster the existing team tries to grow
- Curve Z – a neg relationship between growth of management team and growth of firm – managers spending time training less time to engage in projects
- Y = X+Z
- only until G1 does growth in management team lead to growth in firm – beyond, decreasing returns to managerial resources
Marris 1964?
- management team U function
- managerial and shareholder goals not totally disparate
- how far can managers pursue own goals?
- obj function – balanced growth max
- to achieve, firm must – max rate of product demand growth whilst max rate of capital supply to finance
Marris 1964 - demand constraint?
- function of growth rate of existing products and diversification rate Div
- G = X + K.Div
- K = f(P,A,RD,W,Div)
- W quality of product
- K = f(m,Div)
- m profit margin
- K and Div inversely related – faster Div means lower proportion successful
- K and m inversely – faster Div means prices down, RD up, quality increase
- Gd = f(Div,m)
- faster the firm tries to diversify at given profit margin, slower the increase in D
- faster diversification, greater burden on managerial team and R&D staffs
- no. products badly managed & poorly researched increases = fall in success rate
- also as div increases, could be competitor reaction so has to drop p and accept lower return
So -
Growth of product - demand initially increases with profit rate and G rate
More growth = more diversification = less profit
Supply constraint - Marris?
- profits of firms also link through to capacity growth
- Gs = alpha*p
- P rate of return on capital
- alpha amount of invest/finance raised per unit of profit earned
- Limits on alpha –
- to increase alpha – increase retentions (can affect share p), increasing debt ratio, decrease firm liq – dangerous
showing constraints holding managers back – don’t want to push growth rate too far
low g rate = poor capacity use - so g, profits and value can increase to g1, post g1 higher growth only at expense of dividends
Agency - Jensen and Meckling 1976?
- How might ownership structure affect behaviour of managers in a firm
Agency - non owners and on the job consumption?
- On the job consumption may be problem in owner managed firms and in cases where firms not managed by owners
- Persons may achieve U but only bear fraction of cost
Positive theory of agency?
- Firm a nexus of contracts
- How do contracts affect behaviour
- Theory of PA – how should P design A reward structures to min problems of managers seeking overmuch growth/own U – can we min scope for opportunism
Agency - appropriate rewards structures?
- Usual framework – higher until MRP=w
- But – salaries, piece rates, commission based packages, share options, non financial benefits, better conditions/other perks
Agency - why so many different types of rewards?
- Labour inputs not a uniform commodity
- Need to reduce on the job consumption and shirking
- Be mindful of costs of eval and monitoring
- Key problem assessing effort under asymm info
- Sharecropper problem
sharecropper problem?
Laws favouring landowners made it difficult or even illegal for sharecroppers to sell their crops to others besides their landlord, or prevented sharecroppers from moving if they were indebted to their landlord
Agency - is profit sharing an answer?
- Consultant paid at opportunity rate – used for 50 hours
- D = firms input demand i.e. MRP connected to consultant services
- Supply curve elastic – hire until MRP=wage rate
look at slides for below
* Consultant paid at opportunity rate – used for 50 hours
* D = firms input demand i.e. MRP connected to consultant services
* Supply curve elastic – hire until MRP=wage rate
Profit share - moral hazard?
- Unobservability
- Works up to 22 hours, then something else after
- Owner sees danger
- Withdraws profit sharing contract
- Net loss of EDC relative to 50 hour wage contract
- Solutions –
- Output quotas, benchmarking, close observation
Agency - what happens if info symmetrical?
- P can see effort and knows about the environ, P selects reward structure
- Forcing contract – P promises to pay W0 if agent greater than E0, but nothing if effort less
- Either reward agent along n or forcing contract
Agency payoff - best solution?
- Reward structure dep on extent of payoff, containing fixed element independent of payoff
- In west – many exec have performance incentives on top of normal pay – implies element of risk sharing
- M form structures may deal well w agency problems bc of close observability, comparability of executives; promotion and career ladders may mitigate problems
- Problems w bonus related system – not always flexible downwards
- Conc – reward systems help, unlikely to be complete solution
Agency - what happens if info asymmetrical?
- Effort not observed
- Agents exp income U
- Agents exp payoff I
- Trade off between incentives and risk bearing in theory of P and A
- Payoff results from good weather and no effort or bad weather and high effort
- 2 extremes –
- Wage contract – agent bears no risk – lower level of effort
- Rent contract – agent bears all risk
- Assumes P risk neutral and A risk averse – best they share risk then – somewhere in the middle – V2 – R2 return to P
Agency issues link through to corporate governance?
- Distrib or rights and responsibilities to diff participants inc owners employees, suppliers, society
- Spells out rules and procedure for making decisions, marking out structure through which company obj are set and means of monitoring progress towards obj