Deconstructing Equity: Public Ownership, Agency Costs, and Complete Capital Markets

R. Gilson, Charles K. Whitehead
{"title":"Deconstructing Equity: Public Ownership, Agency Costs, and Complete Capital Markets","authors":"R. Gilson, Charles K. Whitehead","doi":"10.7916/D80865C2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The traditional law and finance focus on agency costs presumes, without acknowledgement, that the premise that diversified public shareholders are the cheapest risk-bearers is immutable. In this Essay, we raise the possibility that changes in the capital markets have called this premise into question, drawn into sharp relief by the recent private equity buying wave in which the size and range of public companies being taken private expanded significantly. In brief, we argue that private owners, in increasingly complete markets, can transfer risk in discrete slices to counterparties who, in turn, can manage or otherwise diversify away those risks they choose to forego, arguably becoming a lower cost substitute for traditional risk capital. If diversified shareholders are no longer the cheapest risk-bearers, then the associated agency costs may now be voluntary; and, if risk management can substitute for risk capital, without requiring a transfer of ownership, then why go public at all? Do more complete capital markets herald (once again) the eclipse of the public corporation? We offer some preliminary responses, suggesting that the line between public and private firms may begin to blur as the traditional balance between agency costs and the benefits of public ownership shifts towards a new equilibrium. For some, the benefits of public ownership may continue to outweigh the associated agency costs. For others, changes in risk transfer may implicate how a firm is (or should be) governed. The Essay then ends with a final question: If the opportunity to invest in common stock recedes, by what means will former investors in public equity be able to invest capital?","PeriodicalId":127572,"journal":{"name":"ERPN: Leveraged Buyouts (Sub-Topic)","volume":"30 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2007-06-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"38","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ERPN: Leveraged Buyouts (Sub-Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7916/D80865C2","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 38

Abstract

The traditional law and finance focus on agency costs presumes, without acknowledgement, that the premise that diversified public shareholders are the cheapest risk-bearers is immutable. In this Essay, we raise the possibility that changes in the capital markets have called this premise into question, drawn into sharp relief by the recent private equity buying wave in which the size and range of public companies being taken private expanded significantly. In brief, we argue that private owners, in increasingly complete markets, can transfer risk in discrete slices to counterparties who, in turn, can manage or otherwise diversify away those risks they choose to forego, arguably becoming a lower cost substitute for traditional risk capital. If diversified shareholders are no longer the cheapest risk-bearers, then the associated agency costs may now be voluntary; and, if risk management can substitute for risk capital, without requiring a transfer of ownership, then why go public at all? Do more complete capital markets herald (once again) the eclipse of the public corporation? We offer some preliminary responses, suggesting that the line between public and private firms may begin to blur as the traditional balance between agency costs and the benefits of public ownership shifts towards a new equilibrium. For some, the benefits of public ownership may continue to outweigh the associated agency costs. For others, changes in risk transfer may implicate how a firm is (or should be) governed. The Essay then ends with a final question: If the opportunity to invest in common stock recedes, by what means will former investors in public equity be able to invest capital?
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
解构股权:公有制、代理成本和完整的资本市场
传统的法律和金融对代理成本的关注假定(但没有得到承认),多元化的公众股东是最廉价的风险承担者这一前提是不变的。在本文中,我们提出了这样一种可能性,即资本市场的变化已经对这一前提提出了质疑,最近的私募股权收购浪潮(上市公司私有化的规模和范围显著扩大)使这种质疑变得更加明显。简而言之,我们认为,在日益完善的市场中,私人所有者可以将分散的风险转移给交易对手,而交易对手又可以管理或以其他方式分散他们选择放弃的风险,可以说成为传统风险资本的低成本替代品。如果多元化股东不再是最便宜的风险承担者,那么相关的代理成本现在可能是自愿的;而且,如果风险管理可以代替风险资本,而不需要转让所有权,那么为什么要上市呢?更完善的资本市场是否预示着(再一次)上市公司的衰落?我们提供了一些初步的回应,表明随着代理成本和公有制利益之间的传统平衡转向新的平衡,公共企业和私营企业之间的界限可能开始模糊。对一些人来说,公有化的好处可能会继续超过相关的代理成本。对其他人来说,风险转移的变化可能意味着公司如何(或应该如何)管理。文章最后提出了一个问题:如果投资普通股的机会减少了,那么以前的公共股本投资者将通过什么方式进行投资?
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Private Equity and Human Capital Risk Private Equity, Jobs, and Productivity: Reply to Ayash and Rastad A Theory of LBO Activity Based on Repeated Debt-Equity Conflicts Fare Thee Well? An Analysis of Buyout Funds' Exit Strategies The Impact of Investor Protection Law on Takeovers: The Case of Leveraged Buyouts
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1