Advertisement

Abstract

The initial sample consists of all firms that are listed at the German Stock Exchange in the CDAX-index. The CD AX is a composite index which includes the shares of all domestic companies listed in Prime Standard and General Standard (cf. Figure 8). It represents the German equity market in its entirety, i.e., all companies listed on FWB Frankfurter Wertpapierbörse (Frankfurt Stock Exchange). All in all, 678 firms were identified.

Keywords

Parent Firm Diversify Firm Discriminant Coefficient Unabsorbed Slack Frankfurt Stock Exchange 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 313.
    Figure adopted from Deutsche Börse Group.Google Scholar
  2. 314.
    Hite discussing Klein (1986), p. 697.Google Scholar
  3. 315.
    Referring to different numbers of firms and observed transactions see also Schipper & Smith (1986), p. 157. They report 63 parent firms, i.e., a much smaller amount of firms than the number of observed equity carve-outs in their sample.Google Scholar
  4. 316.
    Cf. Venkatraman & Tanriverdi (2004), p. 60.Google Scholar
  5. 317.
    “Data is considered to be objective when its meaning is the same across firms. The source of the data is considered to be secondary when the data is obtained from archives and databases outside of the firms studied” (Venkatraman & Tanriverdi 2004, p. 51).Google Scholar
  6. 318.
    Chang & Singh (2000), p. 740.Google Scholar
  7. 319.
    Cf. Villalonga (2004b), p. 501.Google Scholar
  8. 320.
    See, e.g., Villalonga (2004a).Google Scholar
  9. 321.
    See the list of sample cases and firms in Table 3 in Appendix 1.Google Scholar
  10. 322.
    Cf. Anslinger et al. (2003).Google Scholar
  11. 323.
    See Rieker (2005) for more details and examples.Google Scholar
  12. 324.
    Cf. Mellewigt & Kloninger (2003), p. 18 f.Google Scholar
  13. 325.
    Cf. Villalonga & McGahan (2005), p. 1197.Google Scholar
  14. 326.
    See Chapter 2.2.Google Scholar
  15. 327.
    See also Chapter 3.4 and the overview on exemplary empirical studies in Table 2 in Appendix 1.Google Scholar
  16. 328.
    Cf. Chang (1996), p. 590.Google Scholar
  17. 329.
    Cf. Bergh (1995), p. 229; Duhaime & Baird (1987), p. 489; Duhaime & Grant (1984), p. 310.Google Scholar
  18. 330.
    Cf. Duhaime & Baird (1987), p. 489; Duhaime & Grant (1984), p. 310.Google Scholar
  19. 331.
    Cf. Morrow et al. (2004), p. 198.Google Scholar
  20. 332.
    Cf. Agle et al. (2006), p. 166.Google Scholar
  21. 333.
    Cf. Bergh (1995), p. 229.Google Scholar
  22. 334.
    Product market relatedness is measured as the sales-weighted concentric diversification index and is defined as ∑ 1=1, whereby Pkl is the percentage of firm k’s sales that is in industry l defined at the four-digit SIC level, dil is a weight whose value depends on the distance between the industry i that is being exited and the other industries l in which the parent has operations. dil takes the value 2 if i and l are within the same three-digit SIC, 1 if i and l are within the same two-digit SIC, and 0 if i and l are in different two-digit SIC industries. Cf. Chang & Singh (1999), p. 1027.Google Scholar
  23. 335.
    Cf. Bergh (1995), p. 228; Chen & Guo (2005), p. 411.Google Scholar
  24. 336.
    Cf. Chi et al. (2004), p. 230; John & Ofek (1995), p. 110; Steiner (1997), p. 236.Google Scholar
  25. 337.
    Chi et al. (2004), p. 230; see also the study by Lubatkin et al. (1993) quoted there and Mellewigt & Kloninger (2003), p. 19.Google Scholar
  26. 338.
    Cf. Bühner et al. (2004), p. 734.Google Scholar
  27. 339.
    Cf. Gordon et al. (2000), p. 923 and 925.Google Scholar
  28. 340.
    Cf. Bergh (1998), p. 143; Bethel & Liebeskind (1993), p. 22; Hoskisson et al. (1994), p. 1222; Villalonga & McGahan (2005), p. 1197.Google Scholar
  29. 341.
    Referring to this problem, see also Bühner et al. (2004), p. 735.Google Scholar
  30. 342.
    Pedersen & Thomsen (2003), p. 29.Google Scholar
  31. 343.
    Cf. Thomsen & Pedersen (2000), p. 696; Pedersen & Thomsen (2003), p. 40.Google Scholar
  32. 344.
    Owner categories: 1 = banks, 2 = institutional investors (financial services), 3 = (other nonfinancial) firms, 4 = individual or family ownership, 5 = government, 6 = free float.Google Scholar
  33. 345.
    Cf. Agle et al. (2006), p. 166; Beckman et al. (2004), p. 265; see also Brealey & Myers (2003), p. 680.Google Scholar
  34. 346.
    Boyd et al. (2005), p. 249.Google Scholar
  35. 347.
    Cf. Beck et al. (2006), p. 13. For more information on the use of dummy variables in regression equations, see, e.g., Greene (2000), pp. 318 ff.Google Scholar
  36. 348.
    See Dobrev & Carroll (2003) for a review as well as new theoretical ideas and empirical findings on the impact of size effects on organizational outcomes.Google Scholar
  37. 349.
    Cf. Datta et al. (2003), p. 108; Dobrev et al. (2003), p. 266 f.; George (2005), p. 667; Haveman (1993), p. 608.Google Scholar
  38. 350.
    Cf. Dawley et al. (2002), p. 707.Google Scholar
  39. 351.
    Cf. Agarwal et al. (2002), p. 985, and the studies quoted there.Google Scholar
  40. 352.
    Cf. Servaes (1996), p. 1204 f.; see also Jandik & Makhija (2005), p. 67 ff.Google Scholar
  41. 353.
    For an overview on antecedents of business exit, see Chapter 2 or see Brauer (2006) for a complete review of the literature. Referring to the importance of a firm’s industrial environment, see, e.g., Barker & Duhaime (1997), p. 18.Google Scholar
  42. 354.
    Cf. Dobrev et al. (2001), p. 1316; Sorenson (2003), p. 453 f.Google Scholar
  43. 355.
    See Statistisches Bundesamt (2004, 2005a, 2005b, 2006).Google Scholar
  44. 356.
    Cf. Dawley et al. (2002), p. 705; Dobrev et al. (2001), p. 1321; Dobrev et al. (2003), p. 271; Ravenscraft & Scherer (1991), p. 433.Google Scholar
  45. 357.
    Cf. Cheng & Kesner (1997), p. 1.Google Scholar
  46. 358.
    Cf. Steensma & Corley (2001), p. 271 f.Google Scholar
  47. 359.
    Cf. Sommers et al. (1987), p. 18.Google Scholar
  48. 360.
    Cf. Bansal (2005), p. 201; see also Bourgeois (1981), p. 30 and 35.Google Scholar
  49. 361.
    Cf. George (2005), p. 662.Google Scholar
  50. 362.
    Cf. Barker & Duhaime (1997), p. 20 and 33. See also the studies quoted there for further details.Google Scholar
  51. 363.
    Cf. Love & Nohria (2005), p. 1088. Bourgeois (1981) and Singh (1986) also propose this distinction.Google Scholar
  52. 364.
    Cf. Bergh (1997), p. 722; Cheng & Kesner (1997), pp. 7 f.; Love & Nohria (2005), p. 1095; Morrow et al. (2004), p. 199; Singh (1986), p. 573.Google Scholar
  53. 365.
    Cf., e.g., Datta et al. (2003), p. 108.Google Scholar
  54. 366.
    Cf. Backhaus et al. (2006), p. 89 ff.; Menard (2002), pp. 75–78; Field (2003), p. 201 f.; Hutcheson & Sofroniou (1999), p. 83.Google Scholar
  55. 367.
    Cf. Chang & Singh (1999), p. 1028; Greene (2000), p. 813; Hoetker (2007), p. 332.Google Scholar
  56. 368.
    Cf. Backhaus et al. (2006), p. 426 ff.; Field (2003), p. 165; Greene (2000), p. 813 ff.; Hoetker (2007), p. 332; Menard (2002), p. 12.Google Scholar
  57. 369.
    Cf. Backhaus et al. (2006), p. 430 f.Google Scholar
  58. 370.
    Cf. Arnold (1982), p. 150.Google Scholar
  59. 371.
    Hoetker (2007), p. 338 (italics in the original).Google Scholar
  60. 372.
    See the procedure outlined by Arnold (1982), pp. 149–156. Haleblian & Finkelstein (1993) and Datta et al. (2003) provide examples for sub-group analyses according to the exemplary procedure recommended by Arnold. See also Backhaus et al. (2006), p. 74 ff.Google Scholar
  61. 373.
    Cf. Allison (1999), p. 188; Fahrmeir et al. (1999), p. 450.Google Scholar
  62. 374.
    Cf. Greene (2000), p. 155. See, e.g., the Chi-square-table in Backhaus et al. (2006), p. 818. For ?? = 0.95 and one degree of freedom in the two-group case the value for chi2 (0.95; 1) is 3.8415.Google Scholar
  63. 375.
    Hoetker (2007), p. 337.Google Scholar
  64. 376.
    For a detailed description of this procedure with an example see Allison (1999), p. 194 ff. See also Hoetker (2004), p. 9 f.Google Scholar
  65. 377.
    Hoetker (2007), p. 338. See also Hoetker (2006), p. 513, for an example.Google Scholar
  66. 378.
    Hoetker (2006), p. 512, footnote 6.Google Scholar
  67. 379.
    Cf. Hoetker (2007), p. 338; see also Greene (2000), p. 153 ff. For examples of how to interpret the ratios of beta coefficients see Hoetker (2006), p. 512 f.Google Scholar
  68. 380.
    Cf. Altman (1968), p. 591.Google Scholar
  69. 381.
    Cf. Bortz (2005), p. 605 and 617; Greene (2000), p. 833, footnote 19. For an application of this method in different fields, see, e.g., Altman’s (1968) seminal study in finance, Johnson’s (1971) study on market segmentation in marketing, and Peng et al. (2004) as a more recent example from management research.Google Scholar
  70. 382.
    Altman (1968), p. 592.Google Scholar
  71. 383.
    Cf. Backhaus et al. (2006), p. 154 ff.Google Scholar
  72. 384.
    Cf. Backhaus et al. (2006), p. 187 f.Google Scholar
  73. 385.
    Cf. Bortz (2005), p. 624 f.Google Scholar
  74. 386.
    Cf. Peng et al. (2004), p. 1122.Google Scholar
  75. 387.
    Cf. Chang & Singh (1999), p. 1029, especially footnote 7.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Betriebswirtschaftlicher Verlag Dr. Th. Gabler | GWV Fachverlage GmbH, Wiesbaden 2008

Personalised recommendations