The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Alternative Mechanisms for Corporate Control
Open accessAbstract
We examine performance and management characteristics of Fortune 500 firms experiencing one of three types of control change: internally pricipitated management turnover, hostile takeover, and friendly takeover.We find that firms experiencing internally precipitated management turnover perform poorly relative to other firms in their industries, but are not concentrated in poorly performing industries.In contrast, targets of hostile takeovers are concentrated in troubled industries.There is also weaker evidence that hostile takeover targets underperform their industry peers.We interpret this evidence as consistent with the idea that the board of directors is capable of firing managers whose leadership leads to poor performance relative to industry, but that an external challenge in the form of a hostile takeover is often required when th. whole industry is in decline.The evidence also indicates that firms run by a me.ber of the founding family are less likely to experience either internally precipitated top management turnover or a hostili takeover.On the other hand, firms whose top management team is dominated by a single, relatively young top executive, while lacking in internal discipline, are more likely to experience a hostile takeover.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Agency costs of free cash flow, corporate finance, and takeovers
Jensen, M. C. (1996) · Corporate Bankruptcy · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511609435.005 · Cited by 9,306
Agency Theory, Managerial Welfare, and Takeover Bid Resistance
Walkling, R. A., & Long, M. S. (1984) · The RAND Journal of Economics · doi:10.2307/3003669 · Cited by 325
Cited by
A Survey of Corporate Governance
Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. W. (1997) · The Journal of Finance · doi:10.1111/j.1540-6261.1997.tb04820.x · Cited by 16,243
Self-citationWho makes acquisitions? CEO overconfidence and the market's reaction☆
MALMENDIER, U., & TATE, G. (2008) · Journal of Financial Economics · doi:10.1016/j.jfineco.2007.07.002 · Cited by 2,754
Ownership structure and corporate performance
Demsetz, H., & Villalonga, B. (2001) · Journal of Corporate Finance · doi:10.1016/s0929-1199(01)00020-7 · Cited by 2,376
Meta-analytic reviews of board composition, leadership structure, and financial performance
Dalton, D. R., Daily, C. M., Ellstrand, A. E., & Johnson, J. L. (1998) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/(sici)1097-0266(199803)19:3<269::aid-smj950>3.0.co;2-k · Cited by 2,324
Do Managerial Objectives Drive Bad Acquisitions?
MORCK, R., SHLEIFER, A., & VISHNY, R. W. (1990) · The Journal of Finance · doi:10.1111/j.1540-6261.1990.tb05079.x · Cited by 1,887
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Morck, R., Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R.
- Venue
- National Bureau of Economic Research
- Publisher
- National Bureau of Economic Research
- Published
- 1988-03
- OpenAlex
- W1963519330
- Cited by
- 783
- References
- 2
- Type
- report
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Alternative Mechanisms for Corporate Control. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3386/w2532
- The paper
- Morck, R., Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. (1988). Alternative Mechanisms for Corporate Control. National Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w2532
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.