The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Hedge Funds in Corporate Governance and Corporate Control
Open accessAbstract
Hedge funds have become critical players in both corporate governance and corporate control. In this article, we document and examine the nature of hedge fund activism, how and why it differs from activism by traditional institutional investors, and its implications for corporate governance and regulatory reform. We argue that hedge fund activism differs from activism by traditional institutions in several ways: it is directed at significant changes in individual companies (rather than small, systemic changes), it entails higher costs, and it is strategic and ex ante (rather than intermittent and ex post). The reasons for these differences may lie in the incentive structures of hedge fund managers as well as in the fact that traditional institutions face regulatory barriers, political constraints, or conflicts of interest that make activism less profitable than it is for hedge funds. But the differences may also be due to the fact that traditional institutions pursue a diversification strategy that is difficult to combine with strategic activism.Although hedge funds hold great promise as active shareholders, their intense involvement in corporate governance and control also potentially raises two kinds of problems: The interests of hedge funds sometimes diverge from those of their fellow shareholders; and the intensity of hedge fund activism imposes substantial stress that the regulatory system may not be able to withstand. The resulting problems, however, are relatively isolated and narrow, do not broadly undermine the value of hedge fund activism as a whole, and do not warrant major additional regulatory interventions.The sharpest accusation leveled against activist funds is that activism is designed to achieve a short-term payoff at the expense of long-term profitability. Although we consider this a potentially serious problem that arguably pervades hedge fund activism, we conclude that a sufficient case for legal intervention has not been made. This conclusion results from the uncertainties about whether short-termism is in fact a real problem and how much hedge fund activism is driven by excessive short-termism. But, most importantly, it stems from our view that market forces and adaptive devices taken by companies individually are better designed than regulation to deal with the potential negative effects of hedge fund short-termism while preserving the positive effects of hedge-fund activism.
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
Cited by
The State of Corporate Governance Research
Bebchuk, L. A., & Weisbach, M. S. (2010) · Review of Financial Studies · doi:10.1093/rfs/hhp121 · Cited by 435
Ownership as a form of corporate governance
Connelly, B. L., Hoskisson, R. E., Tihanyi, L., & Certo, S. T. (2010) · Journal of Management Studies · doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2010.00929.x · Cited by 389
Brav, A. (2009) · Foundations and Trends® in Finance · doi:10.1561/0500000026 · Cited by 287
Dimson, E., Karakaş, O., & Li, X. (2018) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3209072 · Cited by 70
Metadata
- Authors
- Kahan, M., & Rock, E. B.
- Venue
- Corporate Governance
- Publisher
- Gower
- Published
- 2026-01-06
- Pages
- 389-461
- ISSN
- 1472-0701 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1850218143
- Cited by
- 339
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 168.74
- Type
- book chapter
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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: Hedge Funds in Corporate Governance and Corporate Control. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.4324/9781003764250-12
- The paper
- Kahan, M., & Rock, E. B. (2026). Hedge Funds in Corporate Governance and Corporate Control. Corporate Governance. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003764250-12
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.