Tag: ownership

Succession Dynamics in Latvian Family Firms

Posted on June 10, 2024 | Policy Brief

A view of Riga's House of the Blackheads at sunset, illustrating succession dynamics in historic landmarks

This policy brief examines the emergence, succession, and performance of first-generation family firms in Latvia, highlighting the unique challenges and achievements of these businesses since the early 1990s. Following Latvia’s independence, many family firms were established, providing a natural setting to study succession issues. Key findings reveal that initially, nearly half of these firms did not have a majority stake held by the founding family, but within the first few years after founding, families accumulated majority ownership. It typically took seven years for family ownership to exceed 75 percent. However, 23 years later, only 16 percent of the sample firms have second-generation shareholders. Notably, around 80 percent of these firms remain majority-owned and managed by their founders. Furthermore, family firms outperform non-family firms by 3.1 percent in return on assets (ROA). The findings underscore the need for policies that support effective succession planning, incentivize family-owned business sustainability, and provide targeted training for future generations to maintain the robust economic contributions of these firms.

Introduction

Family firms, where key decisions are controlled by individuals linked by blood or marriage, are the predominant organizational form worldwide. These firms face critical challenges, (e.g. leadership transition, generational differences, emotional ties to the business, and estate planning tax considerations) particularly during ownership succession, which is the transition from the first to the second generation of family members. This issue is especially relevant in Eastern European countries like Latvia, where the shift from a planned to a market economy in the 1990s created the first generation of family firms now approaching generational change.

Understanding how family firms manage this transition is crucial for policymakers, business leaders, and researchers. This policy brief highlights the key findings of a study (Pajuste and  Berzins (2024) on Latvian family firms, focusing on ownership succession patterns, the involvement of the next generation, and the impact on firm performance.

Succession Patterns and Ownership Evolution

In Latvia, many family firms began with founders holding minority stakes, reflecting financial constraints and economic uncertainties. Over time, families gradually increased their ownership stakes, demonstrating resilience and strategic planning. On average, it took seven years for family ownership to exceed 75 percent. This gradual ownership increase helped families navigate the challenges of economic transitions and limited access to external capital. The study also reveals that 23 years after being founded, only 16 percent of the sample firms have second-generation family members as shareholders.

Involvement of the Second Generation

The emergence of the second generation in family firm ownership is a pivotal phase. Succession planning and the transmission of familial values, knowledge, and entrepreneurial ethos are crucial during this period. By 2022, only 14 percent of the sample family firms had significant second-generation involvement (defined as the second generation holding a majority of the family shares and having a board seat).

More specifically, in a sample of 266 family firms, 20 percent had involved the second generation in ownership by 2022, with significant involvement in 71 percent of these cases. At the same time, 80 percent of the firms were still majority-owned and managed by the founders. This slow involvement of the second generation highlights the challenges of succession planning and the need for a strategic approach – both from a company and a legal perspective – to ensure a smooth transition from the first to second generation.

Importantly, despite this slow transition, family firms tend to perform better than non-family firms, with a 3.1 percent higher return on assets (ROA). However, within family firms, the involvement of the second generation does not significantly impact firm performance.

Policy Implications and Recommendations

The findings of this study have several important implications for policymakers, business leaders, and researchers.

Support for Succession Planning

There is a need for policies and programs that support succession planning in family firms. This includes providing resources and guidance for families to develop succession plans, ensuring the continuity of family businesses. Ensuring some form of succession, whether within the family or through external parties, is crucial to prevent these firms from closing. Facilitating succession and supporting the survival of these firms would not only protect jobs, but also have a positive economic effect as family firms outperform their non-family counterparts.

Financial Support and Access to Capital

Another way to enable smoother transition and growth for family firms is to improve their access to capital to help them overcome financial constraints. Financial institutions and government programs should focus on providing tailored financial products for family businesses. By doing so, they not only support the longevity of these businesses but also help in maintaining employment levels and preventing the economic fallout from family firm closures.

Education and Training

Educational programs and training for the next generation of family business leaders are essential. These programs should focus on leadership, management, and the unique challenges of family businesses, preparing the next generation for successful transitions.

Awareness and Best Practices

Raising awareness about the importance of succession planning and sharing best practices can help family firms navigate generational transitions more effectively.

Research and Data Collection

Continued research and data collection on family firms and their succession patterns are crucial. This helps in understanding the challenges and opportunities faced by family businesses, informing policies and practices that support their continuation and success.

Conclusion

Latvian family firms, like their counterparts worldwide, face significant challenges during ownership succession. This study highlights the gradual and strategic increase in family ownership stakes, the slow emergence of the second generation in ownership, and the need for comprehensive succession planning. Policymakers, business leaders, and researchers must work together to support family firms in navigating these transitions, ensuring their continued contribution to the economy.

Effective succession planning is crucial for sustaining family businesses across generations, preserving their legacy, and promoting economic growth. By addressing the unique challenges faced by family firms, we can create a supportive environment that fosters the longevity and success of these vital enterprises.

Acknowledgment

This brief is based on an academic article Family Firm Succession: First-generation transitions in Latvia co-authored with Janis Berzins and forthcoming in Finance Research Letters. We acknowledge financial support from the EEA research grant Global2micro (S-BMT-21-8, LT08-2LMT-K-01-073).

References

To read more policy briefs published by the BICEPS Institute, visit the Institute’s page on the FREE Network’s website.

Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in policy briefs and other publications are those of the authors; they do not necessarily reflect those of the FREE Network and its research institutes.

Risks of Russian Business Ownership in Georgia

Posted on November 27, 2023 | Policy Brief

Image of Tbilisi at night representing risks of Russian business ownership in Georgia

This policy brief addresses risks tied to Russian business ownership in Georgia. The concentration of this ownership in critical sectors such as electricity and communications makes Georgia vulnerable to risks of political influence, corruption, economic manipulation, espionage, sabotage, and sanctions evasion. To minimize these risks, it is recommended to establish a Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) screening mechanism for Russia-originating investments, acknowledge the risks in national security documents, and implement a critical infrastructure reform.

Russia exerts substantial influence over Georgia. First and foremost, Russia has annexed 20 percent of Georgia’s internationally recognized territories of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Further, it employs a variety of hybrid methods to disrupt the Georgian society including disinformation, support for pro-Russian parties and media, trade restrictions, transportation blockades, sabotage incidents, and countless more. These tactics aim to hinder Georgia’s development, weaken the country’s statehood, and negatively affect pro-Western public sentiments (Seskuria, 2021 and Kavtaradze, 2023).

Factors that may also increase Georgia’s economic dependency on Russia concern trade relationships, remittances, increased economic activity driven by the most recent influx of Russian migrants, and private business ownership by Russian entities or citizens (Babych, 2023 and Transparency International Georgia, 2023). This policy brief assesses and systematizes the risks associated with Russian private business ownership in Georgia.

Sectoral Overview of Russian Business Ovnership

Russian business ownership is significant in Georgia. Recent research from the Institute for Development of Freedom of Information (IDFI) has addressed Russian capital accumulation across eight sectors of the Georgian economy: electricity, oil and gas, communications, banking, mining and mineral waters, construction, tourism, and transportation. Of the eight sectors considered by IDFI, Russian business ownership is most visible in Georgia’s electricity sector, followed by oil and natural gas, communications, and mining and mineral waters industries. In the remaining four sectors considered by IDFI, a low to non-existent level of influence was observed (IDFI, 2023).

Figure 1. Overview of Russian Ownership in the Georgian Economy as of June 2023.

Source: IDFI, 2023.

There are several reasons for concern regarding the concentration and distribution of Russian business ownership in the Georgian economy.

First, it is crucial to keep Russia’s history as a hostile state actor in mind. Foreign business ownership is not a threat in itself; However, it may pose a threat if businesses are under control or influence of a state that is hostile to the country in question (see Larson and Marchik, 2006). Business ownership has been a powerful tool for the Kremlin, allowing Russia to influence various countries and raising concerns that such type of foreign ownership might negatively affect national security of the host country (Conley et al., 2016). Similar concerns have become imperative amidst Russia’s full-scale war in Ukraine (as, for instance, reflected in Guidance of the European Commission to member states concerning Russian foreign acquisitions).

Further, Russian business ownership in Georgia is particularly threatening due to the ownership concentration within sectors of critical significance for the overall security and economic resilience of the country. While there is no definition of critical infrastructure or related sectors in Georgia, at least two sectors (energy and communications) correspond to critical sectors, according to international standards (see for instance the list of critical infrastructure sectors for the European Union, Germany, Canada and Australia). Such sectors are inherently susceptible to a range of internal and external threats (a description of threats related to critical infrastructure can be found here). Intentional disruptions to critical infrastructure operations might initiate a chain reaction and paralyze the supply of essential services. This can, in turn, trigger major threats to the social, economic, and ecological security and the defense capacity of a state.

Georgia’s Exposure to Risks

Identifying and assessing the specific dimensions of Georgia’s exposure to risks related to Russian business ownership provides a useful foundation for designing policy responses. This brief identifies six distinct threats in this regard.

Political Influence

Russia’s business and political interests are closely intertwined, making it challenging to differentiate their respective motives. This interconnectedness can act as a channel for exerting political influence in Georgia. Russians that have ownership stakes in Georgian industries (e.g. within electricity, communications, oil and gas, mining and mineral waters) have political ties with the Russian ruling elite facing Western sanctions, or are facing sanctions themselves. For instance, Mikhail Fridman, who owns up to 50 percent of the mineral water company IDS Borjomi, is sanctioned for supporting Russia’s war in Ukraine. Such interlacing raises concerns about indirect Russian influence in Georgia, potentially undermining Georgia’s Western aspirations.

Export of Corrupt Practices

The presence of notable Russian businesses in Georgia poses a significant threat in terms of it nurturing corrupt practices. Concerns include “revolving door” incidents (movement of upper-level public officials into high-level private-sector jobs, or vice versa), tax evasion, and exploitation of the public procurement system.  For instance, Transparency International Georgia (2023) identified a “revolving door” incident concerning the Russian company Inter RAO Georgia LLC, involved in electricity trading, and its regulator, the Georgian state-owned Electricity Market Operator JSC (ESCO). One day after Inter RAO Georgia LLC was registered, the director of ESCO took a managerial position within Inter RAO Georgia LLC. Furthermore, tax evasion inquiries involving Russian-owned companies have been documented in the region, particularly in Armenia, further highlighting corruption risks. We argue that such corrupt practices might harm the business environment and deter future international investments.

Economic Manipulation

A heavy concentration of foreign ownership in critical sectors like energy and telecommunications, also poses a risk of manipulation of economic instruments such as prices. The significant Russian ownership in Armenia’s gas distribution network exemplifies this threat. In fact, Russia utilized a price manipulation strategy for gas prices when Armenia declared its EU aspirations. Prices were then reduced after Armenia joined the Eurasian Economic Union (Terzyan, 2018).

Espionage

Russian-owned businesses within Georgia’s critical sectors also pose espionage risks, including economic and cyber espionage. Owners of such businesses may transfer sensitive information to Russian intelligence agencies, potentially undermining critical infrastructure operations. As an example, in 2022, a Swedish business owner in electronic trading and former Russian resident, was indicted with transferring secret economic information to Russia. Russian cyber-espionage is also known to be used for worldwide disinformation campaigns impacting public opinion and election results, compromising democratic processes.

Sabotage

The presence of Russian-owned businesses in Georgia raises the risk of sabotage and incapacitation of critical assets. Russia has a history of using sabotage to harm other countries, such as when they disrupted Georgia’s energy supply in 2006 and the recent Kakhovka Dam destruction in Ukraine (which had far-reaching consequences, incurring environmental damages, and posing a threat to nuclear plants). These incidents demonstrate the risk of cascading effects, potentially affecting power supply, businesses, and locations strategically important to Georgia’s security.

Sanctions and Sanction Evasion

Russian-owned businesses in Georgia face risks due to Western sanctions as they could be targeted by sanctions or used to evade them. Recent cases, like with IDS Borjomi (as previously outlined) and VTB Bank Georgia – companies affected by Western sanctions given their Russian connections – highlight Georgia’s economic vulnerability in this regard. Industries where these businesses operate play a significant role in Georgia’s economy and job market, and instabilities within such sectors could entail social and political concerns. There’s also a risk that these businesses could help Russia bypass sanctions and gain access to sensitive goods and technologies, going against Georgia’s support for international sanctions against Russia. It is crucial to prevent such sanctions-associated risks for the Georgian economy.

Assessing the Risks

To operationalize the above detailed risks, we conducted interviews with Georgian field experts within security, economics, and energy. The risk assessment highlights political influence through Russian ownership in Georgian businesses as the foremost concern, followed by risks of corruption, risks related to sanctions, espionage, economic manipulation, and sabotage. We asked the experts to assess the severity level for each identified risk and notably, all identified risks carry a high severity level.

Recommendations

Considering the concerns detailed in the previous sections, we argue that Russia poses a threat in the Georgian context. Given the scale and concentration of Russian ownership within critical sectors and infrastructure, a dedicated policy regime might be required to improve regulation and minimize the associated risks. Three recommendations could be efficient in this regard, as outlined below.

Study the Impact of Adopting a Foreign Direct Investment Screening Mechanism

To effectively address ownership-related threats, it’s essential to modify existing investment policies. One approach is to introduce a FDI screening mechanism with specific functionalities. Several jurisdictions implement mechanisms with similar features (see a recent report by UNCTAD for further details). Usually, such mechanisms target FDI’s that have security implications. A dedicated screening authority overviews investment that might be of concern for national security and after assessment, an investment might be approved or suspended. In Georgia, a key consideration for designing such tool includes whether it should selectively target investments from countries like Russia or apply to all incoming FDI. Additionally, there’s a choice between screening all investments or focusing on those concerning critical sectors and infrastructure. Evaluating the investment volume, possibly screening only FDI’s exceeding a predefined monetary value, is also a vital aspect to consider. However, it’s important to acknowledge that FDI screening mechanisms are costly. Therefore, this brief suggests a thorough cost and benefit analysis prior to implementing a FDI screening regime in Georgia.

Consider Russian Ownership-related Threats in the National Security Documents

Several national-level documents address security policy in Georgia, with the National Security Concept – outlining security directions – being a foundational one. Currently, these concepts do not specifically address Russian business ownership-related threats. When designing an FDI screening mechanism, however, acknowledging various risks related to Russian business ownership must be aligned with fundamental national security documents.

Foster the Adoption of a Critical Infrastructural Reform

To successfully implement a FDI screening mechanism unified, nationwide agreement on the legal foundations for identifying and safeguarding critical infrastructure is needed. The current concept for critical infrastructure reform in Georgia envisages a definition of critical infrastructure and an implementation of an FDI screening mechanism. We therefore recommend implementing this reform in the country.

Conclusion

This policy brief has identified six distinct risks related to Russian business ownership in several sectors of the Georgian economy, such as energy, communications, oil and natural gas, and mining and mineral waters. Even though Georgia does not have a unified definition of critical infrastructure, assets concentrated in these sectors are regarded as critical according to international standards. Considering Russia’s track record of hostility and bearing in mind threats related to foreign business ownership by malign states, this brief suggests regulating Russian business ownership in Georgia by introducing a FDI screening instrument. To operationalize this recommendation, it is further recommended to consider Russian business ownership-related threats in Georgia’s fundamental security documents and to foster critical infrastructural reform in the country.

References

Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in policy briefs and other publications are those of the authors; they do not necessarily reflect those of the FREE Network and its research institutes.

Ownership Structure, Acquisitions and Managerial Incentives

Posted on March 18, 2019 | Policy Brief

20190318 Ownership Structure, Acquisitions and Managerial Incentives Image 01

Both the theoretical and empirical literature assume that takeovers are less likely to occur when firms have large concentrated shareholders, e.g. family firms. Hence the disciplinary role of takeovers becomes irrelevant in incentivizing the management. We argue that this conjecture is false. Using a contracting model, we show that the existence of takeovers can work in favour of firms with controlling shareholders, amplifying the disciplinary effects relative to firms with dispersed shareholders. We further show how takeover threats interact with alternative governance structures, specifically, with monitoring and performance pay. While carrots (performance pay) and sticks (takeover threat) play substitute roles in incentive provision, the internal monitoring available to large shareholders is a substitute mechanism irrespective of the disciplinary effect of the market for corporate control.

Introduction

The nature of optimal corporate ownership has been a longstanding question in corporate governance literature.  While large controlling shareholders can address managerial agency problems by monitoring management and alleviating the free-riding problem in takeovers (see e.g., Grossman and Hart, 1980; Demsetz and Lehn, 1985 and Burkart, Gromb and Panunzi, 1997), they may also expropriate other  stakeholders by influencing management or deterring efficient takeovers to maintain their private control benefits (Stulz,1988). Empirical evidence about the effect of controlling shareholders, for example a founding family, on firm performance is also inconclusive (see Bertrand and Schoar (2006) who review the empirical studies on family ownership).

Amid the ongoing debate, we provide a new perspective on the role of controlling shareholders in the market disciplinary mechanism, and how it interacts with the firm’s potential synergy characteristics and internal governance mechanisms. While the use of performance pay and internal monitoring are easily justified by the extant literature, the disciplinary effects of the market for corporate control are less obvious. In many countries, there are debates about the social cost of concentrated ownership structures, and some regulators (e.g., the European Commission) have been advocating in favour of breaking up concentrated ownership structures to facilitate the market for corporate control and its managerial disciplinary function.

In contrast to this standard view, our analysis shows that the managerial disciplinary mechanism of synergistic takeover can be strengthened by the presence of controlling shareholders.  Furthermore, while the control premium required by controlling shareholders reduces the incidence of synergistic takeovers, the internal monitoring performed by these shareholders can complement the market disciplinary mechanism in high synergy potential firms.  Overall, it is ambiguous whether dismantling a concentrated ownership structure would increase firm value and, in particular, in firms which provide high synergy potential to acquirers.

Our analysis suggests that more sophisticated policies for the market for corporate control may improve the social welfare more effectively.

Controlling Ownership and Managerial Agency Problem

The managerial agency problem is relevant even when considering takeovers of family firms. Founders hold 15% of the CEO positions, 30% are held by descendants while the absolute majority of approximately 55% are held by professional managers (Villalonga and Amit, 2006). Bidders that operate in the same industry, for example, will be able to observe the state of demand to assess the synergistic improvements. In contrast, family owners are likely to be less actively involved in firm operations, and less informed about the industry/market situation, which suggests their lack of operational expertise vis-a-vis managers.

In the presence of potential conflicts of interest between the management and shareholders, the market for corporate control serves a disciplining role. Then why does the private benefit of controlling shareholders, which increases the takeover premium, strengthen this market disciplinary mechanism?

We argue that, notwithstanding their negative effect on the incidence of synergistic takeovers, the controlling shareholders can strengthen the managerial disciplinary effect of a takeover in firms that offer acquirers large business synergies.

To answer the question intuitively, suppose that the manager has no anti-takeover defense. In this case, the manager can secure herself from takeover threats only by increasing the market value of the firm, and, therefore, the takeover threat can discipline the manager. In firms which offer high synergy potential to the acquirers, however, the manager may find it too costly to increase the market value enough to deter a synergistic takeover. The control premium required by controlling shareholders can complement the market disciplinary mechanism in this circumstance, and, specifically, reduce the profitability of synergistic takeovers and make the acquirers’ bidding choice more sensitive to current market value. That is, it allows the managers of firms that offer high business synergies to reduce the takeover threat significantly by increasing the market value.

Technically, our model shows that the necessary and sufficient condition for the complementarity of ownership concentration and the market disciplinary mechanism is the log-convexity of the distribution function of potential business synergy. The market value increase from truthfully reporting the favorable state may, in itself, not significantly deter the takeover attempts for these firms since acquirers still find the business synergy more than offsets a high stock price. The control premium required by controlling shareholders makes truthful managerial reporting (and the corresponding market value enhancement) more effective in reducing the likelihood of a takeover. Specifically, the control premium increases the manager’s opportunity cost of misreporting and, in turn, it reduces the information rent that shareholders forgo to the manager.

Interaction with Other Governance Mechanisms

The analysis also provides implications for the relationship between ownership structure and other governance mechanisms, such as managerial compensation and the monitoring function of controlling shareholders.

Given that the managerial agency problem cannot be fully eliminated by the takeover threat and managerial compensation, the monitoring function of controlling shareholders can complement the other two governance mechanisms in our setting.

We show that the disciplinary effect of synergistic takeovers reduces the information rent paid to the manager and, thus, it diminishes managerial incentive pay. This implies that managerial pay-performance sensitivity is negatively associated with ownership concentration in firms which offer high business synergies. Furthermore, our analysis also shows that, in high synergy potential firms in which controlling shareholders strengthen the market disciplinary mechanism, monitoring function of controlling shareholders can complement the market disciplinary mechanism, and, thus, ownership concentration increases the operating efficiency relative to firms with dispersed ownership.

Conclusion

Contrary to the common prior, the disciplinary effect of synergistic takeovers can be stronger in high synergy potential firms with controlling shareholders due to improvements in incentives for managerial self-selection. Specifically, the control premium encourages the manager to deter the takeover threat by increasing the current value of the firm. In this case, managerial entrenchment is consistent with improvements in shareholder value.

The disciplinary effect acts as a complement to the internal monitoring efforts of controlling shareholders in reducing the amount of incentive pay required to induce managerial truthfulness. In contrast, the control premium in firms with few synergies isolates the manager from the takeover threat, making incentive provision reliant on internal monitoring.

However, the disciplining effect of synergistic takeovers is not without its costs, making the overall value implications ambiguous. Incentive provision requires that shareholders accept relatively low bidding prices, by allowing takeovers with negative synergies. Furthermore, tailoring correct incentive pay requires a relatively high distortion to effort levels in times of economic downturns. While controlling ownership is able to mitigate these concerns, the existence of a control premium also reduces the incidence of socially desirable synergistic improvements in firm value.

Overall, policy makers should take care when considering implementation of constraints on the controlling states in order to facilitate the market for corporate control.

References

  • Anderson, Ronald C., and David M. Reeb, 2003. “Founding-family ownership and firm performance: Evidence from the S&P 500”, The Journal of Finance, 58, 1301-1327.
  • Bertrand, Marianne, and Antoinette Schoar, 2006. “The role of family in family firms”, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 20, 73-96.
  • Burkart, Mike, Denis Gromb, and Fausto Panunzi, 1997. “Large shareholders, monitoring and the value of the firm”, The Quarterly Journal of Economics,112, 693.
  • Demsetz, Harold, and Kenneth Lehn, 1985. “The structure of corporate ownership: Causes and consequences”, Journal of Political Economy, 93, 1155-1177.
  • Grossman, Sanford J., and Oliver D. Hart, 1980. “Takeover bids, the free-rider problem, and the theory of the corporation”, The Bell Journal of Economics,11, 42-64.
  • Villalonga, Belen, and Raphael Amit, 2006. “How do family ownership, control and management affect firm value?”, Journal of Financial Economics, 80, 385-417.
  • Stulz, Renee, 1988. “Managerial control of voting rights: Financing policies and the market for corporate control”, Journal of Financial Economics, 20, 25-54.

Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in policy briefs and other publications are those of the authors; they do not necessarily reflect those of the FREE Network and its research institutes.