Skip to main content
Log in

Corporate diversification and abnormal returns

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of Asset Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We examine the effect of corporate diversification by comparing abnormal returns between portfolios of diversified firms and focused firms. Our study covers US firms for the years 1976–2009 and compares abnormal returns over 12, 24, and 36-month windows. Initial univariate tests show mixed results, though after we control for firm, industry, and time effects, we find convincing evidence that diversified-firm portfolios outperform focused-firm portfolios over the 3-year term. Our findings indicate that the benefits of corporate diversification are captured over longer investing horizons.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Fama and French have grouped several firm industries by four-digit SIC code. The groupings range from a five-industry set, up to a 49 industry set. Berger and Ofek (1995) and Santalo and Becerra (2008) use a two-digit SIC industry indicator, classifying up to 100 different industries. The Fama and French industries have a distinct advantage over the narrower two-digit industry class, as the number of firms per industry does not allow for a few firms to dominate the industry return. Moreover, both Berger and Santalo eliminate industries that have fewer than five single-segment firms.

References

  • Amihud, Yakov. 2002. Illiquidity and stock returns: Cross-section and time-series effects. Journal of Financial Markets 5: 31–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berger, Philip G., and Eli Ofek. 1995. Diversification’s effect on firm value. Journal of Financial Economics 37: 39–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berger, Philip G., and Eli Ofek. 1999. Causes and effects of corporate refocusing programs. The Review of Financial Studies 12: 311–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Billett, Matthew T., and David C. Mauer. 2000. Diversification and the value of internal capital markets: The case of tracking stock. Journal of Banking & Finance 24: 1457–1490.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bradley, Michael, Anand Desai, and E. Han Kim. 1988. Synergistic gains from corporate acquisitions and their division between the stockholders of target and acquiring firms. Journal of Financial Economics 21: 3–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chang, Yuk Ying, Sudipto Dasgupta, and Gilles Hilary. 2010. Ceo ability, pay, and firm performance. Management Science 56: 1633–1652.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Desai, Hemang, and Prem C. Jain. 1999. Firm performance and focus: Long-run stock market performance following spinoffs. Journal of Financial Economics 54: 75–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dong, Ming, Igor Loncarski, Jenke ter Horst, and Chris Veld. 2012. What drives security issuance decisions: Market timing, pecking order, or both? Financial Management 41: 637–663.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farber, David B. 2005. Restoring trust after fraud: Does corporate governance matter? Accounting Review 80: 539–561.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hyland, David C., and J.David Diltz. 2002. Why firms diversify: An empirical examination. Financial Management 31: 51–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, Michael, and Richard Ruback. 1983. The market for corporate control* 1: The scientific evidence. Journal of Financial Economics 11: 5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kruse, Timothy A., Hun Y. Park, Kwangwoo Park, and Kazunori Suzuki. 2007. Long-term performance following mergers of Japanese companies: The effect of diversification and affiliation. Pacific-Basin Finance Journal 15: 154–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lang, Larry H.P., and René M. Stulz. 1994. Tobin’s q, corporate diversification, and firm performance. Journal of Political Economy 102: 1248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liebenberg, Andre P., and David W. Sommer. 2008. Effects of corporate diversification: Evidence from the property–liability insurance industry. Journal of Risk & Insurance 75: 893–919.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lins, Karl, and Henri Servaes. 1999. International evidence on the value of corporate diversification. The Journal of Finance 54: 2215–2239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lu, Jane W., and Paul W. Beamish. 2004. International diversification and firm performance: The s-curve hypothesis. Academy of Management Journal 47: 598–609.

    Google Scholar 

  • Minnick, Kristina, Haluk Unal, and Liu Yang. 2011. Pay for performance? Ceo compensation and acquirer returns in bhcs. The Review of Financial Studies 24: 439–472.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Santalo, Juan, and Manuel Becerra. 2008. Competition from specialized firms and the diversification-performance linkage. The Journal of Finance 63: 851–883.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Servaes, Henri. 1996. The value of diversification during the conglomerate merger wave. Journal of Finance 51: 1201–1225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chris M. Lawrey.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lawrey, C.M., Morris, B.C.L. Corporate diversification and abnormal returns. J Asset Manag 20, 31–37 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41260-018-0100-0

Download citation

  • Revised:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41260-018-0100-0

Keywords

JEL Classification

Navigation