Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Required and obtained equity returns in privately held businesses: the impact of family nature—evidence before and after the global economic crisis

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Review of Managerial Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper analyses the impact that family businesses have on the minimum rate of return required by owner–investors (k e ) and on the equity returns (ROEaT) obtained in privately held businesses. This influence is analysed for an economic growth period (2002–2007) and for a crisis period (2008–2013) in the European context. Moreover, our study also explores the family nature through the heterogeneity among family firms in their required and obtained equity returns by considering the degree of family involvement in the ownership and management. Our findings reveal that while family businesses always have a negative and significant impact on k e regardless of the economic environment, they only have a positive and significant impact on ROEaT in economic upturns. Thus, non-economic goals do not necessarily imply underperformance but may involve a lower cost of equity capital in privately held family businesses than in privately held non-family businesses, which also leads to differences in the value creation.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The reduction in the number of businesses during the recession period is because we removed firms by trimming the outliers at a 1% level in their economic and financial data to prevent distortions in the analysis. We also excluded firms with missing values on relevant variables and those that were either extinct or in liquidity situation.

  2. SABI (Sistema de Análisis de Balances Ibéricos) is an economic and financial dataset whose data had been compiled by Informa D&B in collaboration with Bureau Van Dijk, including financial statements, ratios, activities, shareholders of more than 1,080,000 Spanish and 320,000 Portuguese companies (March 2011).

  3. SABI data are collected from Commercial Registry in which the smallest of SME firms deposit their data in accordance with a simplified model with which certain relevant information is lost.

  4. We excluded the following: Financial Services’ excepted insurance and pension funding; Insurance, reinsurance and pension funding, except compulsory social security; Auxiliary activities to financial services and insurances; Partnership activities; Other personal services; and, Extraterritorial organizations’ activities (Diéguez Soto et al. 2015).

  5. Note that the risk-free rate, the market premium and the standard deviation of market return are common data for all businesses.

  6. http://www.bolsasymercados.es/esp/publicacion/revistaOnLine/index.htm.

  7. There were only five cases in our sample that may have been classified as co-preneurial FBs. Because of the small sample, we decided to include these cases in the solely family-run FBs group since these firms also met the characteristics to be classified as this type of family firm. Researchers usually use family involvement in ownership and management as a key aspect to categorize a firm as a family business (e.g. Dieguez Soto et al. 2016; McConaughy 1999), and in these firms both ownership and management is concentrated in the hands of one or few family members.

  8. The influence of the industry variable construction only changes its signs for the k e .

References

  • Adams AFI, Manners GE, Astrachan JH, Mazzola P (2004) The importance of integrated goal setting: the application of cost-of-capital concepts to private firms. Fam Bus Rev 17(4):287–302

    Google Scholar 

  • Allouche J, Amann B, Jaussaud J, Kurashina T (2008) The impact of family control on the performance and financial characteristics of family versus nonfamily businesses in Japan: a matched-pair investigation. Fam Bus Rev 21(4):315–329

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson RC, Reeb DM (2003) Founding-family ownership and firm performance: evidence from the S&P 500. J Financ 58(3):1301–1329

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson RC, Li N, Reeb DM (2012) The family firm puzzle. http://www.ssrn.com/abstract=2369150

  • Artemenkov AI, Mikerin GI, Artemenkov IL (2008) Professional valuation and investment-financial valuation: distinctions in valuations for private and public markets. Apprais J 76(4):355–370

    Google Scholar 

  • Astrachan JH, Jaskiewicz P (2008) Emotional returns and emotional costs in privately held family businesses: advancing traditional business valuation. Fam Bus Rev 21(2):139–149

    Google Scholar 

  • Bednarek Z, Moszoro M (2014) The arrow–lind theorem revisited: ownership concentration and valuation. Appl Financ Econ 24(5):357–375

    Google Scholar 

  • Belsley DA, Kuh E, Welsch RE (1980) Regression diagnostics: Identifying influential data and sources of collinearity. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennedsen M, Nielsen Meisner K, Pérez-González F, Wolfenzon D (2007) Inside the family firm: the role of families in succession decisions and performance. Q J Econ 122(2):647–691

    Google Scholar 

  • Berrone P, Cruz C, Gómez-Mejia LR, Larraza Kintana M (2010) Socioemotional wealth and corporate responses to institutional pressures: Do family-controlled firms pollute less? Adm Sci Q 55(1):82–113

    Google Scholar 

  • Berrone P, Cruz C, Gómez-Mejia LR (2012) Socioemotional wealth in family firms: theoretical dimensions, assessment approaches, and agenda for future research. Fam Bus Rev 25(3):258–279

    Google Scholar 

  • Boubakri N, Guedhami O, Mishra D (2010) Family control and the implied cost of equity: evidence before and after the Asian financial crisis. J Int Bus Stud 41(3):451–474

    Google Scholar 

  • Brief RP, Lawson RA (1992) The role of the accounting rate of return in financial statement analysis. Acc Rev 67(2):411–426

    Google Scholar 

  • Bughin C, Colot O (2008) La performance des PME familiales belges. Revue Française de Comptabilité 186:1–17. doi:10.3166/rfg.186.1-17

    Google Scholar 

  • Carnes CM, Ireland RD (2013) Familiness and innovation: resource bundling as the missing link. Entrep Theory Pract 37(6):1399–1419

    Google Scholar 

  • Casillas JC, Moreno AM, Barbero JL (2010) A configurational approach of the relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and growth of family firms. Fam Bus Rev 23(1):27–44

    Google Scholar 

  • Chatterjee S, Lubatkin MH, Schulze WS (1999) Toward a strategic theory of risk premium: moving beyond CAPM. Acad Manag Rev 24(3):556–567

    Google Scholar 

  • Chirico F, Bau M (2014) Is the family an “asset” or “liability” for firm performance? The moderating role of environmental dynamism. J Small Bus Manag 52(2):210–225

    Google Scholar 

  • Chrisman JJ, Patel PC (2012) Variations in R&D investments of family and nonfamily firms: behavioral agency and myopic loss aversion perspectives. Acad Manag J 55(4):976–997

    Google Scholar 

  • Chrisman JJ, Chua JH, Litz RA (2004) Comparing the agency costs of family and non-family firms: conceptual issues and exploratory evidence. Entrep Theory Pract 28(4):335–354

    Google Scholar 

  • Chrisman JJ, Chua JH, Sharma P (2005) Trends and directions in the development of a strategic management theory of the family firm. Entrepr Theory Pract 29(5):555–575

    Google Scholar 

  • Chrisman JJ, Chua JH, Pearson AW, Barnett T (2012) Family involvement, family influence, and family-centered non-economic goals in small firms. Entrep Theory Pract 36(2):267–293

    Google Scholar 

  • Classen N, Carree M, Van Gils A, Peters B (2014) Innovation in family and non-family SMEs: an exploratory analysis. Small Bus Econ 42(3):595–609

    Google Scholar 

  • Copeland T, Koller T, Murrin J (2002) Valuation. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Crespí R, Martín-Oliver A (2015) Do family firms have better access to external finance during crises? Corp Gov (Oxf) 23(3):249–265

    Google Scholar 

  • Cruz C, Larraza-Kintana M, Garcés-Galdeano L, Berrone P (2014) Are family firms really more socially responsible? Entrep Theory Pract 34:1–22

    Google Scholar 

  • Daily CM, Dollinger MJ (1991) Family firms are different. Rev Bus 13(1,2):3

    Google Scholar 

  • Daily CM, Dollinger MJ (1992) An empirical examination of ownership structure in family and professionally managed firms. Fam Bus Rev 5(2):117–136

    Google Scholar 

  • Danielson MG, Press E (2003) Accounting returns revisited: evidence of their usefulness in estimating economic returns. Rev Acc Stud 8(4):493–530

    Google Scholar 

  • De Massis A, Kotlar J, Campopiano G, Cassia L (2015) The impact of family involvement on smes’ performance: theory and evidence. J Small Bus Manag 53(4):924–948

    Google Scholar 

  • Detienne DR, Chirico F (2013) Exit strategies in family firms: how socio emotional wealth drives the threshold of performance. Entrep Theory Pract 37(6):1297–1318

    Google Scholar 

  • Dieguez Soto J, Manzaneque Lizano M, Rojo Ramírez AA (2016) Technological innovation inputs, outputs and performance: the moderating role of family involvement in management. Fam Bus Rev 29(3):327–346

    Google Scholar 

  • Diéguez Soto J, López Delgado P, Rojo Ramírez AA (2015) Identifying and classifying family businesses. RMS 9(3):603–634

    Google Scholar 

  • Distelberg B, Sorenson RL (2009) Updating systems concepts in family businesses: a focus on values, resource flows, and adaptability. Fam Bus Rev 22(1):65–81

    Google Scholar 

  • Dolz C, Iborra M, Safón V (2015) Family-owned company, management teams, diversity, and ambidexterity in small and medium-sized enterprises. Revista de Administração de Empresas 55(6):673–687

    Google Scholar 

  • Dyer WG Jr (2006) Examining the “family effect” on firm performance. Fam Bus Rev 19(4):253–273

    Google Scholar 

  • Dyer WG Jr, Whetten DA (2006) Family firms and social responsibility: preliminary evidence from the S&P 500. Entrep Theory Pract 30(6):785–802

    Google Scholar 

  • Ensley MD, Pearson AW (2005) An exploratory comparison of the behavioral dynamics of top management teams in family and nonfamily new ventures: cohesion, conflict, potency, and consensus. Entrep Theory Pract 29(3):267–284

    Google Scholar 

  • Fama EF (1970) Efficient capital markets: a review of theory and empirical work. J Financ 25(2):383–417

    Google Scholar 

  • Fama EF, French KR (2002) The equity premium. J Financ 57(2):637–659

    Google Scholar 

  • Fama EF, French KR (2004) The capital asset pricing model: theory and evidence. J Econ Perspect 18(3):25–46

    Google Scholar 

  • Fama EF, French KR (2006) Profitability, investment and average returns. J Financ Econ 82(3):491–518

    Google Scholar 

  • Fama EF, French KR (2015) A five-factor asset pricing model. J Financ Econ 116(1):1–22

    Google Scholar 

  • Feenstra DW, Wang H (2000) Economic and accounting rates of return (No. October). Groningen

  • Field A (2013) Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics, 4th edn. SAGE Publication Ltd., London

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher FM, Mcgowan JJ (1984) On the misuse of accounting rate of return to infer monopoly transfer. Am Econ Rev 73(1):82–97

    Google Scholar 

  • Garrido J, García DJ(2010) El largo plazo, un brillante aliado de la inversión en Bolsa. Bolsa, Tercer tri(185):20–37

  • Garvey GT (2001). What is an acceptable rate of return for an undiversified investor? (No. 2nd draft). http://www.papers.ssrn.com/abstract=281432

  • Gómez-Mejia LR, Núñez Nickel M, Gutierrez I (2001) The role of family ties in agency contracts. Acad Manag J 44(1):81

    Google Scholar 

  • Gómez-Mejia LR, Larraza-Kintana M, Makri M (2003) The determinants of executive compensation in family-controlled public corporations. Acad Manag J 46(2):226–237

    Google Scholar 

  • Gómez-Mejia LR, Haynes KT, Núñez Nickel M, Jacobson KJL, Moyano Fuentes J (2007) Socioemotional wealth and business risks in family-controlled firms: evidence from spanish olive oil mills. Adm Sci Q 52(1):106–137

    Google Scholar 

  • Gómez-Mejia LR, Makri M, Kintana ML (2010) Diversification decisions in family-controlled firms. J Manag Stud 47(2):223–252

    Google Scholar 

  • Gómez-Mejia LR, Cruz C, Berrone P, De Castro J (2011) The bind that ties: socioemotional wealth preservation in family firms. Acad Manag Ann 5(1):653–707

    Google Scholar 

  • Gómez-Mejia LR, Patel PC, Zellweger TM (2015) In the horns of the dilemma: socioemotional wealth, financial wealth, and acquisitions in family firms. J Manag. doi:10.1177/0149206315614375

    Google Scholar 

  • Gordon LA (1974) Accounting rate of return vs economic rate of return. J Bus Financ Acc 1(3):343–356

    Google Scholar 

  • Gottardo P, Moisello AM (2014) The capital structure choices of family firms. Manag Financ 40(3):254–275

    Google Scholar 

  • Gottardo P, Moisello AM (2015) The impact of socioemotional wealth on family firms’ financial performance. Probl Perspect Manag 13(1):67–77

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham JR, Harvey CR (2001) The theory and practice of corporate finance: evidence from the field. J Financ Econ 60:187–243

    Google Scholar 

  • Gujarati D, Porter D (2008) Basic econometrics, 5th edn. McGraw-Hill Education, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Habbershon TG, Williams M, MacMillan IC (2003) A unified systems perspective of family firm performance. J Bus Ventur 18(4):451–465

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall JH (2013) Toward improved use of value creation measures in financial decision-making. J Appl Bus Res 29(4):1175–1187

    Google Scholar 

  • Huybrechts J, Voordeckers W, Lybaert N (2012) Entrepreneurial risk taking of private family firms: the influence of a nonfamily CEO and the moderating effect of CEO tenure. Fam Bus Rev 26(2):161–179

    Google Scholar 

  • Ijiri Y (1978) Cash-flow accounting and its structure. J Acc Audit Financ 1(4):331–348

    Google Scholar 

  • Jensen MC, Meckling W (1976) Theory of the firm: managerial behaviour, agency costs y ownership structure. J Financ Econ 3(4):305–360

    Google Scholar 

  • Kerins F, Smith JK, Smith R (2004) Opportunity cost of capital for venture capital investors and entrepreneurs. J Financ Quant Anal 39(2):385–405

    Google Scholar 

  • King MR, Santor E (2008) Family values: ownership structure, performance and capital structure of Canadian firms. J Bank Financ 32(11):2423–2432

    Google Scholar 

  • König A, Kammerlander N, Enders A (2013) The family innovator’s dilemma: how family influence affects the adoption of discontinuous technologies by incumbent firms. Acad Manag Rev 38(3):418–441

    Google Scholar 

  • Koralun-Bereznicka J (2013) Corporate performance. A ratio-based approach to country and industry analyses. Springer, Heildelberg (Poland)

    Google Scholar 

  • Le Breton-Miller I, Miller D (2013) Socioemotional wealth across the family firm life cycle: a commentary on “family business survival and the role of boards”. Entrep Theory Pract 37(6):1391–1397

    Google Scholar 

  • Leitterstorf MP, Rau SB (2014) Socioemotional wealth and IPO underpricing of family firms. Strateg Manag J 35:751–760

    Google Scholar 

  • Livingstone JL, Salamon GL (1970) Relationship between the accounting and the internal rate of return measures: a synthesis and an analysis. J Acc Res 8(2):199–216

    Google Scholar 

  • Lozano MB (2015) Strategic decisions of family firms on cash accumulation. RAE Rev Adm Empres 55(4):461–467

    Google Scholar 

  • Magni CA, Peasnell KV (2012) Economic profitability and the accounting rate of return. J Portf Manag. doi:10.2139/ssrn.2027607

    Google Scholar 

  • Malkiel BG (2003) The efficient market hypothesis and its critics. J Econ Perspect 17(1):58–92

    Google Scholar 

  • Mansfield ER, Helmsb BP (1982) Detecting multicollinearity. Am Stat 36(3a):158–160

    Google Scholar 

  • Markowitz HM (1952) Portfolio selection. J Financ 7(1):77–91

    Google Scholar 

  • Markowitz HM (1959) Portfolio selection: efficient diversification of investments. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Martínez Romero MJ, Rojo Ramírez AA (2016) SEW: temporal trajectory and controversial issues. Eur J Fa Bus 6(1):1–9

    Google Scholar 

  • Martínez Romero MJ, Rojo Ramírez AA (2017) Socioemotional wealth’s implications in the calculus of the minimum rate of return required by family businesses’ owners. RMS 11(1):95–118

    Google Scholar 

  • Maury B (2006) Family ownership and firm performance: empirical evidence from Western European corporations. J Corpor Financ 12(2):321–341

    Google Scholar 

  • Mazzi C (2011) Family business and financial performance: current state of knowledge and future research challenges. J Fam Bus Strateg 2(3):166–181

    Google Scholar 

  • McConaughy DL (1999) Is the cost of capital different for family firms? Fam Bus Rev 12(4):353–360

    Google Scholar 

  • Meitner M (2006) The market approach to comparable valuation. In: Wolfgang F (ed). The market approach to comparable company valuation. ZEW economic studies, Mannhein. doi:10.1007/3-7908-1723-6

  • Mensching H, Kraus S, Bouncken RB (2014) Socioemotional wealth in family firm research—a literature review. J Int Bus Econ 14(4):165–172

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller D, Le Breton-Miller I, Lester RH (2011) Family and lone founder ownership and strategic behaviour: social context, identity, and institutional logics. J Manag Stud 48(1):1–25

    Google Scholar 

  • Miralles-Marcelo JL, del Miralles-Quirós M, Lisboa I (2014) The impact of family control on firm performance: evidence from Portugal and Spain. J Fam Bus Strateg 5(2):156–168

    Google Scholar 

  • Modigliani F, Miller MH (1958) The cost of capital, corporation finance and the theory of investment. Am Econ Rev 48(3):261–297

    Google Scholar 

  • Müller E (2011) Returns to private equity—idiosyncratic risk does matter! Rev Financ 15:545–574

    Google Scholar 

  • Nissim D, Penman SH (2001) Ratio analysis and equity valuation: from research to practice. Rev Acc Stud 6(1):109–154

    Google Scholar 

  • Padilla-Meléndez A, Dieguez-Soto J, Garrido-Moreno A (2015) Empirical research on innovation in family business: literature review and proposal of an integrative framework. Rev Bus Manag 17(56):1064–1089

    Google Scholar 

  • Palliam R (2005) Estimating the cost of capital: considerations for small business. J Risk Financ 6(4):335–340

    Google Scholar 

  • Pastor L, Pietro V (2003) Stock valuation and learning about profitability. J Financ 58(5):1749–1790

    Google Scholar 

  • Pazzaglia F, Mengoli S, Sapienza E (2013) earnings quality in acquired and nonacquired family firms: a socioemotional wealth perspective. Fam Bus Rev 26(4):374–386

    Google Scholar 

  • Penman SH (2007) Financial statement analysis and security valuation, vol 3, 3rd edn. McGraw Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Pindado García J, Requejo Puerto I, de la Torre Olvera C (2014) Does family ownership impact positively on firm value? (No. Documento de trabajo 02/08). Salamanca. http://www3.uva.es/empresa/uploads/02_08_requejo_articulo.pdf

  • Pindado J, Requejo I, De la Torre C (2014) Family control, expropriation, and investor protection: a panel data analysis of Western European corporations. J Empir Financ 27:58–74

    Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Lee J-Y, Podsakoff NP (2003) Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J Appl Psychol 88(5):879–903

    Google Scholar 

  • Rojo Ramírez AA (2014) Privately held company valuation and cost of capital. J Bus Valuat Econ Loss Anal 9(1):1–22

    Google Scholar 

  • Rojo Ramírez AA, Pérez García, de Lema D (2006) Valoración de empresas en España: un estudio empírico. Span J Financ Account 35(32):913–934

    Google Scholar 

  • Rojo Ramírez AA, Cruz Rambaud S, Alonso Cañadas J (2012) Discount rate and cost of capital: more about the puzzle. Valuat Cap Budg Invest Policy eJ 4(24):1–19

    Google Scholar 

  • Rojo Ramírez AA, Martínez Romero MJ, Lorenzo Gómez JD, Hernández Rodriguez A, Rodríguez-Alcaide JJ, Rodríguez Zapaterio M et al (2015). La empresa familiar en Andalucía (2014). In: Lorenzo Gómez JD, Rojo Ramírez AA (eds) (1st ed.).La empresa familiar en Andalucía (2014). Alfonso A. Rojo Ramírez, Almería. doi:10.13140/RG.2.1.1436.2641. ISBN: 978-84-608-4436-5

  • Rutherford MW, Kuratko DF, Holt DT (2008) Examining the link and performance: can the F-PEC untangle the family business theory jungle? Entrep Theory Pract 32(6):1089–1110

    Google Scholar 

  • Schepers J, Voordeckers W, Steijvers T, Laveren E (2014) The entrepreneurial orientation–performance relationship in private family firms: the moderating role of socioemotional wealth. Small Bus Econ 43(1):39–55

    Google Scholar 

  • Schulze WS, Lubatkin MH, Dino RN, Buchholtz AK (2001) Agency relationships in family firms: theory and evidence. Organ Sci 12(2):99–116

    Google Scholar 

  • Schulze WS, Lubatkin MH, Dino RN (2003) Exploring the agency consequences of ownership dispersion among the directors of private family firms. Acad Manag J 46(2):179–194

    Google Scholar 

  • Sciascia S, Mazzola P (2008) Family involvement in ownership and management: exploring nonlinear effects on performance. Fam Bus Rev 21(4):331–345

    Google Scholar 

  • Sciascia S, Mazzola P, Kellermanns FW (2014) Family management and profitability in private family-owned firms: introducing generational stage and the socioemotional wealth perspective. J Fam Bus Strateg 5(2):131–137

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharma P, Carney M (2012) Value creation and performance in private family firms: measurement and methodological issues. Fam Bus Rev 25(3):233–242

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharpe WF (1986) A simplified model for portfolio analysis. Manag Sci 9(2):227

    Google Scholar 

  • Sindhuja PN (2009) Performance and value creation: family managed business versus non-family managed business. IUP J Bus Strateg 64(4):45–65

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith M (2008) Differences between family and non-family SMEs: a comparative study of Australia and Belgium. J Manag Organ 14(1):40–58

    Google Scholar 

  • Stein JC (1989) Efficient capital markets, inefficient firms: a model of myopic corporate behavior. Q Rev Econ 104(4):655–669

    Google Scholar 

  • Stewart A, Hitt MA (2012) Why can’t a family business be more like a nonfamily business? Modes of professionalization in family firms. Fam Bus Rev 25(1):58–86

    Google Scholar 

  • Stockmans A, Lybaert N, Voordeckers W (2010) Socioemotional wealth and earnings management in private family firms. Fam Bus Rev 23(3):280–294

    Google Scholar 

  • Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS (2012) Using multivariate statistics, 6th edn. Pearson. ISBN-10: 0205849571. ISBN-13: 9780205849574

  • Trevino L, Alvarado-Rodriguez A (2011) The effect of family control on corporate performance. Q J Financ Acc 50(1):97–114

    Google Scholar 

  • Vandekerkhof P, Steijvers T, Hendriks W, Voordeckers W (2015) The effect of organizational characteristics on the appointment of nonfamily managers in private family firms: the moderating role of socioemotional wealth. Fam Bus Rev 28(2):104–122

    Google Scholar 

  • Villalonga B, Amit R (2006) How do family ownership, control and management affect firm value? J Financ Econ 80(2):385–417

    Google Scholar 

  • Welch I (2000) Views of financial economists on the equity premium and on professional controversies. J Bus 73(4):501–537

    Google Scholar 

  • Xi J, Kraus S, Filser M, Kellermanns FW (2015) Mapping the field of family business research: past trends and future directions. Int Entrep Manag J 11(1):113–132

    Google Scholar 

  • Zellweger T (2007) Time horizon, costs of equity capital, and generic investment strategies of firms. Fam Bus Rev 20(1):1–15

    Google Scholar 

  • Zellweger TM, Astrachan JH (2008) On the emotional value of owning a firm. Fam Bus Rev 21(4):347–363

    Google Scholar 

  • Zellweger TM, Nason RS (2008) A stakeholder perspective on family firm performance. Fam Bus Rev 21(3):203–216

    Google Scholar 

  • Zellweger TM, Kellermanns FW, Chrisman JJ, Chua JH (2011) Family control and family firm valuation by family CEOs: the importance of intentions for transgenerational control. Organ Sci 23(3):851–868

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Almería, Ctra. Sacramento s/n, La Cañada de San Urbano, 04120, Almería, Spain

    Alfonso A. Rojo Ramírez & Maria J. Martínez Romero

Authors
  1. Alfonso A. Rojo Ramírez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Maria J. Martínez Romero
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maria J. Martínez Romero.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rojo Ramírez, A.A., Martínez Romero, M.J. Required and obtained equity returns in privately held businesses: the impact of family nature—evidence before and after the global economic crisis. Rev Manag Sci 12, 771–801 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-017-0230-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-017-0230-7

Keywords

JEL Classification

Search

Navigation