This paper argues that the documented discount on diversified firms is not per se evidence that diversification destroys value. Firms choose to diversify. We use three alternative econometric techniques to control for the endogeneity of the diversification decision, and find evidence supporting the self-selection of diversifying firms. We find a strong negative correlation between a firm's choice to diversify and firm value. The diversification discount always drops, and sometimes turns into a premium. There also exists evidence of self-selection by refocusing firms. These results point to the importance of explicitly modelling the endogeneity of the diversification status in analyzing its effect on firm value.

We develop a profit-maximizing neoclassical model of optimal firm size and growth across different industries based on differences in industry fundamentals and firm productivity. In the model, a conglomerate discount is consistent with profit maximization. The model predicts how conglomerate firms will allocate resources across divisions over the business cycle and how their responses to industry shocks will differ from those of single-segment firms. Using plant level data, we find that growth and investment of conglomerate and single-segment firms is related to fundamental industry factors and individual segment level productivity. The majority of conglomerate firms exhibit growth across industry segments that is consistent with optimal behavior.

Does valuation affect mergers? Data suggest that periods of stock merger activity are correlated with high market valuations. The naïve explanation that overvalued bidders wish to use stock is incomplete because targets should not be eager to accept stock. However, we show that potential market value deviations from fundamental values on both sides of the transaction can rationally lead to a correlation between stock merger activity and market valuation. Merger waves and waves of cash and stock purchases can be rationally driven by periods of over and under valuation of the stock market. Thus, valuation fundamentally impacts mergers. One of the puzzles in finance is why there are periods when mergers are plentiful and other periods

Kyle, Jeremy Stein, and Jeff Wurgler, for useful discussions and ideas. We also thank workshop participants Merger intensity spikes in times of high market valuations (i.e., when average M/B ratios are at their highest). This is especially true for stock-based mergers, supporting recent theories by Rhodes-Kropf and Viswanathan (2002) and Shleifer and Vishny (2003). To explore whether this is the result of correlated valuation errors or behavioral mispricing we decompose M/B into three components: firm-specific deviation from short-run industry valuations; short-run industry deviations from long-run values, and long-run value to book. The fact that high M/B buys lower M/B is driven mostly by firm-specific deviations from short-run industry average pricing. However, both targets and acquires are priced above their long-run industry average. When we find differences between bidders and targets in long-run valueto-book, we find that low buys high. We also find that the industry-specific component of M/B is highly positively correlated with merger intensity, and correlated with the use of stock. However, long-run value-to-book is uncorrelated with cash merger intensity and negatively correlated with stock merger intensity, leading to little overall correlation between long-run

We analyze several hundred firms that expand via acquisition and0or increase their number of business segments. The combined market reaction to acquisition announcements is positive but acquiring firm excess values decline after the diversifying event. Much of the excess value reduction occurs because our sample firms acquire already discounted business units, and not because diversifying destroys value. This implies that the standard assumption that conglomerate divisions can be benchmarked to typical stand-alone firms should be carefully reconsidered. We also show that excess value does not decline when firms increase their number of business segments because of pure reporting changes. DOES CORPORATE DIVERSIFICATION destroy value? Several recent papers attempt to answer this question by comparing the market value of firms that operate multiple lines of business to the value of a portfolio of stand-alone firms operating in the same industries as the conglomerate’s divisions. Lang and Stulz ~1994! use this approach and find that multisegment firms have low

Using plant-level observations from the Longitudinal Research Database I show that conglomerates are more productive than stand-alone firms at a given point in time. Dynamically, however, firms that diversify experience a net reduction in productivity. While the acquired plants increase productivity, incumbent plants suffer. Moreover, stock prices track firm productivity and this tracking is equally strong for diversified and stand-alone firms. Therefore, lower transparency of conglomerates is unlikely to explain the discrepancy between productivity and stock prices on average. Finally, I offer some evidence that this discrepancy may arise because conglomerates dissipate rents in the form of higher wages. CORPORATE DIVERSIFICATION HAS RECEIVED much attention from academics as well as management practitioners. Several papers over the last decade have argued that diversification is related to lower valuation for shareholders. Lang and Stulz ~1994!, for example, find that diversified firms trade at an average discount of about eight percent relative to a portfolio of comparable

Abstract This paper studies the cyclical properties of capital reallocation and the frictions which inhibit such reallocation. We show that the amount of capital reallocation and the benefits to reallocation vary at the business cycle frequency. The amount of capital reallocation is procyclical. In contrast, the benefits to capital reallocation appear countercyclical. We measure the amount of reallocation using data on flows of capital across firms and the benefits to capital reallocation using several measures of the cross sectional dispersion of the productivity of capital. We then study a calibrated model of an economy where capital reallocation is costly and impute the cost of reallocation which is consistent with the amount of and benefits to reallocation in the data. We find that the cost of reallocation needs to be substantially countercyclical to be consistent with the observed joint cyclical properties of reallocation and productivity dispersion. The cyclical variation in this cost is interpreted as variation in the liquidity of capital, broadly defined, since physical costs are unlikely to vary countercyclically. JEL Classification: E22; E32; E44; G34. * We thank

The liquidity of the market for corporate assets plays an important role in explaining whether a firm divests a business segment, which segment the fn'm divests, and whether it divests a core segment or an unrelated segment. Firms are more likely to divest segments from industries with a more liquid market for corporate assets, unrelated segments, poorly performing segments, and small segments. Strikingly, the segment with the least liquid market is less likely to be divested than the best-performing segment, while the worst-performing segment is less likely to be divested than the segment with the most liquid market.

We develop an assignment theory to analyze the volume and composition of foreign direct investment (FDI). Firms conduct FDI by either engaging in greenfield investment or in cross-border acquisitions. Cross-border acquisitions involve firms trading heterogeneous corporate assets to exploit complementarities, while greenfield FDI involves building a new plant in the foreign market. In equilibrium, greenfield FDI and cross-border acquisitions co-exist within the same industry, but the composition of FDI between these modes varies with firm and country characteristics. Firms engaging in greenfield investment are system-atically more efficient than those engaging in cross-border acquisitions. Furthermore, most FDI takes the form of cross-border acquisitions when production-cost differences between countries are small, while greenfield investment plays a more important role for FDI from high-cost into low-cost countries. These results capture important features of the data.

and conclusions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily indicate concurrence of the U.S. Bureau of Census. This paper has been screened to ensure that no confidential data is revealed. Any errors and omissions are the responsibility of the authors.