Concentrated Control and Corporate Value: A Comparative Analysis of Single and Dual Class Structures in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study directly examines the empirical relationship between corporate value and three distinct ownership structures using data from Canada, where the securities laws and shareholder protection conditions are similar to those of the US (La Porta et al., 1999) but corporate control tends to be more concentrated (Holderness et al., 1999). Ownership structure is classified in three ways: dual class firms, single class closely-held firms, and widely-held firms. The focus of this paper is to test for the impact of concentrated control on corporate value using either dual class or single class closely-held ownership structure. The empirical results, using both fixed and random effects estimation methods, show that after controlling for size, financial leverage, percentage of outside directors, and industry differences, dual class companies sell at a significant discount compared to closely-held single class companies. Consistent with Claessens et al. (2002), and Gompers et al. (2004) dual class structure in Canada lessens corporate value because it lowers shareholder and manager alignment and increases agency problems. We also find that pyramid structure has a negative impact on value in both dual class and single class closely-held companies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".