Practical analysis for investment professionals
25 September 2013

Family Values: Are the Stocks of Family-Controlled Firms Good Investments?

Nearly a decade ago, Adelphia Communications founder and CEO John Rigas, along with his son Timothy, were convicted of conspiracy, bank fraud, and securities fraud for looting the family-controlled cable company. The Rigas family, which had held majority voting control of Adelphia, had treated the firm as their personal ATM, financing a Gatsbyesque lifestyle at the expense of the company’s minority shareholders. Adelphia was forced into bankruptcy and its shareholders were wiped out.

And while the story of Adelphia remains a cautionary tale of the risk that comes with investing in family-owned firms, evidence suggests that it’s also the exception rather than the norm. Most studies of the impact of family ownership indicate that, on balance, family control is a good thing for stockholders. And Warren Buffett agrees, saying, “Family-owned businesses share our long-term orientation, belief in hard work, and a no-nonsense approach and respect for a strong corporate culture.”

In the US, the stocks of (AMZN), Microsoft (MSFT), and Wal-Mart Stores (WMT), have delivered spectacular returns since their founding, and they remain under varying levels of control by their founding families. Long-term shareholders of European family-controlled firms like L’Oreal Group (LRLCY) and Novartis AG (NVS), and Asian electronics giant Samsung (SMSN), have been similarly rewarded. Drawing on the research findings related to family control from academia as well as my own experience as a manager of a mutual fund dedicated to investing in family-controlled firms, I can identify some common attributes, good and bad, of family-controlled firms.

What Constitutes Family Control?

When it comes to publicly held firms, there is no standard definition of a family-controlled company. Family control — which can come in the form of stockholdings, board representation, or management positions — equates to the degree of influence a family is able to exert over the strategic direction and management of a company. Board seats and management positions are obviously more tenuous claims to power than equity ownership, which often comes in the form of a special class of shares with super voting rights. In “How Do Family Ownership, Control, and Management Affect Firm Value?” Belén Villalonga and Raphael Amit define a family-controlled company as one in which the founder or a related family member is an officer, director, or owns more than 5% of the firm’s equity. In “Founding Family Ownership and Firm Performance: Evidence from the S&P 500,” David Reeb and Ronald Anderson consider fractional ownership and board representation as their primary indicators of control. In their study, Reeb and Anderson considered over 35% of the S&P 500 constituent firms to be family-controlled. Family control among publicly-held firms is even more prevalent in Europe and Asia.

The Benefits of Family Influence

Warren Buffett was right: Family-controlled firms tend to be more patient and less beholden to hitting their quarterly earnings numbers than companies without a strong family influence. This also makes them less apt to succumb to accounting gimmickry and worse, the example of Adelphia notwithstanding. This relative financial conservatism extends to the balance sheet, as family-controlled firms have also been found to carry comparatively little debt. And, perhaps surprisingly, dividend payout ratios are smaller among family-controlled companies. Low employee turnover, which leads to higher productivity and a stronger corporate culture, is another hallmark of family-controlled firms. The end result seems to be better financial returns, which don’t go unrecognized by investors. According to an extensive study conducted by Pitcairn Financial Group in the 1980s, the stocks of family-owned firms within the S&P 500 Index annually returned approximately 135 basis points more than the broad market over a 20-year period.

Too Much of a Good Thing?

Reeb and Anderson’s research confirmed that family control enhanced firm performance, as measured by both Tobin’s q and return on assets. They attributed this outperformance to those firms in which a family member served as the CEO. They also found that the outperformance was not uniform across all levels of family ownership. Firm performance increases until families own about one-third of the firm’s outstanding equity, beyond which performance begins to decline. Reeb and Anderson posit that beyond this threshold “the potential for entrenchment and poor performance is greatest.”

Villalonga and Amit also used Tobin’s q as their measure of value, and found that family ownership adds value only when combined with certain types of family management and control. Family management adds value as long as the founder is CEO of the company, or its board chairman with an outsider as CEO. Family control in excess of ownership, often in the form of a special share class, reduces shareholder value, though minority shareholders still benefit. Importantly, Villalonga and Amit found that investors were worse off in family-controlled firms led a descendant CEO.

Despite the prospect for attractive relative returns, family control clearly needs to be held in check, and this hasn’t always been the case, particularly in Asia. In “Independent Non-Executive Directors: A Search for True Independence in Asia,” authors Lee Kha Loon, CFA and Angela Pica, CFA, assert that relatively weak regulatory oversight and lax corporate governance practices have disadvantaged minority shareholders of family-controlled firms in Asia. And in “Dividends and Expropriation,” authors Mara Faccio, Larry H.P. Lang, and Leslie Young maintain that family ownership in East Asia has hurt company performance for similar reasons.

Beware Common Pitfalls

There can be drawbacks to family control and chief among these is what Reeb and Anderson charitably call “opportunism” on the part of the controlling family. Excessive compensation, self-dealing, and related party transactions are examples of such exploitative behavior. Reeb and Anderson suggest that agency issues, including expropriation by controlling families, can be mitigated by a strong and independent board of directors.

Nepotism, either real or perceived, is another common pitfall of family-controlled firms. There may be no bigger killer of company morale (or investor interest) than the meteoric rise of an employee whose sole qualification is a common last name.

Bottom Line

While investing in the shares of family-controlled firms is not without risks, the evidence does suggest that founding families, kept in check by an independent board, tend to exert a positive influence on companies, particularly when the founder remains actively involved in setting strategic direction. Family-controlled firms are more inclined to have a long-term perspective, conservative financial management, and a strong corporate culture, all attractive attributes conducive to long-term share outperformance.

Please note that the content of this site should not be construed as investment advice, nor do the opinions expressed necessarily reflect the views of CFA Institute.

About the Author(s)
David Larrabee, CFA

David Larrabee, CFA, was director of member and corporate products at CFA Institute and served as the subject matter expert in portfolio management and equity investments. Previously, he spent two decades in the asset management industry as a portfolio manager and analyst. He holds a BA in economics from Colgate University and an MBA in finance from Fordham University. Topical Expertise: Equity Investments · Portfolio Management

11 thoughts on “Family Values: Are the Stocks of Family-Controlled Firms Good Investments?”

  1. Great post. Citizens DisUnited: Passive Investors, Drone CEOs, and the Corporate Capture of the American Dream by Robert A.G. Monks comes to much of the same conclusion. Companies without owners with a large enough interest to warrant monitoring (10% or more) operate differently… and the differences aren’t good for shareowners or society. See my review at

  2. M Ashok says:

    Nice analysis…
    I liked the point where you said where family control is in excess of shareholding..
    Are there any business or sectors where you think the family has the best understanding and expertise relative to outsiders due to their prolonged carrying on of that business?

  3. M Ashok,

    Thanks for visiting our blog and adding to the discussion. I haven’t come across any studies of the relative merits of family control by business sector. Management’s familiarity with a business is certainly one of many attributes necessary for success. At the same time, however, evidence suggests that reserving management positions as an exclusive privilege of founding family members has many drawbacks.


  4. Nitiin A Khandkar says:

    Here in India, family-controlled, listed companies have turned out to be a mixed bag. Some businesses set up by families a century ago, are thriving, whereas most others, particularly the recently listed ones, have proved to be destroyers of shareholder wealth. It all boils down not just to business acumen, but professional and personal integrity of the family concerned, which makes or breaks a company.

  5. Nitiin,

    Thanks for sharing your perspective. Your last point is well-taken and I could not agree more.


  6. Nitiin A Khandkar says:

    Adding to my last comment, Dave. Unfortunately in India, except for the top 20 reputed families with decades of track record of successfully running diverse businesses, the “other” family businesses have been run practically like personal fiefdoms. I have come across $200 million revenue companies being run practically by a single individual, with his family members occupying key positions in management. There is zero corporate governance, siphoning off of funds, transactions being entered into with promoter-owned entities, which are detrimental to the interests of the listed entity, you name it. In the last couple of years, a number of such businesses have been facing crises of investor confidence, and have seen huge erosion in market capitalization. Small/mid caps, which enjoyed an aura once upon a time, have suddenly fallen out of favor with most investors. Which is why, valuations of the remaining (good) companies have gone through the roof.

    1. Nitin,

      Thanks for visiting our blog and for your feedback!


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.