Events & Promotions
|
|
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.
Customized
for You
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
May 0510:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
GMAT Inequalities is a high-frequency topic in GMAT Quant, but many students struggle because the concepts behave differently from standard algebra. Understanding the right rules, patterns, and edge cases can significantly improve both speed and accuracy.- May 06
08:30 AM PDT
-09:30 AM PDT
In Episode 3 of our GMAT Ninja Critical Reasoning series, we tackle Discrepancy, Paradox, and Explain an Oddity questions. You know the feeling: the passage gives you two facts that seem completely contradictory.... - May 08
08:00 AM PDT
-08:30 AM PDT
Join the special YouTube live-stream for selecting the winners of GMAT Club MBA Scholarships sponsored by Juno live. Watch who gets these coveted MBA scholarships offered by GMAT Club and Juno.
31 Mar 2026, 21:49
Kudos
Bookmarks
Granville and Coates’ analysis of North American heavy manufacturing found that companies operating across multiple industries generate more value, and therefore are valued more highly, than clusters of smaller, more specialized companies that have the same overall scope as the larger diversified corporation if considered together. Granville and Coates conjectured that the added premium reflects reduced earnings volatility: diversified firms can spread risk across multiple largely independent lines of business, reducing investors’ stochastic exposure to firm-specific shocks. After several scholars published remarkably parallel findings from other economic sectors, theoretical economists began in earnest to explore whether more general laws might be at work.
Those investigations were barely underway when Campa and Kedia shocked the field with their analysis of just-in-time and short-turnover supply chains, in which diversified corporations, almost without exception, were valued lower than the sum of the valuations at which their component operations would have been traded as separate corporate entities. Campa and Kedia called this pattern “the diversification discount”; they hypothesized that the companies’ discounted valuations were direct consequences of logistical inefficiencies born of diversification itself, such as cross-subsidization of underperforming divisions by more profitable ones or knots of intra-corporate conflicts that made it effectively impossible for the company to boost any component of its valuation without a diminution in another one.
Villalonga et al, by contrast, looked further back, unpacking the motivational factors behind companies’ original diversification initiatives. They found in most cases that shortfalls in market valuation predated the companies’ acquisitions of further lines of business, reflecting fundamental inefficiencies that were already deeply embedded in the less-diversified companies’ core business operations. Noting a near-ubiquitous pattern of declining efficiency leading up to each company’s acquisition of new lines of business, Villalonga et al argue against the use of the term “diversification discount”, making a compelling case that companies often, perhaps even usually, diversify in an attempt to run away from, or at least to reduce the relative footprint of, dysfunctions too thoroughly entrenched to root out.
The passage does NOT mention any scholarly hypotheses indicating that the valuation of a diversified company can be
A. lower than the combined valuation of its component businesses considered separately, as a result of diversification
B. lower than the combined valuation of its component businesses considered separately, not as a result of diversification
C. higher than the combined valuation of its component businesses considered separately, as a result of diversification
D. higher than the combined valuation of its component businesses considered separately, not as a result of diversification
E. All of the above are mentioned.
Those investigations were barely underway when Campa and Kedia shocked the field with their analysis of just-in-time and short-turnover supply chains, in which diversified corporations, almost without exception, were valued lower than the sum of the valuations at which their component operations would have been traded as separate corporate entities. Campa and Kedia called this pattern “the diversification discount”; they hypothesized that the companies’ discounted valuations were direct consequences of logistical inefficiencies born of diversification itself, such as cross-subsidization of underperforming divisions by more profitable ones or knots of intra-corporate conflicts that made it effectively impossible for the company to boost any component of its valuation without a diminution in another one.
Villalonga et al, by contrast, looked further back, unpacking the motivational factors behind companies’ original diversification initiatives. They found in most cases that shortfalls in market valuation predated the companies’ acquisitions of further lines of business, reflecting fundamental inefficiencies that were already deeply embedded in the less-diversified companies’ core business operations. Noting a near-ubiquitous pattern of declining efficiency leading up to each company’s acquisition of new lines of business, Villalonga et al argue against the use of the term “diversification discount”, making a compelling case that companies often, perhaps even usually, diversify in an attempt to run away from, or at least to reduce the relative footprint of, dysfunctions too thoroughly entrenched to root out.
The passage does NOT mention any scholarly hypotheses indicating that the valuation of a diversified company can be
A. lower than the combined valuation of its component businesses considered separately, as a result of diversification
B. lower than the combined valuation of its component businesses considered separately, not as a result of diversification
C. higher than the combined valuation of its component businesses considered separately, as a result of diversification
D. higher than the combined valuation of its component businesses considered separately, not as a result of diversification
E. All of the above are mentioned.
31 Mar 2026, 21:49
Kudos
Bookmarks
Official Solution:
Granville and Coates’ analysis of North American heavy manufacturing found that companies operating across multiple industries generate more value, and therefore are valued more highly, than clusters of smaller, more specialized companies that have the same overall scope as the larger diversified corporation if considered together. Granville and Coates conjectured that the added premium reflects reduced earnings volatility: diversified firms can spread risk across multiple largely independent lines of business, reducing investors’ stochastic exposure to firm-specific shocks. After several scholars published remarkably parallel findings from other economic sectors, theoretical economists began in earnest to explore whether more general laws might be at work.
Those investigations were barely underway when Campa and Kedia shocked the field with their analysis of just-in-time and short-turnover supply chains, in which diversified corporations, almost without exception, were valued lower than the sum of the valuations at which their component operations would have been traded as separate corporate entities. Campa and Kedia called this pattern “the diversification discount”; they hypothesized that the companies’ discounted valuations were direct consequences of logistical inefficiencies born of diversification itself, such as cross-subsidization of underperforming divisions by more profitable ones or knots of intra-corporate conflicts that made it effectively impossible for the company to boost any component of its valuation without a diminution in another one.
Villalonga et al, by contrast, looked further back, unpacking the motivational factors behind companies’ original diversification initiatives. They found in most cases that shortfalls in market valuation predated the companies’ acquisitions of further lines of business, reflecting fundamental inefficiencies that were already deeply embedded in the less-diversified companies’ core business operations. Noting a near-ubiquitous pattern of declining efficiency leading up to each company’s acquisition of new lines of business, Villalonga et al argue against the use of the term “diversification discount”, making a compelling case that companies often, perhaps even usually, diversify in an attempt to run away from, or at least to reduce the relative footprint of, dysfunctions too thoroughly entrenched to root out.
The passage does NOT mention any scholarly hypotheses indicating that the valuation of a diversified company can be
A. lower than the combined valuation of its component businesses considered separately, as a result of diversification
B. lower than the combined valuation of its component businesses considered separately, not as a result of diversification
C. higher than the combined valuation of its component businesses considered separately, as a result of diversification
D. higher than the combined valuation of its component businesses considered separately, not as a result of diversification
E. All of the above are mentioned.
This question asks about the specific examples that the author explicitly mentions in the passage. The solution is ultimately going to be a matter of searching the text for the required types of hypothetical explanations—and selecting the choice corresponding to the type of example that you DON’T find (or selecting the last choice, if you find all four types)—but if you have a rough “table of contents” from your initial reading, telling you what kinds of information are located where, then that hunt should be much more efficient.
Valuations of diversified companies that are lower than those of the separate components combined are discussed in the second and third paragraphs, so let’s look in those two paragraphs for the types of hypotheses listed in choices A and B:
A: The hypotheses of Campa and Kedia satisfy this description. (The passage explicitly confirms that Campa and Kedia’s hypothetical explanations were “consequences of logistical inefficiencies born of diversification itself”—in other words, results of diversification.)
B: Villalonga et al, as discussed in the final paragraph, attribute the lowered valuations of certain diversified corporations to structural problems that existed previously, and hypothesize that the diversification itself is “an attempt to run away from, or at least reduce the relative footprint of” those problems.
Both are present.
Valuations of diversified companies that are higher than those of the separate components combined are discussed in the first paragraph, so let’s look there for the types of hypotheses listed in choices C and D.
Only one hypothesis is listed for Granville and Coates in this paragraph: the reduction of investor exposure to economic shocks by spreading risk across the greater variety of lines of business. This is a direct result of the acquisition of those additional lines of business—i.e., a direct consequence of diversification—so this is the type of hypothesis listed in choice C.
The passage therefore does NOT mention any hypothesis of the kind listed in choice D, making D the correct answer.
Answer: D
Granville and Coates’ analysis of North American heavy manufacturing found that companies operating across multiple industries generate more value, and therefore are valued more highly, than clusters of smaller, more specialized companies that have the same overall scope as the larger diversified corporation if considered together. Granville and Coates conjectured that the added premium reflects reduced earnings volatility: diversified firms can spread risk across multiple largely independent lines of business, reducing investors’ stochastic exposure to firm-specific shocks. After several scholars published remarkably parallel findings from other economic sectors, theoretical economists began in earnest to explore whether more general laws might be at work.
Those investigations were barely underway when Campa and Kedia shocked the field with their analysis of just-in-time and short-turnover supply chains, in which diversified corporations, almost without exception, were valued lower than the sum of the valuations at which their component operations would have been traded as separate corporate entities. Campa and Kedia called this pattern “the diversification discount”; they hypothesized that the companies’ discounted valuations were direct consequences of logistical inefficiencies born of diversification itself, such as cross-subsidization of underperforming divisions by more profitable ones or knots of intra-corporate conflicts that made it effectively impossible for the company to boost any component of its valuation without a diminution in another one.
Villalonga et al, by contrast, looked further back, unpacking the motivational factors behind companies’ original diversification initiatives. They found in most cases that shortfalls in market valuation predated the companies’ acquisitions of further lines of business, reflecting fundamental inefficiencies that were already deeply embedded in the less-diversified companies’ core business operations. Noting a near-ubiquitous pattern of declining efficiency leading up to each company’s acquisition of new lines of business, Villalonga et al argue against the use of the term “diversification discount”, making a compelling case that companies often, perhaps even usually, diversify in an attempt to run away from, or at least to reduce the relative footprint of, dysfunctions too thoroughly entrenched to root out.
The passage does NOT mention any scholarly hypotheses indicating that the valuation of a diversified company can be
A. lower than the combined valuation of its component businesses considered separately, as a result of diversification
B. lower than the combined valuation of its component businesses considered separately, not as a result of diversification
C. higher than the combined valuation of its component businesses considered separately, as a result of diversification
D. higher than the combined valuation of its component businesses considered separately, not as a result of diversification
E. All of the above are mentioned.
This question asks about the specific examples that the author explicitly mentions in the passage. The solution is ultimately going to be a matter of searching the text for the required types of hypothetical explanations—and selecting the choice corresponding to the type of example that you DON’T find (or selecting the last choice, if you find all four types)—but if you have a rough “table of contents” from your initial reading, telling you what kinds of information are located where, then that hunt should be much more efficient.
Valuations of diversified companies that are lower than those of the separate components combined are discussed in the second and third paragraphs, so let’s look in those two paragraphs for the types of hypotheses listed in choices A and B:
A: The hypotheses of Campa and Kedia satisfy this description. (The passage explicitly confirms that Campa and Kedia’s hypothetical explanations were “consequences of logistical inefficiencies born of diversification itself”—in other words, results of diversification.)
B: Villalonga et al, as discussed in the final paragraph, attribute the lowered valuations of certain diversified corporations to structural problems that existed previously, and hypothesize that the diversification itself is “an attempt to run away from, or at least reduce the relative footprint of” those problems.
Both are present.
Valuations of diversified companies that are higher than those of the separate components combined are discussed in the first paragraph, so let’s look there for the types of hypotheses listed in choices C and D.
Only one hypothesis is listed for Granville and Coates in this paragraph: the reduction of investor exposure to economic shocks by spreading risk across the greater variety of lines of business. This is a direct result of the acquisition of those additional lines of business—i.e., a direct consequence of diversification—so this is the type of hypothesis listed in choice C.
The passage therefore does NOT mention any hypothesis of the kind listed in choice D, making D the correct answer.
Answer: D
