|
|
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.
31 Mar 2026, 21:51
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 hypotheses put forward by Campa and Kedia to explain the discounted valuations of diversified companies assume that
A. the companies were not losing value in the time leading up to their acquisition of additional lines of business
B. the diversified companies attempted to raise the valuations of all of their component businesses simultaneously
C. many of the intra-corporate conflicts apparent after diversification had roots in the structure or operations of the original company
D. those companies’ diversification did not reduce their investors’ exposure to earnings volatility
E. the underperforming divisions subsidized by diversified companies’ other divisions were not the companies’ original lines of business
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 hypotheses put forward by Campa and Kedia to explain the discounted valuations of diversified companies assume that
A. the companies were not losing value in the time leading up to their acquisition of additional lines of business
B. the diversified companies attempted to raise the valuations of all of their component businesses simultaneously
C. many of the intra-corporate conflicts apparent after diversification had roots in the structure or operations of the original company
D. those companies’ diversification did not reduce their investors’ exposure to earnings volatility
E. the underperforming divisions subsidized by diversified companies’ other divisions were not the companies’ original lines of business
31 Mar 2026, 21:52
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 hypotheses put forward by Campa and Kedia to explain the discounted valuations of diversified companies assume that
A. the companies were not losing value in the time leading up to their acquisition of additional lines of business
B. the diversified companies attempted to raise the valuations of all of their component businesses simultaneously
C. many of the intra-corporate conflicts apparent after diversification had roots in the structure or operations of the original company
D. those companies’ diversification did not reduce their investors’ exposure to earnings volatility
E. the underperforming divisions subsidized by diversified companies’ other divisions were not the companies’ original lines of business
According to the second paragraph, Campa and Kedia blamed the shortfall in the valuations of diversified corporations on “logistical inefficiencies born of diversification itself, such as cross-subsidization ... or intra-corporate conflicts”. In other words, Campa and Kedia hypothesize that these problems newly arise in corporations that have subsumed their full current range of diversified lines of business. They assume, in other words, that the less diversified, pre-acquisition corporations were NOT valued lower than they would otherwise have been because of these same problems.
In terms of intra-corporate conflicts, therefore, Campa and Kedia are assuming that no such conflicts existed among the divisions of the original (pre-diversified) corporation to the detriment of its value back then. Choice C appears to touch on this idea, but states the opposite of what Campa and Kedia assume.
In terms of poorly performing divisions being subsidized by their high-performing counterparts, Campa and Kedia are taking for granted that those underperforming businesses are among the diverse components newly acquired by the corporation. If the underperforming units—whose underperformance is the underlying cause of the loss of valuation—were core parts of the company before diversification, then the original company’s valuation would have already been similarly penalized (perhaps even more severely, if there were no subsidies available from better-performing divisions); in other words, the problem in this case would have been pre-existing, not “born of diversification itself”.
Campa and Kedia must therefore be assuming that the underperforming divisions that receive subsidies from other components of the company are among the newly acquired lines of business. The answer is E.
Choices A and D are factors about which Campa and Kedia assume nothing. They assume—in fact, they explicitly state—that the problems responsible for the valuation “penalty” on diversified companies do not trace back any further than the diversification itself, but they do not go so far as to preclude any losses, including those due to normal market fluctuations (as choice A would require if assumed). Choice D, in addition to being unnecessary to Campa and Kedia’s theory, is probably false (if additional lines of business are introduced, then the presence of those extra investment options most likely does insulate investors against risk); what Campa and Kedia do assume is that the lowering of valuation by the factors they cite outweighs any gains in valuation that might result from reduced risk.
Answer: E
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 hypotheses put forward by Campa and Kedia to explain the discounted valuations of diversified companies assume that
A. the companies were not losing value in the time leading up to their acquisition of additional lines of business
B. the diversified companies attempted to raise the valuations of all of their component businesses simultaneously
C. many of the intra-corporate conflicts apparent after diversification had roots in the structure or operations of the original company
D. those companies’ diversification did not reduce their investors’ exposure to earnings volatility
E. the underperforming divisions subsidized by diversified companies’ other divisions were not the companies’ original lines of business
According to the second paragraph, Campa and Kedia blamed the shortfall in the valuations of diversified corporations on “logistical inefficiencies born of diversification itself, such as cross-subsidization ... or intra-corporate conflicts”. In other words, Campa and Kedia hypothesize that these problems newly arise in corporations that have subsumed their full current range of diversified lines of business. They assume, in other words, that the less diversified, pre-acquisition corporations were NOT valued lower than they would otherwise have been because of these same problems.
In terms of intra-corporate conflicts, therefore, Campa and Kedia are assuming that no such conflicts existed among the divisions of the original (pre-diversified) corporation to the detriment of its value back then. Choice C appears to touch on this idea, but states the opposite of what Campa and Kedia assume.
In terms of poorly performing divisions being subsidized by their high-performing counterparts, Campa and Kedia are taking for granted that those underperforming businesses are among the diverse components newly acquired by the corporation. If the underperforming units—whose underperformance is the underlying cause of the loss of valuation—were core parts of the company before diversification, then the original company’s valuation would have already been similarly penalized (perhaps even more severely, if there were no subsidies available from better-performing divisions); in other words, the problem in this case would have been pre-existing, not “born of diversification itself”.
Campa and Kedia must therefore be assuming that the underperforming divisions that receive subsidies from other components of the company are among the newly acquired lines of business. The answer is E.
Choices A and D are factors about which Campa and Kedia assume nothing. They assume—in fact, they explicitly state—that the problems responsible for the valuation “penalty” on diversified companies do not trace back any further than the diversification itself, but they do not go so far as to preclude any losses, including those due to normal market fluctuations (as choice A would require if assumed). Choice D, in addition to being unnecessary to Campa and Kedia’s theory, is probably false (if additional lines of business are introduced, then the presence of those extra investment options most likely does insulate investors against risk); what Campa and Kedia do assume is that the lowering of valuation by the factors they cite outweighs any gains in valuation that might result from reduced risk.
Answer: E
03 May 2026, 23:13
Kudos
Bookmarks
this rc passage is really messing with me. The explanation isnt helping
