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 1212:00 PM EDT
-11:59 PM EDT
Make the most of your break with the most realistic GMAT™ prep. Take up to $700 off select products.
May 1207:30 AM PDT
-08:30 AM PDT
Join the Live and learn more about Picking the Right Schools- May 13
08:30 AM PDT
-09:30 AM PDT
In Episode 4 of our GMAT Ninja CR series, we tackle the most intimidating CR question type: Boldface & "Legalese" questions. If you've ever stared at an answer choice that reads, "The first is a consideration introduced to counter a position that... - May 14
08:30 AM PDT
-09:30 AM PDT
Most GMAT test-takers are intimidated by the hardest GMAT Verbal questions. In this session, Target Test Prep GMAT instructor Erika Tyler-John, a 100th percentile GMAT scorer, will show you how top scorers break down challenging Verbal questions.. - Jun 10
06:00 AM PDT
-06:15 PM PDT
Register for the GMAT Club Virtual MBA Spotlight Fair – the world’s premier event for serious MBA candidates. This is your chance to hear directly from Admissions Directors at nearly every Top 30 MBA program..
31 Mar 2026, 22:00
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.
It can be inferred that Villalonga et al object to the use of the term “diversification discount” primarily because
A. a company’s acquisition of additional lines of business may not, in fact, decrease the overall degree of risk faced by its investors.
B. it wrongly implies that diversified corporations tend to be undervalued by the market.
C. that name suggests a causal relationship that does not hold in most instances of the phenomenon being named.
D. the named phenomenon does not obtain for all corporations that diversify their business.
E. the term Implies the existence of a significant correlation between two variables that are in fact largely independent.
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.
It can be inferred that Villalonga et al object to the use of the term “diversification discount” primarily because
A. a company’s acquisition of additional lines of business may not, in fact, decrease the overall degree of risk faced by its investors.
B. it wrongly implies that diversified corporations tend to be undervalued by the market.
C. that name suggests a causal relationship that does not hold in most instances of the phenomenon being named.
D. the named phenomenon does not obtain for all corporations that diversify their business.
E. the term Implies the existence of a significant correlation between two variables that are in fact largely independent.
31 Mar 2026, 22:00
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.
It can be inferred that Villalonga et al object to the use of the term “diversification discount” primarily because
A. a company’s acquisition of additional lines of business may not, in fact, decrease the overall degree of risk faced by its investors.
B. it wrongly implies that diversified corporations tend to be undervalued by the market.
C. that name suggests a causal relationship that does not hold in most instances of the phenomenon being named.
D. the named phenomenon does not obtain for all corporations that diversify their business.
E. the term Implies the existence of a significant correlation between two variables that are in fact largely independent.
“Villalonga et al argue against the use of the term ‘diversification discount’ “ is the main clause of the sentence describing the work of Villalonga et al (at the end of the passage), so their objection to that term must lie at the heart of their main conclusion/thesis. We can therefore answer this question by understanding the main point that Villalonga et al made, and then specifically honing in on why that point makes the term “diversification discount” fundamentally a misnomer (or otherwise inappropriate as presently used).
Villalonga et al’s main point is that most companies that underwent diversification (= acquisition of additional lines of business) already had depressed valuations before they diversified. In other words, while there may be a significant correlation between corporate diversification and depressed valuation, in most cases the diversification itself cannot possibly have caused the companies’ valuations to go down, because the depressed valuation came first.
This reversed causation is the only possible basis for Villalonga et al‘s objection to the term “diversification discount”. According to Villalonga et al, that name implies that “diversification” is the cause and “discount” the effect, a relationship that does not, in fact, obtain for most of the companies that they studied. This is choice C.
Choice A is incorrect because the “discount” in this case is a relative decrement in corporate valuation, not a reduction in investors’ risk exposure.
By pointing out the pre-existing inefficiencies that often motivate companies to diversify, Villalonga et al show that those companies should be valued below the sum of the average market values of their parts, and therefore that those companies are properly valued, not undervalued as choice B says, at a “discount”.
Choice D is unfounded because the term “diversification discount” only applies to those diversified corporations whose valuations are, in fact, discounted from the theoretical sum of their parts. (The same is true across other names of this type. For instance, the term “midlife crisis” only describes the mental health of individuals who experience personal crises in middle age; the use of this term in no way implies that all middle-aged persons experience such crises.)
Finally, choice E is just factually incorrect, because there IS a significant correlation between diversification and depressed market valuation among the companies examined by Villalonga et al; it’s the direction of cause and effect that Villalonga et al are saying is mischaracterized by the term.
Answer: C
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.
It can be inferred that Villalonga et al object to the use of the term “diversification discount” primarily because
A. a company’s acquisition of additional lines of business may not, in fact, decrease the overall degree of risk faced by its investors.
B. it wrongly implies that diversified corporations tend to be undervalued by the market.
C. that name suggests a causal relationship that does not hold in most instances of the phenomenon being named.
D. the named phenomenon does not obtain for all corporations that diversify their business.
E. the term Implies the existence of a significant correlation between two variables that are in fact largely independent.
“Villalonga et al argue against the use of the term ‘diversification discount’ “ is the main clause of the sentence describing the work of Villalonga et al (at the end of the passage), so their objection to that term must lie at the heart of their main conclusion/thesis. We can therefore answer this question by understanding the main point that Villalonga et al made, and then specifically honing in on why that point makes the term “diversification discount” fundamentally a misnomer (or otherwise inappropriate as presently used).
Villalonga et al’s main point is that most companies that underwent diversification (= acquisition of additional lines of business) already had depressed valuations before they diversified. In other words, while there may be a significant correlation between corporate diversification and depressed valuation, in most cases the diversification itself cannot possibly have caused the companies’ valuations to go down, because the depressed valuation came first.
This reversed causation is the only possible basis for Villalonga et al‘s objection to the term “diversification discount”. According to Villalonga et al, that name implies that “diversification” is the cause and “discount” the effect, a relationship that does not, in fact, obtain for most of the companies that they studied. This is choice C.
Choice A is incorrect because the “discount” in this case is a relative decrement in corporate valuation, not a reduction in investors’ risk exposure.
By pointing out the pre-existing inefficiencies that often motivate companies to diversify, Villalonga et al show that those companies should be valued below the sum of the average market values of their parts, and therefore that those companies are properly valued, not undervalued as choice B says, at a “discount”.
Choice D is unfounded because the term “diversification discount” only applies to those diversified corporations whose valuations are, in fact, discounted from the theoretical sum of their parts. (The same is true across other names of this type. For instance, the term “midlife crisis” only describes the mental health of individuals who experience personal crises in middle age; the use of this term in no way implies that all middle-aged persons experience such crises.)
Finally, choice E is just factually incorrect, because there IS a significant correlation between diversification and depressed market valuation among the companies examined by Villalonga et al; it’s the direction of cause and effect that Villalonga et al are saying is mischaracterized by the term.
Answer: C
