Search results

Purpose – Study the firm-level and country-level determinants of US institutional investors' holdings in American Depositary Receipts (ADRs) from emerging markets.

Methodology/approach – We use a sample of 112 firms from emerging markets that listed as ADRs between 1990 and 2005. Rather than adopting the issuer's perspective, we take in this study the point of view of the investor and we focus on the US institutional investors' participation in ADR firms.

Findings – We find that institutional investors hold higher stakes in foreign firms that are listed on more restrictive exchanges, in large, privatized, more liquid, and more transparent firms. Mutual investors and other institutional investors also prefer firms from countries with weaker institutional environments and from civil law legal tradition. Controlling for country-level determinants increases significantly the explanatory power of the model.

Social implications – Our results have important implications for firms from emerging markets seeking to attract foreign institutional investors.

Originality/value of the chapter – We focus on the motivations of investors when they choose to invest in the ADR, rather than on the ADR issuer motivation. In addition, we consider all types of institutional investors that acquire a participation in an ADR firm.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the effect of cross-listing on the size and structure of director compensation at individual director level. While much of the prior literature has focused on executive compensation, more recent literature has started to examine director compensation. Additionally, there has been extensive literature examining the impact of cross-listing on the corporate governance and equity valuation of listed firms. The literature, however, has largely ignored the effect of cross-listing on director compensation schemes. This study attempts to combine these two literature streams and examine the effect of cross-listing on director compensation.

This study uses American Depository Receipts (ADRs) and matched non-ADRs from the same country and industry to test the relationship between cross-listing and director compensation. Regressions with country, year and industry fixed-effects are employed. The relationship is further examined using only ADR firms during pre-listing and post-listing periods.

This study finds that directors of ADR firms receive higher total compensation and greater percentage equity-based compensation relative to directors of non-ADR firms. This study also finds that such differences in director compensation are dependent on the cross-listing program a firm is registered to. Directors of ADR firms also receive higher total compensation and greater percentage equity-based compensation during post-listing periods relative to their own compensation during pre-listing periods.

This study extends the literature on director compensation in a global setting, and is the first to examine an unanswered question regarding the effect of cross-listing on director compensation. This study provides important information that cross-listing affects the size and structure of director compensation between ADR and non-ADR firms, as well as between pre-listing and post-listing periods for ADR firms themselves.

Cross-listed firms may face unique incentives for establishing dividend policies in comparison to US firms. This study aims to test the implications of the lifecycle and signaling theories of dividend policy in the context of non-US firms cross-listed on US stock exchanges via American depository receipts (ADRs).

ADRs are classified according to the firms' dividend paying histories as regular payers, non-payers, former payers, new payers and switchers. Multinomial logit regressions measure the likelihood of dividend payers to pay dividends, as well as the possibility of a dividend amount increase, decrease, or no change, based upon previously identified determinants of dividend payments and a measure of economic conditions in the home country.

The results indicate that firm size, growth opportunities, and the mix of earned and contributed capital partially explain observed dividend policies for ADR firms. Multinomial logit regressions reveal profitability and home-country macro-economic conditions significantly affect ADR firms' decisions to change their dividend policies.

The findings suggest macro-economic conditions affect dividend payment changes among ADR firms. The results also imply that the lifecycle and catering theories may help explain dividend changes among ADR firms.

Consistent with an “absolute bonding hypothesis,” the benefits of listing on US exchanges experienced by cross-listed firms are accompanied by an increased risk of experiencing a spillover effect due to negative news within their industry. The purpose of this study is to test this form of the bonding hypothesis by analyzing the spillover effect to cross-listed firms when class action lawsuits are filed against their industry peers.

The bonding hypothesis is tested by analyzing the spillover effect to non-sued cross-listed firms of class action lawsuits brought against US domestic firms in the same industry. The spillover effect is identified using cumulative abnormal returns around lawsuit filing dates from 1996 to 2020. A sample of matched non-sued cross-listed and domestic peer firms is evaluated in a cross-sectional analysis to identify country and firm-level characteristics that mitigate the negative spillover effect to cross-listed firms.

While US firms realize significantly negative abnormal returns when class action suits are filed against their industry peers, the impact to cross-listed peers is statistically insignificant. In multivariate analyses, we show that the ability of cross-listed firms to avoid this negative spillover effect is stronger for firms with greater profitability that are headquartered in countries with better shareholder protections and governance characteristics.

Results suggest that cross-listed firms may have a level of immunization from the negative industry spillover effect of class action lawsuits and, thus, exhibit only “partial bonding” to the US market.

The authors investigate how market quality diverges between foreign firms and domestic firms on the US stock market in response to the Russia–Ukraine conflict.

With an event study approach, the authors compare foreign firms with domestic firms in their market responses over the three-day window around the outbreak of the war. Further, with Difference-in-Difference (DID) analyses, the authors study the change in foreign firms' market quality upon this outbreak in comparison with their domestic counterparts. Finally, the authors compare the foreign firms across firm specific characteristics and home country characteristics.

The authors find that foreign stocks listed in the US experience more severe market quality deterioration compared to the stocks' domestic counterparts. This effect is especially strong for companies from countries considered friendlier towards Russia and companies that are not cross-listed. The authors' findings are consistent with the information asymmetry hypothesis concerning market quality. Moreover, US market investors have more concerns over political risks with non-US-aligned political standings during war times.

The authors' findings are consistent with the information asymmetry hypothesis concerning market quality. Moreover, US market investors have more concerns over political risks over non-US-aligned political standings during war time.

Since both countries in the conflict are in Europe, the US stock market, to a certain degree, becomes a safe haven for capital from Europe and other countries. In the meantime, American Depository Receipts (ADRs) have been important for US investors to create a globally diversified portfolio, and the knowledge regarding ADRs' vulnerability to international geopolitical events is valuable. The author' results are informative for stock market investors to understand the market dynamics for international and domestic companies during this extremely uncertain time.

This is the first study that examines the market quality divergence between foreign firms and domestic firms on the US stock market in response to the Russia–Ukraine conflict. The authors provide novel evidence on the change in ADRs' market quality associated with significant political uncertainty. The authors show that ADRs' market quality is more vulnerable to international geopolitical risks relative to otherwise comparable domestic firms.

This study uses a simultaneous equations approach to examine the price‐earnings relationship of non‐U.S. firms that directly list their securities in U.S. capital markets or trade as American Depository Receipts (ADRs). The Hausman test shows that price changes and earnings changes are endogenously determined, thus the simultaneous equations approach is used to estimate the earnings response coefficient (ERC) and the returns response coefficient (RRC). Under the ordinary least squares (OLS) estimation, the parameter estimates are biased downward because the OLS fails to correct for endogeneity. In general, our results show that the joint estimation procedure mitigates some of the single‐equation bias. The estimated ERC and the RRC are higher under the three stage least regression (3SLS) than under the OLS regression. In addition, the product of the ERC and the RRC coefficients approaches its theoretical value of one when using the 3SLS estimation. The evidence also shows that institutional factors affect the way the market value information for these firms. We find that the ERC and RRC are insignificant for the common law non‐ADR firms and significantly positive for common law ADR firms.

The purpose of this paper is to determine what types of short-term wealth effects accrued to European and Latin American American Depository Receipt (ADR) investors and whether these were affected by the type of issue (initial public offerings (IPO) vs seasoned equity offerings (SEO)) or the date of issue (1990s vs 2000s).

Standard ADR and IPO excess return methodology is utilized to compute and test excess returns against a US investment benchmark. This methodology is used in many ADR and IPO studies.

European SEOs listed in the 2000s did better than those listed in the 1990s. The results for European IPOs were the opposite. Latin American SEOs did better relative to the US market index for issues listed in the 1990s as compared to those listed in the 2000s. Once again the results for Latin American IPOs were the opposite.

This study differs from previous studies by emphasizing differences in short-term return behaviour for Latin American and European ADRs listed during a decade of US market stability (the 1990s) vs those listed in the 2000s when the US stock market encountered times of extreme return volatility. These timing differences affect not only the returns of all the ADRs but also show how ADR IPOs and SEOs tend to have opposite return behaviour based on timing. These return differences are important because the major benefits of portfolio diversification are achieved when asset returns are less correlated with each other.

We examine how different neutral sources and third-party neutral qualification differences relate to mediation and arbitration usage at large US firms. Neutral sourcing is controversial, particularly in employment arbitration, where many have expressed concern that unregulated sourcing arrangements may bias outcomes in favor of employers. We use agency and structure theories to hypothesize that firms will be less likely to use mediation when the neutral is sourced as a result of court-annexed mediation, but that firms may be more likely to use arbitration when the neutral is sourced from a private third-party provider. Utilizing human capital theory, we also hypothesize that organizations will use both mediation and arbitration more frequently when neutrals are perceived to be more highly qualified. Empirically, we rely on data gathered from a survey of US Fortune 1000 corporations to test these hypotheses and find support for each of them. Our results suggest that, while firms uniformly value professionalization in their neutrals, employers may impose structures on themselves in high-stakes circumstances like arbitration to ensure standardized and consistent processes, but prefer agency in lower-stakes circumstances like mediation.

The purpose of this paper is to examine how Korean firm American Depository Receipts (ADRs) performed vs a US index and an Asia Pacific regional index. ADRs have been known to help cause-emerging economies become more developed and foreign exchange markets become more stable.

The study utilizes standard ADR/IPO excess return methodology and presents returns on a month-by-month and cumulative basis for a three-year holding period beginning with the day of listing. Excess holding period returns are also provided.

The Korean firm ADRs trading on the NASDAQ underperformed both the US index and the regional Asia Pacific index for the first three years of trading. However, the Korean ADRs listed on the NYSE outperformed both the US index and the Asia Pacific index for the three-year holding period.

This paper shows how including equities of Korean firms traded in US markets in a stock portfolio helps to provide international diversification benefits. Solid performance vs market indexes may make subsequent and new issues from Korea more attractive in US equity markets.

American depository receipts (ADRs) listed on the New York Stock Exchange during the 1990s and 2000s are compared to determine how well they performed versus the US index and respective regional indexes utilizing three-year holding period excess returns. Results suggest that ADRs listed in the 2000s perform better than those in the 1990s. Also, seasoned equity offerings performed better than initial public offerings. Regression analysis indicated the best predictors of ADR performance are the returns of the respective regional index where the ADR-listing firm is headquartered, the date of issue (2000s vs 1990s), and whether the ADR was from an emerging economy.