Search results

The effectiveness of corporate governance is a major factor in forecasting firm performance. We examine the relationships among cross-listing, corporate governance and firm performance for a sample of Chinese cross-listed companies. We show that cross-listed firms display higher overall quality of corporate governance compared to non-cross-listed firms. Consequently better corporate governance results in higher operating performance. Our results support the bonding hypothesis of cross-listing. Furthermore, we also illustrate that the cross-listing status encapsulates the higher quality of corporate governance that leads to higher operating performance. When forecasting performance of cross-listing companies, it is therefore important to recognize the substitute effect between cross-listing and corporate governance.

We examine what changes, if any, firms are making to their capital structure around the time they cross-list because both of these affect a firm’s corporate governance. Cross-listing requires firms to follow SEC rules and regulations, which helps improve the firm governance. A firm’s capital structure, specifically the use of debt, is an effective way to mitigate the conflict between managers and shareholders by reducing the cash available to managers. We examine whether these governance mechanisms are complimentary or being used as substitutes by cross-listing firms.

We compare the capital structures of Level II and Level III cross-listing firms from both civil law and common law countries in the three years before and the three years after cross-listing.

We show firms are significantly reducing their debt to equity ratio after the cross-listing. This reduction is shown for both Level II and Level III firms; however, it is primarily seen in civil law countries.

The corporate governance improvement firms recognize by cross-listing is partially offset by the reduced use of debt after the cross-listing. These governance characteristics may be especially relevant for shareholders in Level III cross-listings because those firms are actually raising addition cash.

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.

In this chapter we analyze the role of financial factors in the undertaking of cross-border acquisitions. We discuss financial firm-specific advantages as drivers of these acquisitions as well as the role of the development of the home financial market in exploiting these advantages. Based on a sample of 1,447 European firms' cross-border acquisitions amounting to a total of 566 acquisitions spanning from 0 to 18 for individual firms, we find strong evidence in favor of a cost-of-equity effect on the occurrence of FDI, whereas the stand-alone effect of debt costs is indeterminate. However, allowing firm-specific financial characteristics to be conditioned by home-country financial development, both equity costs and debt costs are found highly significant explanatory factors for cross-border acquisitions undertaken by the sample firms.

Extant research posits that host country investors value geographical proximity and familiarity. American investors are likely to be more familiar with business, legal and economic conditions of Latin America compared to distant emerging market countries. Furthermore, the trading time of Latin American stock markets overlap significantly with that of U.S. markets. Therefore, we expect Latin American ADRs to enjoy better liquidity than ADRs from other emerging markets. Consistent with our expectations, we find weak evidence that ADRs from Latin America have lower effective spreads and adverse selection component of spreads compared to ADRs from other emerging markets.

We examine how the degree of regional financial integration in African stock markets has evolved over the last eleven years. Despite increasing regional economic cooperation, the process of stock market integration has been slow. To facilitate growth via developed financial markets but keep financial stability risk at a minimum, further regional integration should be promoted, and mild capital controls on non-African investors may be necessary. A Diebold-Yilmaz spillover analysis is applied to ten African stock markets for the period between August 2004 and January 2015. We examine spillovers among four regions and among individual countries. Regional integration, as measured by total spillovers in Africa, is increasing but remains very low. These spillovers were temporarily heightened during the global financial crisis. Cross-regional spillovers are high between Northern and Southern Africa. Asymmetric capital controls on African and non-African investors must be considered to foster further regional integration and to mitigate financial stability risk. This is one of the few studies to address the construction of the future architecture of regionally integrated stock markets in emerging countries.

Rapid stock market growth without real economic back-up has led to the 2015 Chinese Stock Market Crash with thousands of stocks hitting the down limit simultaneously multiple times. The authors provide a detailed analysis of structural breaks in heavy-tailedness and asymmetry properties of returns in Chinese A-share markets due to the crash using recently proposed robust approaches to tail index inference. The empirical analysis points out to heavy-tailedness properties often implying possibly infinite second moments and also focuses on gain/loss asymmetry in the tails of daily returns on individual stocks. The authors further present an analysis of the main determinants of heavy-tailedness in Chinese financial markets. It points out to liquidity and company size as being the most important factors affecting the returns’ heavy-tailedness properties. At the same time, the authors do not observe statistically significant differences in tail indices of the returns on A-shares and the coefficients on factors affecting them in the pre-crisis and post-crisis periods.

Research in the field of corporate social responsibility (CSR) has grown exponentially in the last few decades. Nevertheless, significant debate remains about the relationship between CSR performance and corporate financial performance (CFP). This is particularly true for the case of Chinese state-owned enterprises (SOEs). The purpose of the current study is to empirically test the relationship between CSR and CFP. We use data for 66 Chinese SOEs listed on the Shanghai and Shenzhen stock exchanges. The results are interesting in that they are not consistent with similar studies using US and other Western market data. We find a significant negative relationship between CSR performance and CFP. The results are discussed in light of the preferential government treatment afforded to Chinese SOEs, and social welfare requirements imposed on such entities. Implications for Chinese policy-makers are discussed.

This paper reviews the theory and evidence on the effects of globalization of financial transactions on businesses. Two important benefits are identified. First, globalization reduces a company’s cost of capital. Second, globalization improves corporate governance so that manager actions are better aligned with shareholder interests. This improvement in corporate governance further contributes to a reduction in a firm’s cost of capital.

Liability of foreignness (LOF) has been one of the central constructs in the field of international business and management. Over the past two decades, a significant body of theoretical and empirical research has accumulated, theorizing on the sources of these LOFs, investigating their magnitude, and prescribing approaches to mitigate these disadvantages. However, much of this research is almost exclusively related to firms expanding their products, services, and operations to other countries as part of their global expansion. The difficulties firms face in foreign product markets is just one dimension of the costs they can face in their attempts to secure resources abroad.

We expand the domain of the LOF construct to include liabilities faced by firms accessing foreign capital markets in light of the increasing integration of capital markets. We identify four sources of LOF in capital markets: regulatory costs, information costs, unfamiliarity costs, and costs arising out of cultural differences. Based on an extensive review of “home bias” in equity markets, we propose four strategies to erase the legitimacy deficits that firms encounter in foreign capital markets: bonding, signaling, adoption of business practices isomorphic with the host country, and certifications and endorsements by third parties. We also offer suggestions for operationalizing and measuring LOF in capital markets as well as several directions for advancing further research on LOF in the context of capital markets.