Search results

This paper aims to explore the value of geographic diversification in the context of deglobalization, drawing evidence from a quasi-natural experiment – the Brexit referendum that took place on 23 June 2016 in the UK.

This study applies an event study methodology to estimate the impact of the Brexit vote on a cross-section of firms with varying levels of geographic diversification – undiversified UK firms, UK firms with significant operations in the European Union (EU) and globally diversified UK firms. This study deploys a Heckman two-stage regression approach to address sample selection bias.

This study finds that undiversified UK firms experienced negative cumulative abnormal returns (CARs) around the Brexit referendum. The value of UK firms with majority sales within the UK declined by 0.9 percentage points, on average, in the three days centred on the Brexit referendum. In contrast, UK firms that are globally diversified, with the majority of sales within the EU are unaffected, while diversified firms in the rest of the world generated positive CARs of 1.8 percentage points over the same period. These results are robust to firm characteristics, selection bias and alternative measures of CARs and diversification.

This study is subject to some limitations that open avenues for future work. There are a few available proxies of diversification and further work on developing other proxies is much needed. Further work may also examine the long-term impact of diversification on UK firms. This study considered Brexit as a quasi-natural experiment, and this study could be applied to other deglobalization events like COVID-19 and can enhance the generalizability of diversification strategy in the deglobalized world. Findings may stimulate future work to explore how another form of diversification – product diversification has affected firm returns around Brexit. Finally, this study has focused on the UK as its base case. It may be interesting to corroborate the findings by exploring the impact of Brexit on European firms, who hitherto Brexit, had some operations in the UK.

This work offers some insights for policymakers and regulators around the impact of deglobalization on local firms. Findings suggest that these trends significantly negatively impact the most vulnerable firms (smaller firms with less global reach), while their larger counterparts with significant global reach might be insulated. This finding is important for determining the nature of support needed by different firms in times of deglobalization. The work also offers insights to managers of firms operating in countries where there are real prospects of deglobalization. Specifically, the work highlights the importance of geographic diversification when free movement of goods, services and people is restricted.

This study shows that a certain group of globally diversified firms earned significantly higher returns from the prospect of the UK leaving the EU, thereby highlighting the value of geographic diversification in a time of deglobalization.

Prior studies suggest that corporate cash holding will reflect firms' corporate governance (CG) environment. Consistent with this prediction, this study aims to examine the impact of board characteristics on firms' cash holding in the UK, France and Germany.

Using 2,805 firm-year observations between 2009 and 2019, the authors examine the relationship between board characteristics and corporate cash holding. The authors used two measures of cash holdings as our dependent variables. As independent variables, the authors used CG characteristics relevant to effective board monitoring such as board meetings, outside directors, board size and board gender diversity.

The authors find that board characteristics influence firms' cash holdings of firms in the UK, France and Germany. However, this study documents evidence of varying impacts of board monitoring on the cash holding of the UK when compared to German and French firms, the countries that are classifiable as bank-based economies. The result of this study is robust to alternative cash-holding measures and endogeneity.

This study provides evidence supporting the board's impact in mitigating agency conflict in shareholder- and stakeholder-oriented CG environments.

This study contributes to previous works on firms’ financial orientation by showing that the impact of board characteristics on corporate cash holdings varies between bank- and market-based economies.

The purpose of this research project is to compare the nature and extent of voluntary intellectual capital disclosures (ICD) by UK and Australian biotechnology companies. The motivating research question was whether the nature and extent of voluntary ICD by preparers of financial report data in these countries reflected the relative maturity of the UK, compared to Australian industry.

ICD was measured in annual reports and financial statements published on the company websites. A Danish disclosure index was used to evaluate voluntary disclosures by 156 companies about customers, employees, IT, strategy, R&D and processes (78‐items scored for each company).

A significant leverage effect was demonstrated in relation to the “nature” of ICD by UK and Australian biotechnology companies. Interestingly, mean customer ICD were higher in annual reports from high‐leveraged compared to low‐leveraged Australian firms. In contrast, UK firms showed higher mean R&D ICD for low‐leveraged firms than high‐leveraged firms. With regards to the “extent” of ICD measured, the study demonstrated a significant country effect.

Potential limitations or bias may exist from the use of the disclosure index: binary scoring of disclosure versus non‐disclosure reduces the richness of data otherwise obtainable by limited case study or interviews; and data collection is limiting – narrative with managers actually preparing ICD is not possible.

Australian company financial accountants and managers preparing and/or including ICD information could be in danger of underestimating the importance of information asymmetry existing with lenders.

This finding contrasts the legitimate R&D focused ICD of low‐leveraged UK firms; namely to attract stakeholder attention to their expanding intellectual property base, with the findings from Australian firms' with a relatively predictable and naïve customer focus.

Several papers have investigated the use of foreign exchange (FX) derivatives but evidence on the use of international cash management meth ods to hedge FX is scarce. This paper contributes to the existing evidence by considering the use of international cash management systems to hedge foreign exchange (FX) risks using a sample of French and UK companies. We find that matching, netting and pricing policies are the most commonly used techniques in both the UK and French samples al though there is evidence of greater use of all cash management techniques in the UK. We also consider whether the theoretical explanations of hedging determine the use of cash management techniques for FX hedging, and if there are differences between the UK and French samples. We find support for the theoretical prediction that FX hedgers have higher levels of financial distress, and that these firms tend to be larger, more international and less liquid. We find little support for the under investment theory. The extent of internationalisation appears to play no role in the decision of French firms to use cash management techniques to manage FX risk, and the use of all cash management techniques were lower than in UK firms. These latter findings may be explained by the reduction in FX risk facing French firms following the introduction of the euro.

While recently introduced EU regulation on the statutory audit of public interest entities (PIEs) aims to improve audit competition and quality, its success and impact depends on the definition of a PIE applied across the various EU Member States. In the UK, even though little is known about their auditing choices, these changes will not apply to most private companies despite their importance to the wider economy. The purpose of this paper is to provide an in-depth analysis of the private company audit market and examine the lobbying behaviour of the accounting profession around the definition of a PIE in the UK.

Using a large panel of independent private company audits in the UK and a textual analysis of submitted comment letters to a government consultation on the new regulation, this paper presents a comprehensive analysis of the audit market for private companies by measuring supplier concentration using four different measures of market share, and of the lobbying behaviour of the accounting profession.

There are two main findings. First, the private company audit market is characterised by low auditor switching rates along with a tight oligopoly of the largest independent private company audits maintained by the Big Four audit firms. Second, the lobbying behaviour of accounting and audit firms sought, and succeeded, to limit the scope of the definition of a PIE in the UK, consistent with the theoretical predictions of monopoly capitalism and the theory of professions.

The paper shows that the definition and scope of a PIE needs revisiting both within the UK and across all EU Member States, with a view to including more of these economically important private companies and highlights the policy challenge of increasing competition and choice in a concentrated audit market.

The study investigates how firm-level governance (FL_G) affects the disclosure of voluntary risk information. Likewise, it explores the influence of FL_G on the informativeness of voluntary risk disclosure (VRD). Specifically, it examines how FL_G shapes the nexus between VRD and firm value.

It uses a sample of non-financial firms from the FTSE350 index listed on the London Stock Exchange between 2010 and 2018. The authors utilise an automated textual analysis technique to code the VRD in the annual reports of these firms. The firm value, adjusted for the industry median, is a proxy for investor response to VRD.

The results suggest that UK firms with significant board independence and larger audit committees disclose more risk information voluntarily. Nevertheless, firms with larger boards of directors and higher managerial ownership disseminate less voluntary risk information. Besides, VRD contains relevant information that enhances investors' valuation of UK firms. These results are more pronounced in firms with higher independent directors, lower managerial ownership and large audit committees.

The study rationalises the ongoing debate on the effect of FL_G on VRD. The findings are helpful to UK policy-setters in reconsidering the guidelines that regulate UK VRD and to the UK investors in considering risk disclosure in their price decisions and thus enhancing their corporate valuations.

It contributes to the risk reporting literature in the UK by presenting the first evidence on the effect of a comprehensive set of FL_G on VRD. Besides, it enriches the existing research by shedding light on the role of FL_G on the informativeness of discretionary risk information in the UK.

With boards of directors playing both monitoring and guidance roles, the purpose of this paper is to examine the impact of board structure on firm value in large US and UK firms using the lenses of agency and resource dependence theories.

Using a sample of firms in the USA and the UK from 2000 to 2007, the paper conducts a panel data analysis of the impact of board structure on firm value and examine the nuances of different governance environments.

The paper finds distinct differences in the impact of board independence, board size, and outside director busyness on firm value between UK and US firms. Specifically, the paper finds that board independence, board size, and board busyness all have a significant positive impact on firm value in the UK. However, the paper finds no significant relationship between board independence and firm value among US firms. Both board size and board busyness are found to be positively associated with firm value in the USA.

The paper finds strong support for resource dependence theory in the UK but limited support for agency theory in the USA.

This paper takes a multi-country approach to examining the impact of board structure on firm value.

The purpose of this study is to investigate the level of compliance with, and disclosure of, good corporate governance (CG) practices among UK publicly listed firms and consequently ascertain whether board characteristics and ownership structure variables can explain observable differences in the extent of voluntary CG compliance and disclosure practices.

This study uses one of the largest data sets to-date on compliance and disclosure of CG practices from 2008 to 2013 containing 120 CG provisions drawn from the 2010 UK Combined Code relating to 100 UK listed firms to conduct multiple regression analyses of the determinants of voluntary CG disclosures. A number of additional estimations, including two stage least squares, fixed-effects and lagged structures, are conducted to address the potential endogeneity issue and test the robustness of the findings.

The results suggest that there is a substantial variation in the levels of compliance with, and disclosure of, good CG practices among the sampled UK firms. The authors also find that firms with larger board size, more independent outside directors and greater director diversity tend to disclose more CG information voluntarily, whereas the level of voluntary CG compliance and disclosure is insignificantly related to the existence of a separate CG committee and institutional ownership. Additionally, the results indicate that block ownership and managerial ownership negatively affect voluntary CG compliance and disclosure practices. The findings are fairly robust across a number of econometric models that sufficiently address various endogeneity problems and alternative CG indices. Overall, the findings are generally consistent with the predictions of neo-institutional theory.

This study extends, as well as contributes to, the extant CG literature by offering new evidence on compliance with, and disclosure of, good CG recommendations contained in the 2010 UK Combined Code following the 2007/2008 global financial crisis. This study also advances the existing literature by offering new insights from a neo-institutional theoretical perspective of the impact of board and ownership mechanisms on voluntary CG compliance and disclosure practices.

The aim of this paper is to consider the short‐run performance of UK firms acquiring foreign target firms over a period of 1994‐2003 and to explore the impact of deal size and other firm‐specific factors on performance. Cross‐border mergers and acquisitions have witnessed a substantial growth worldwide, with the UK being one of the top acquiring nations in the global market for corporate control.

The paper first uses event study methodology to analyse short‐run share price performance. Then a univariate analysis to examine the factors influencing the short‐run performance based on a sample of 373 acquisitions over the period of 1994 to 2003.

The study finds that the UK acquirers do not earn statistically significant positive abnormal returns in the short‐run. Univariate analysis shows that short‐run performance of UK acquirers is influenced by the form of target, acquisition strategy, geographical origin of target firm and the payment methods. However, the study finds no support for size of acquisition deal as a determinant of performance of acquiring firm.

The paper attempts to shed more light and extend existing research in cross‐border mergers and acquisitions by examining short‐run performance and factors influencing performance.

This paper aims to investigate the impact of corporate governance on financial reporting quality (FRQ) in Pakistan and the UK.

In this paper, three accrual-based models are used to analyse FRQ for a sample of 1,550 firm-year observations, including 78 Pakistani firms and 77 UK firms, for the period 2009–2018.

The analysis shows that board size has a negative impact on FRQ while foreign ownership has a positive impact for Pakistani and UK firms. It also shows that board independence has a positive impact on FRQ of Pakistani firms, while board meetings frequency and audit committee independence have a negative impact. We make no such observation for UK firms. In addition, the analysis shows that board gender diversity and ownership concentration negatively affect FRQ of UK firms. This study makes no such observation for Pakistani firms.

Due to the study’s focus on Pakistani and UK firms, the findings may not be generalizable to other developed and emerging economies.

The findings provide valuable insight to policymakers, regulators and investors by suggesting that the impact of board composition on FRQ of both Pakistani and UK firms is weak. The findings suggest that board size and foreign ownership are the attributes that require regulatory focus to increase FRQ. The negative impact of audit committee independence on FRQ induces rethinking among the policymakers in Pakistan and calls for fully independent audit committees.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first research endeavour to compare the context of a developed and an emerging economy regarding the impact of corporate governance on FRQ. It also contributes to the governance literature by using three measures of FRQ and a comprehensive set of corporate governance attributes.