Search results

This study aims to examine the impact of home–host country distance on the cross-border mergers and acquisitions performance.

The results of this study are based on a final sample of 483 completed cross-border deals involving BRICS nation acquirers and targets spread across a set of 27 nations. While controlling for prior experience, among other factors, the impact of nine institutional distance dimensions on deal performance is examined. Cumulative abnormal returns calculated over the select event windows are used as a measure of deal performance.

The results of this study validate the explanatory power of cross-country distance and exhibit that financial and cultural distance exert a negative influence on deal performance, whereas political and global connectedness distance positively impacts performance. Interestingly, geographic distance is not found to be related to performance outcomes.

The results of this study caution against possible aggregation of the cross-country distance measure and point towards the need to acknowledge and analyse the multi-dimensional nature of distance.

The results of this study are expected to aid managers in devising internationalisation strategies and target selection, maximising their performance and shareholder wealth.

This study contributes to the knowledge of internationalisation and cross-country distance. It presents as one of the first to investigate the impact of institutional distance on deal performance using a substantially large multi-country emerging market data set.

Prior studies find that US firms with managerial incentives may manipulate the earnings gap to obscure higher performing segments to competitors or to hide underperforming segments from external monitors. The purpose of this study is to complement extant research by examining the association between managerial incentives and segment earnings reporting of cross-listed firms in the USA and the impact of country-level characteristics on this association.

The dependent variable is the earnings gap between firm-level earnings and sum of segment-level earnings. Managerial incentives are proxied by proprietary cost and agency cost. Proprietary cost is measured by the Herfindahl index. Agency cost is measured by inefficient resource transfer activities across segments. Foreign firms in this study are companies listed on major US Stock Exchanges with headquarters outside the USA. Comparable US firms are selected using the Propensity Score Matching procedure as a control group.

The authors find that 1) proprietary cost motive is not the determinant of earnings gap reporting for cross-listed firms; 2) cross-listed firms motivated by agency costs are more likely to manipulate segment earnings reporting than US firms; and 3) among cross-listed firms motivated by agency costs, firms in weak rule of law countries demonstrate more manipulation in segment earnings than firms in strong rule of law countries.

Extant research with regard to segment reporting exclusively focuses on US firms, and little is known about the practice of segment reporting by cross-listed firms originating from different legal regimes. This study fills the gap in the literature by comparing cross-listed firms to US firms in the reporting of segment earnings. The results of this study have implications for regulators and investors who are interested in evaluating the extent of cross-listed firms’ financial reporting quality.

The purpose of this paper is to focus on the case where – by design – one needs to impute cross-country cross-survey (CCCS) data (situation typical for example among multinational firms who are confronted with the need to carry out comparative marketing surveys with respondents located in several countries). Importantly, while some work demonstrates approaches for single-item direct measures, no prior research has examined the common situation in international marketing where the researcher needs to use multi-item scales of latent constructs. The paper presents problem areas related to the choices international marketers have to make when doing cross-country/cross-survey research and provides guidance for future research.

Multi-country sample of real data is used as an example of cross-sample imputation (292 New Zealand exporters and 302 Finnish ones) the international entrepreneurial orientation (IEO) data. Three variations of the input data are tested: first, imputation based on all the data available for the measurement model; second, imputation based on the set of items based on the invariance structure of the joint items shared across the two groups; and third, imputation based both on examination of the invariance structures of the joint items and the performance of the measurement model in the group where the full data was originally available.

Based on distribution comparisons imputation for New Zealand after completing the measurement model with Finnish data (Model C) gave the most promising results. Consequently, using knowledge on between country measurement qualities may improve the imputation results, but this benefit comes with a downside since it simultaneously reduces the amount of data used for imputation. None of the imputation models leads to the same statistical inferences about covariances between latent constructs than as the original full data, however.

Considering multiple imputation, the present exploratory study suggests that there are several concerns and issues that should be taken into account when planning CCCSs (or split questionnaire or sub-sampling designs). Even if there are several advantages available for well-implemented CCCS designs such as shorter questionnaires and improved response rates, these concerns lead us to question the appropriateness of the CCCS approach in general, due to the need to impute across the samples.

The combination of cross-country and cross-survey approaches is novel to international marketing, and it is not known how the different procedures utilized in imputation affect the results and their validity and reliability. The authors demonstrate the consequences of the various imputation strategy choices taken by using a real example of a two-country sample. The exploration may have significant implications to international marketing researchers and the paper offers stimulus for further research in the area.

The purpose of this paper is to examine two channels through which accounting standard differences could affect cross-listing: compliance costs and/or comparability benefits.

The authors use two settings to disentangle the two channels. First, financial reporting requirements are more stringent for cross-listings via direct listings than cross-listings via depositary receipts; as a result, the effect of compliance costs (if any) would be manifested differently in the two venues of cross-listings. Second, some host countries allow foreign firms to report under International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) without mandating IFRS for domestic firms; compared to host countries that mandate IFRS for both domestic and foreign firms, these IFRS-permitting countries provide a setting to test the importance of comparability benefits while holding constant compliance costs.

The authors find that prior to IFRS adoption, direct listings decrease with accounting standards differences between two countries while depositary receipts increase with such differences, consistent with the costs of complying with host country’s accounting standards affecting firms’ cross-listing decisions. After the harmonization of accounting standards, the authors find that IFRS-mandating host countries gain cross-listings from other IFRS-mandating jurisdictions, while IFRS-permitting countries do not experience such gains. These combined results suggest that accounting related compliance costs and comparability benefits both influence cross-listing decisions.

The paper employs unique settings that enable an in-depth examination of the role of compliance costs vs that of comparability benefits on cross-listing decisions. The settings employed by the authors allow them to disentangle the two channels and provide an important insight that accounting standard-related compliance costs and comparability benefits both affect cross-listing decisions.

This paper aims to investigate the association between country-level sustainability scores and cross-border bank-to-non-bank flows within countries.

The authors analyze cross-border banking flows into the real sector firms of 26 developed countries from 2006 to 2017. The authors use a dynamic panel ordinary least square along with an instrumental variable and a generalized method of moments regressions to test the relationship between country-level sustainability scores and cross-border banking flows. Additionally, the authors apply Fama-MacBeth cross-sectional regression and non-parametric portfolio tests to obtain robust results.

The impact of country-level sustainability scores on cross-border banking flows is positive and significant. This finding is consistent with the signaling theory, which states that a country’s sustainability score is a signal to attract more international fund flows. Notably, the authors deduce that environmental sustainability is more important than the social and governance pillars.

The findings indicate that the real sector firms located in countries having higher sustainability scores can receive more international bank flows. Consequently, policymakers should focus more on country-level sustainability investments to improve the financing of resident firms.

Policymakers should focus more on country-level sustainability investments to improve the financing of resident firms.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, no existing study has investigated the signaling function of country-level sustainability scores in the cross-border banking flow conjecture. By investigating this relationship for real sector firms, this study portrays how the non-banking sector can benefit from such a policy that promotes sustainable practices at the country level.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the influence of bilateral political relations on the completion stage premium of cross-border mergers and acquisitions(CSPCMA) and the moderating roles of cultural distance, trade openness and the nature of firm ownership for this relationship.

Based on a sample of 401 cross-border mergers and acquisitions (M&A) conducted by Chinese companies from 1995 to 2019 in the Statistical Data Center (SDC), this article used weighted least squares (WLS) to empirically test the impact of bilateral political relations between countries on the CSPCMA.

The better the target country of entry’s bilateral political relations with China, the lower the premium of the transaction price paid by Chinese companies at the completion stage of cross-border M&A. Among the moderators, the study found cultural distance positively moderates the relationship between bilateral political relations between countries and CSPCMA. The degree of trade openness of the target country negatively moderates the relationship between bilateral political relations between countries and CSPCMA. The negative relationship between bilateral political relations between countries and CSPCMA is stronger when the acquirer is a state-owned enterprise (SOE).

The findings of this study not only add to the knowledge about the relationship between bilateral political relations and corporate cross-border M&A premiums, but also have managerial implications for Chinese corporate managers to sustainably reduce corporate cross-border M&A premiums.

Drawing attention to the significant number of unsuccessful (abandoned) cross-border merger and acquisition (M&A) transactions in recent years, the purpose of this paper is to analyze three litigated cross-border inbound acquisitions that associated with an emerging economy – India, such as Vodafone-Hutchison and Bharti Airtel-MTN deals in the telecommunications industry, and Vedanta-Cairn India deal in the oil and gas exploration industry. The study intends to explore how do institutional and political environments in the host country affect the completion likelihood of cross-border acquisition negotiations.

Nested within the interdisciplinary framework, the study adopts a legitimate method in qualitative research, that is, case study method, and performs a unit of analysis and cross-case analysis of sample cases.

The critical analysis suggests that government officials’ erratic nature and ruling political party intervention have detrimental effects on the success of Indian-hosted cross-border deals with higher bid value, listed target firm, cash payment, and stronger government control in the target industry. The findings emerge from the cross-case analysis of sample cases contribute to the Lucas paradox – why does not capital flow from rich to poor countries and interdisciplinary M&A literature on the completion likelihood of international takeovers.

The findings have several implications for multinational managers who typically involve in cross-border negotiations. The causes and consequences of sample cases would help develop economy firms who intend to invest in emerging economies. The study also offers some implications of M&A for telecommunications and extractive industries.

Although a huge amount of extant research investigates why M&A fail to create value to the shareholders during the public announcement and post-merger stages, there is a significant dearth of research on the causes and consequences of delayed or abandoned national and international deals. The paper fills this knowledge gap by discussing an in-depth cross-case analysis of Indian-hosted cross-border acquisitions.

This research aims to investigate whether and to what extent the co-movements of cross-country business cycles, cross-country stock market cycles and cross-country real estate market cycles are linked across G7 from February 1990 to June 2014.

The empirical approaches include correlation analysis on Hodrick–Prescott (HP) cycles, HP cycle return spillovers effects using Diebold and Yilmaz’s (2012) spillover index methodology, as well as Croux et al.’s (2001) dynamic correlation and cohesion methodology.

There are fairly strong cycle-return spillover effects between the cross-country business cycles, cross-country stock market cycles and cross-country real estate market cycles. The interactions among the cross-country business cycles, cross-country stock market cycles and cross-country real estate market cycles in G7 are less positively pronounced or exhibit counter-cyclical behavior at the traditional business cycle (medium-term) frequency band when “pure” stock market cycles are considered.

The research is subject to the usual limitations concerning empirical research.

This study finds that real estate is an important factor in influencing the degree and behavior of the relationship between cross-country business cycles and cross-country stock market cycles in G7. It provides important empirical insights for portfolio investors to understand and forecast the differential benefits and pitfalls of portfolio diversification in the long-, medium- and short-cycle horizons, as well as for research studying the linkages between the real economy and financial sectors.

In adding to the existing body of knowledge concerning economic globalization and financial market interdependence, this study evaluates the linkages between business cycles, stock market cycles and public real estate market cycles cross G7 and adds to the academic real estate literature. Because public real estate market is a subset of stock market, our approach is to use an original stock market index, as well as a “pure” stock market index (with the influence of real estate market removed) to offer additional empirical insights from two key complementary perspectives.

The authors evaluate financial stability and capital flows management objectives of capital controls in the context of four capital control events: removing or imposing controls on capital inflows and removing or imposing controls on capital outflows. The authors use synthetic control method to solve the endogeneity problem stemmed from the timing of capital control implementation. The authors find new evidence that capital controls are not consistently effective in reaching financial stability outcomes but are consistent in reaching capital flows management outcomes. The authors compare our results to estimates using difference-in-difference (DID) and carry out placebo analysis. Finally, we use synthetic DID to correct for the parallel trend bias and show that the results still hold.

In this chapter, the authors draw insights from the literature on institutional distance and examine whether firms engaging in cross-border acquisitions overcome the liability of foreignness by using external advisors. Specifically, the authors argue that acquiring and target firms may alleviate heightened information asymmetries and transaction costs by leveraging the information-production and uncertainty-reduction roles of M&A advisors. Using a global sample of cross-border M&As from 2001 to 2020, the results suggest that institutional distance triggers both acquirers and targets to use M&A advisors. Among the four types of institutional distance the authors examined, cultural distance – and to a lesser extent administrative distance – greatly contributes to the use of various types of advisors in cross-border deals. Interestingly, although both parties in the transaction rely on advisors to overcome distance barriers, acquiring firms appear to hire advisors more often than target firms.