Legal protection of investors,corporate governance,and the cost of equity capital

This study examines the effect of firm-level corporate governance on the cost of equity capital in emerging markets and how the effect is influenced by country-level legal protection of investors. We find that firm-level corporate governance has a significantly negative effect on the cost of equity capital in these markets. In addition, this corporate governance effect is more pronounced in countries that provide relatively poor legal protection. Thus, in emerging markets, firm-level corporate governance and country-level shareholder protection seem to be substitutes for each other in reducing the cost of equity. Our results are consistent with the finding from McKinsey's surveys that institutional investors are willing to pay a higher premium for shares in firms with good corporate governance, especially when the firms are in countries where the legal protection of investors is weak.     

Corporate cash holdings,foreign direct investment,and corporate governance

The determinants of corporate cash holdings in the context of corporate governance theories have recently been analyzed in the literature. In the present study, the behavior of corporate managers in countries with poor shareholder rights protection is more in conformity with the agency problem theory than other corporate governance theories. Also, smaller firms tend to hold larger cash balances relative to their total assets than their larger counterparts. Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) inflows in today's highly integrated capital markets act as substitutes for corporate cash holdings. When firms in G-7 countries are separated from the ones in other countries, FDI inflows demonstrate different effects on international corporate cash holdings: They are substitutes for cash holdings in the former group of countries but become complements for cash holdings by firms in the latter one.     

Equity market liberalization and corporate governance

Equity market liberalizations open up domestic stock markets to foreign investors. A puzzle in the literature is why developing countries exhibit relatively small financial impacts associated with liberalizations. We use cross-firm variation in corporate governance at the time of the official liberalization of the equity market in Korea to test whether governance can explain the extent to which firms benefit when countries liberalize. The results show that better-governed firms experience significantly greater stock price increases upon equity market liberalization. Following the liberalization in Korea, foreign ownership in firms with strong corporate governance was significantly higher than that in firms with weak governance. Better-governed firms also exhibit higher rates of physical capital accumulation after liberalization.     

GOLBALIZATION, CORPORATE FINANCE, AND THE COST OF CAPITAL

International financial markets are progressively becoming one huge, integrated, global capital market—a development that is contributing to higher stock prices in developed as well as developing economies. For companies that are large and visible enough to attract global investors, having a global shareholder base means having a lower cost of capital and hence a greater equity value for two main reasons: First, because the risks of equity are shared among more investors with different portfolio exposures and hence a different “appetite” for bearing certain risks, equity market risk premiums should fall for all companies in countries with access to global markets. Although the largest reductions in cost of capital resulting from globalization will be experienced by companies in liberalizing economies that are gaining access to the global markets for the first time, risk premiums can also be expected to fall for firms in long-integrated markets as well. Second, when firms in countries with less-developed capital markets raise capital in the public markets of countries (like the U.S.) with highly developed markets, they get more than lower-cost capital; they also import at least aspects of the corporate governance systems that prevail in those markets. For companies accustomed to less-developed markets, raising capital overseas is likely to mean that more sophisticated investors, armed with more advanced technologies, will participate in monitoring their performance and management. And, in a virtuous cycle, more effective monitoring increases investor confidence in the future performance of those companies and so improves the terms on which they raise capital. Besides reducing market risk premiums and improving corporate governance, globalization also affects the systematic risk, or “beta,” of individual companies. In global markets, the beta of a firm's equity depends on how the stock contributes to the volatility not of the home market portfolio, but of the world market portfolio. For companies with access to global capital markets whose profitability is tied more closely to the local than to the global economy, use of the traditional Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM) will overstate the cost of capital because risks that are not diversifiable within a national economy can be diversified by holding a global portfolio. Thus, to reflect the new reality of a globally determined cost of capital, all companies with access to global markets should consider using a global CAPM that views a company as part of the global portfolio of stocks. In making this argument, the article reviews the growing body of academic studies that provide evidence of the predictive power of the global CAPM as well as the reduction in world risk premiums.     

Corporate Governance and Expected Stock Returns: Evidence from Germany

Recent empirical work shows evidence for higher valuation of firms in countries with a better legal environment. We investigate whether differences in the quality of firm‐level corporate governance also help to explain firm performance in a cross‐section of companies within a single jurisdiction. Constructing a broad corporate governance rating (CGR) for German public firms, we document a positive relationship between governance practices and firm valuation. There is also evidence that expected stock returns are negatively correlated with firm‐level corporate governance, if dividend yields are used as proxies for the cost of capital. An investment strategy that bought high‐CGR firms and shorted low‐CGR firms earned abnormal returns of around 12% on an annual basis during the sample period.     

The Value of Principles-Based Governance Practices and the Attenuation of Information Asymmetry

This paper focuses on the value of principles-based governance practices. Using the sample of Thai listed firms, we investigate whether firms that comply with the principles of good corporate governance incur lower financing cost and have stronger financial standing. The overall results suggest that the firms on average have significant improvements in major areas of corporate governance practices such as disclosure and transparency, the equitable treatment of shareholders, and the responsibilities of the board. Furthermore, the firms that have better governance practices enjoy lower cost of capital and are more financially viable; suggesting that good governance probably reduces the destabilizing behavior of investors as they become better informed, and mitigates agency problems between controlling shareholders and managers on one hand, and minority shareholders and other stakeholders on the other. Therefore, the guidelines for good governance practices introduced by the Stock Exchange of Thailand should serve as an important tool to bridge information gap between investors and firms, to help overall investors learn more about which firms need to be closely monitored or should be invested in, and to level the playing field for the investors.     

Does the cost of capital differ across countries? An agency perspective*

In this keynote speech, I ask the question: Does the cost of capital differ for firms located in different countries? I argue that there are two ways to look at the cost of capital. First, there is the neoclassical perspective, which assumes that there are no agency problems. In integrated markets, the neoclassical cost of capital is the same in every country. Second, there is the agency perspective. Agency costs increase the cost of capital understood as the expected rate of return necessary for an investment to leave the value of the firm unaffected. Adjusting the cost of capital for agency costs, I argue that it differs across countries because of differences in corporate governance. I then provide a comparison of the agency-adjusted cost of capital between Japan and the US.     

A review of the IFRS adoption literature

This paper reviews the literature on the effects of International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) adoption. It aims to provide a cohesive picture of empirical archival literature on how IFRS adoption affects: financial reporting quality, capital markets, corporate decision making, stewardship and governance, debt contracting, and auditing. In addition, we also present discussion of studies that focus on specific attributes of IFRS, and also provide detailed discussion of research design choices and empirical issues researchers face when evaluating IFRS adoption effects. We broadly summarize the development of the IFRS literature as follows: The majority of early studies paint IFRS as bringing significant benefits to adopting firms and countries in terms of (i) improved transparency, (ii) lower costs of capital, (iii) improved cross-country investments, (iv) better comparability of financial reports, and (v) increased following by foreign analysts. However, these documented benefits tended to vary significantly across firms and countries. More recent studies now attribute at least some of the earlier documented benefits to factors other than adoption of new accounting standards per se, such as enforcement changes. Other recent studies examining the effects of IFRS on the inclusion of accounting numbers in formal contracts point out that IFRS has lowered the contractibility of accounting numbers. Finally, we observe substantial variation in empirical designs across papers which makes it difficult to reconcile differences in their conclusions.     

Corporate governance and cash holdings: Evidence from worldwide board reforms

Using staggered board reforms as a quasi-natural experiment and a difference-in-differences approach, this study examines the impact of corporate governance on cash holdings in 41 countries. We find that board reforms are followed by significant reductions in cash holdings. This effect is more pronounced for firms with weaker pre-reform corporate governance and for firms from countries with weaker institutional environments. Analysis of cash spending suggests that, following board reforms, firms are more likely to use cash to increase R&D expenditures, dividend payouts, and share repurchases, but not to increase capital or acquisition expenditures. Finally, the results indicate that enhanced corporate governance following board reforms leads to higher (lower) cash (dividend payouts) values, consistent with the view that board reforms strengthen corporate governance.     

Venture capitalists, investment appraisal and accounting information: a comparative study of the USA, UK, France, Belgium and Holland

The differences between the information used for the pre‐investment valuation and the valuation methods used by venture capital investors in five countries (USA, UK, France, Belgium and Holland) are empirically studied. The analysis is based on postal questionnaire surveys of representative samples of senior venture capitalists in each country. Differences are found, which may be attributed to the dominant corporate governance mechanism or the level of development of the venture capital market. Between‐country differences persist even after taking into account between‐country differences in the relative importance of investment stages and venture capital types. Apparently similar systems and venture capital markets place varying emphases on different valuation methods, with theoretically 'correct' methods not always being preferred in practice. The findings of the study highlight the need for venture capital firms entering non‐domestic markets to invest considerable effort in understanding the operation of these markets if they are to exploit fully their perceived competitive advantages and minimize the likelihood of repeating the problems experienced by venture capital entrants into foreign markets in the late 1980s.     

Privatization and Corporate Governance: Principles, Evidence, and Future Challenges

Unless developing countries embrace a corporate governance perspective,privatization is unlikely to provide the benefits of improvedperformance with accountability. This article introduces theconcept of governance chains that can constrain the grabbinghands of public and private actors by providing informationand accountability mechanisms to help investors monitor managers.Empirical data on established firms from 49 countries provideestimates of the relative importance and strength of privateand formal chains of governance. The framework and empiricalbenchmarks help explain the outcomes of past privatizationsand suggest certain steps that governments can pursue to besure to get the most out of future privatization activity.      

Evaluating corporate credit risks in emerging markets

Corporate leverage among emerging market firms went up considerably after the 2007–09 Global Financial Crisis (GFC). We investigate how the increased emerging market corporate leverage in the post-GFC period (2010–15) impacted the underlying credit risk, compared to the pre-GFC (2002–2006) and GFC (2007–09) periods. Using firm-level credit risk, financial, and balance sheet data for 350 firms in 23 emerging markets, we find that leverage growth leads to a significant increase in corporate credit default swap (CDS) spreads only in the post-GFC period, and the incremental effect is mainly evident among risky firms (firms with high leverage and idiosyncratic volatility). In contrast, emerging market CDS spreads during the GFC period are mainly driven by global market risk factors. The post-GFC corporate debt vulnerability is mitigated for high growth prospect firms and firms domiciled in countries with high net capital inflows and superior governance. While corporate leverage growth impacts aggregate corporate credit risk, there is no evidence that it increases sovereign credit risk. Our paper contributes to the recent literature on potential sources of default risk in emerging markets.     

Predicting corporate governance in emerging markets

This paper investigates what predicts corporate governance in emerging markets. Specifically, we examine what predicts governance changes and the level of governance itself. To conduct this study, we utilize a unique dataset from AllianceBernstein that consists of monthly firm-level corporate governance ratings for 24 emerging market countries for almost seven years. Since the AllianceBernstein ratings are time-series data, they allow us to determine the direction of change in a firm’s corporate governance, and the timing of these changes. Using these data, we find two main results. First, as firms grow they are more likely to improve their governance. Second, the level of political risk where the firm resides is negatively and significantly related to the level of firm governance but positively and significantly related to changes in firm governance. Hence, firm governance is better in countries with lower political risk but firms are more likely to improve their governance in countries with higher political risk.     

Market Segmentation Effects in Corporate Credit Rating Changes: The Case of Emerging Markets

We examine stock market reactions to corporate credit rating changes in 26 emerging market countries included in the Morgan Stanley Capital International (MSCI) Emerging Market Index. We hypothesize and test the notion that emerging market firms in the American Depository Receipts (ADRs) markets are more likely to purchase ratings from the Big Two (Moody’s and S&P), and that they react more strongly to the announcements of corporate rating changes by Moody’s or S&P than to those of raters in local markets. We compare the effect of credit rating changes of the Big Two in two emerging stock markets: local markets (local currencies) and ADR markets (U.S. dollars). We find significant price reactions in the ADR markets, and insignificant reactions in local markets, and conclude that there is capital market segmentation in ADR markets for credit rating changes of emerging market firms. We find evidence that investors react more strongly in the ADR markets than local markets because they require higher costs of capital for firms cross-listed both in the ADR markets and local markets due to greater expected bankruptcy costs and foreign exchange risks of those firms. We also report that stock markets react significantly, not only to rating downgrades, but also to upgrades in the ADR markets.

A cross-country comparison of corporate governance and firm performance: Do financial structure and the legal system matter?

We blend the corporate governance and the financial structure/legal system literature streams to study whether firm performance is enhanced when its governance structure embodies the demands of the host country’s financial structure and legal system. Using a sample of 1736 unique firms representing 22 countries, we find that the joint effect of a country’s financial structure and legal system does matter when explaining the relationship between performance and the overall level of corporate governance in a given country. The results also suggest that firms operating in the market/common combination countries tend to command higher market valuations than firms with a comparable level of corporate governance that operate in the bank/civil combination countries.     

Corporate governance in the 2007–2008 financial crisis: Evidence from financial institutions worldwide

This paper investigates the influence of corporate governance on financial firms' performance during the 2007–2008 financial crisis. Using a unique dataset of 296 financial firms from 30 countries that were at the center of the crisis, we find that firms with more independent boards and higher institutional ownership experienced worse stock returns during the crisis period. Further exploration suggests that this is because (1) firms with higher institutional ownership took more risk prior to the crisis, which resulted in larger shareholder losses during the crisis period, and (2) firms with more independent boards raised more equity capital during the crisis, which led to a wealth transfer from existing shareholders to debtholders. Overall, our findings add to the literature by examining the corporate governance determinants of financial firms' performance during the 2007–2008 crisis.     

Do US Corporate Governance Standards Effectively Discourage Risk in the Emerging Markets?

This study provides an examination of the effect of various corporate governance factors on the management of the risks inherent in business and the potential divergent impact of these factors on US firms and firms in emerging countries. In particular, the study scrutinises corporate governance and corporate risk‐taking behaviour across different political and socioeconomic environments. In a cross‐sectional time‐series setting, two‐step generalised least squares regression outcomes reveal that the impact of corporate governance on corporate risk taking demonstrates similar implications for US and emerging markets firms in several ways. Nonetheless, the findings also indicate that although some of the US governance standards are effective in the emerging markets, further strengthening of governance standards may be required. Specific governance aspects of the emerging markets, such as board and committee composition, are still lacking when compared to those of the US. Regardless of these differences, the outcomes reveal that those US governance standards adopted by the firms in the emerging markets strengthen governance structures and discourage corporate risk‐taking behaviour.     

Corporate governance norms and practices

We evaluate the impact of corporate governance on the valuation of firms in a large cross-section of countries. Unlike previous work, we differentiate between minimally accepted governance attributes that are satisfied by all firms in a given country and governance attributes that are adopted at the firm level. This approach allows us to differentiate between firm-level and country-level corporate governance, thus contributing to an ongoing debate in the literature about whether governance attributes are largely determined by country factors or firm characteristics. Despite the costs associated with improving corporate governance at the firm level, we find that many firms choose to adopt governance provisions beyond those that are adopted by all firms in the country, and that these improvements in corporate governance are positively associated with firm valuation. Firms that choose not to adopt sound governance mechanisms tend to have concentrated ownership and sizeable free cash flow, consistent with agency theories based on self-interested managers and controlling shareholders. Our results indicate that the market rewards companies that are prepared to adopt governance attributes beyond those required by laws and common corporate practices in the home country.     

Corporate governance and the dynamics of capital structure: New evidence

The effects of corporate governance on optimal capital structure choices have been well documented, though without offering empirical evidence about the impact of corporate governance quality on the adjustment speed toward an optimal capital structure. This study simultaneously considers two effects of debt originating from agency theory—the takeover defense and the disciplinary effects of debt—on the speed of adjustment to the optimal capital structure. Corporate governance has a distinct effect on the speed of capital structure adjustment: weak governance firms that are underlevered tend to adjust slowly to the optimal capital structure, because the costs of the disciplinary role of debt outweigh the benefits of using debt as a takeover defense tool. Although overlevered weak governance firms also adjust slowly, they do so because they are reluctant to decrease their leverage toward the target level to deter potential raiders, especially if they face a serious takeover threat. Therefore, this study finds that both overlevered and underlevered firms with weak governance adjust slowly toward their target debt levels, though with different motivations.     

Minority Stockholders' Protection in a New Corporate Control Law: Market Implications in an Emerging Economy

This paper analyzes the effect of a new corporate governance law in the emerging capital market of Chile to determine if capital markets perceived the intended protection of minority stockholders against wealth expropriation as effective. The unique nature of the new law allowed for voluntary adoption during the initial three-year period, after which it became mandatory. We find no evidence of superior abnormal returns for those firms voluntarily adopting the new law versus those forced to accept the new law as it became mandatory. Trading volume also increased for those not adopting and declined for those that did voluntarily adopt. These results indicate that the capital markets did not perceive voluntary adoption of the new law as effective protection for minority shareholders. We also find a greater presence of institutional investors in the ownership structure of those firms not voluntarily adopting the new law, indicating their monitoring role by investing in firms with better corporate governance practices. Our results suggest that, in the Chilean case, the presence of strong institutional investors is as effective a corporate governance mechanism as is the new law.