How Does Government Ownership Affect Firm Performance? Evidence from China's Privatization Experience

The effect of government ownership on firm performance remains a controversial issue, especially in a transitional economy like China. Government ownership is typically viewed as adversely affecting firm performance. This study of that of Mainland China's privatization experience indicates the opposite. No matter whether it is in the form of state ownership or legal person ownership, government ownership has a positive impact on partially privatized state-owned enterprises. However, this relationship is nonlinear and shows an inverted U-shape. Given the situation of highly indebted, non-performing state-owned enterprises, we argue that too much government control is indeed bad for enterprises. But too little government ownership may not be good either. It might mean a lack of the government's political support and business connections, which are valuable and necessary to vitalize performance.     

Risk taking behavior of privatized banks

We examine the risk taking behavior of privatized banks prior to and after privatization and find that privatized banks experience a significant decrease in risk after privatization; however they continue to exhibit higher risk than their rivals. This finding is consistent with the assertion that following privatization and the removal of government guarantees and subsidies, privatized banks become more prudent. Since rival banks do not experience a significant change in risk taking, we attribute the reduction in risk experienced by the privatized banks to changes in the banks' ownership structure rather than to industry factors. Interestingly, we also find that a higher fraction of the privatized banks' shares sold beyond a certain intermediate level induces higher risk taking, as the privatized bank becomes more accountable to shareholders. The finding that the fraction of shares sold is positively related to risk taking, coupled with the result that the privatized banks had higher risk in the pre-privatization period than in the post-privatization period suggests a nonlinear relationship between government/private ownership of banks and risk taking. Results of further analysis are consistent with a somewhat U-shaped relationship between private ownership and risk taking. The risk taking behavior of newly privatized banks is also influenced by the country's level of development and degree of political risk. Our results are robust to different measures of risk.     

The performance of privatized firms in the Czech Republic

With the growing importance of privatizations as a part of government policy, most empirical studies of these privatizations conclude that firm performance immediately improves following privatization. Privatization has been the most important part of the transition from the centrally planned economies of Central and Eastern Europe and has a larger impact on those economies than privatizations in other countries. However, few studies have looked at the performance of firms following mass privatization. This study uses 453 separate firms (101 firms privatized in both waves for a total of 554 observations), in the first and second waves of Czech voucher privatization. Using methodology from previous studies, we find that while the overall effects from privatization are positive, the effects vary by privatization wave, size, and industry. Firms privatized in the first wave performed worse (decline in performance following privatization) than firms privatized in the second wave. We also fail to find ownership concentration or debt as an important factor in restructuring the firm.I believe that the results are consistent with two hypotheses. First economic and political structure surrounding the privatization waves plays an important part in the success of privatization. Stable environments, both political and economic, help privatized firms restructure and improve operating performance as well as attract foreign investors and capital even in less developed countries, but in transitional economies undergoing mass privatization in rapidly changing and developing economic and political environments hinder firms from restructuring and improving performance following privatization. Results are also consistent with the hypothesis that firms with a longer preparation period prior to privatization, an “implicit seasoning”, improve performance following privatization.     

The Decision to Privatize: Finance and Politics

We investigate the influence of political and financial factors on the decision to privatize government‐owned firms. The results show that profitable firms and firms with a lower wage bill are likely to be privatized early. We find that the government delays privatization in regions where the governing party faces more competition from opposition parties. The results also suggest that political patronage is important as no firm located in the home state of the minister in charge is ever privatized. Using political variables as an instrument for the privatization decision, we find that privatization has a positive impact on firm performance.     

A re-examination of China’s share issue privatization

Previous studies show that in contrast to evidence that share issue privatization (SIP) in most other countries have improved firm profitability, China’s SIP of the 1990s had no such effect. We argue that the main reason for the failure of China’s SIP is likely to have been the weak institutional environment in place at that time. We examine China’s SIP in a more recent period in which the institutional environment was greatly improved. Using a matching sample method, we find that SIP firms continued to experience negative post-SIP profitability changes in our sample period. However, their performance decline was significantly less than that of their matched non-SIP SOEs. We also find that the introduction of the independent director rule helped to improve firm performance. Our results reconcile the findings of the SIP effect in China with international evidence and illustrate the importance of a developed capital market to ensuring the success of privatization schemes.     

The Choice of Privatization Method and the Financial Performance of Newly Privatized Firms in Transition Economies

There is a gap between the theoretical literature which almost unanimously advocates the privatization of enterprises, as part of the solution to the commitment problem in economies in transition, and the empirical evidence regarding the best way to design a privatization program in order to secure an efficient use of resources. This paper contributes to this debate by focusing on the determinants of the financial long‐run performance of privatized firms in Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic. This long‐run performance is mainly influenced by the extent of retained state ownership, the choice of privatization method, and firm size.     

Determinants of Foreign Ownership in Newly Privatized Companies in Transition Economies

We investigate determinants of foreign ownership in newly privatized firms. We analyze data on privatized Czech firms to address two related general questions. First, what characteristics distinguish transition firms that attract a foreign investor? Second, how do firm‐specific characteristics influence the size of the foreign equity stake? Our results suggest that foreign investors i) seek safe, profitable firms in which they can exert unchallenged influence on corporate governance and then ii) structure their equity stakes to mitigate agency costs and political risk.     

Privatization and bank performance in developing countries

We examine the postprivatization performance of 81 banks from 22 developing countries. Our results suggest that: (i) On average, banks chosen for privatization have a lower economic efficiency, and a lower solvency than banks kept under government ownership. (ii) In the postprivatization period, profitability increases but, depending on the type of owner, efficiency, risk exposure and capitalization may worsen or improve. However, (iii) Over time, privatization yields significant improvements in economic efficiency and credit risk exposure. (iv) We also find that newly privatized banks that are controlled by local industrial groups become more exposed to credit risk and interest rate risk after privatization.     

Postprivatization corporate governance: The role of ownership structure and investor protection

We investigate the role of ownership structure and investor protection in postprivatization corporate governance. Using a sample of 209 privatized firms from 39 countries over the period 1980 to 2001, we find that the government relinquishes control over time to the benefit of local institutions, individuals, and foreign investors, and that private ownership tends to concentrate over time. Firm size, growth, and industry affiliation, privatization method, as well as the level of institutional development and investor protection, explain the cross-firm differences in ownership concentration. The positive effect of ownership concentration on firm performance matters more in countries with weak investor protection.     

The political economy of residual state ownership in privatized firms: Evidence from emerging markets

We investigate the political determinants of residual state ownership for a unique database of 221 privatized firms operating in 27 emerging countries over the 1980 to 2001 period. After controlling for firm-level and other country-level characteristics, we find that the political institutions in place, namely, the political system and political constraints, are important determinants of residual state ownership in newly privatized firms. Unlike previous evidence that political ideology is an important determinant of privatization policies in developed countries, we find that right- or left-oriented governments do not behave differently in developing countries. These results confirm that privatization is politically constrained by dynamics that differ between countries.     

From state to private ownership: Issues from strategic industries

This paper investigates the effects of privatization for a panel of 189 firms from strategic industries headquartered in 39 countries, and privatized between 1984 and 2002. Strategic firms can hardly be compared to manufacturing or competitive industries as they are generally under state monopoly, and involve specific issues such as regulation, political and institutional constraints. We examine the change in ownership and postprivatization means of control by the government, and assess whether positive changes in performance obtain in these particular industries that include firms from the financial, mining, steel, telecommunications, transportation, utilities, and oil sectors. We document that governments continue to exert influence on former state-owned firms after three years by retaining golden shares and/or appointing politicians to key positions in the firm. Our multivariate results reveal a negative effect of state ownership on profitability and operating efficiency, which the presence of a sound institutional and political environment moderates.     

Managerial power theory, tournament theory, and executive pay in China

In this paper, we test two models of executive pay that have not received much attention in research on Chinese listed companies: managerial power theory and tournament theory. We find that structural power (executive share ownership) and prestige power (executive education) are significantly positively related to executive remuneration, and political power (Executive/Party Secretary duality) positively and weakly related to executive remuneration. We also find that executive directors' organization level (as reflected in executive pay level for each of the three highest paid executives) is positively related to executive remuneration and the relationship is convex, and negatively related to the interaction between executive directors' organization level and government ownership. Tournament prize (executive pay) is not related to the number of contestants in the tournament and is negatively related to the interaction term between number of contestants and government ownership. Finally, earnings per share (EPS) as a measure of firm performance is positively related to the pay gap between contestants and negatively related to the interaction term between pay gap and government ownership. We explore the implications of these findings for reforming corporate governance in China.     

The Effect of a Complex Ownership Structure and Judicial Efficiency on Leverage: Evidence from Pakistani Listed Companies

We explore the impact of complex ownership structure and judicial efficiency on firm leverage at Pakistani pyramid firms. Ratio of controlling to ownership rights is much higher at Pakistani firms than in other economies, which motivates us to study its impact on leverage. Our results reveal that complex internal structure at Pakistani pyramid firms is positively related to leverage. We find that the presence of efficient courts weaken the impact of complex ownership structure on leverage at pyramid firms. Contrary to the literature, we find that the political connections of pyramid firms in Pakistan are not related to corporate leverage.     

Ultimate Government Control Structures and Firm Value: Evidence from Chinese Listed Companies

We show that 70% of Chinese listed companies are ultimately controlled by government agencies, thereby indicating that state ownership remains widespread in China's stock markets. Three questions are considered that are related to government control structures and their impact on firm value: (1) how do government agencies maintain their control of listed companies; (2) what are the impacts of different government control structures on firm value; and (3) are these impacts different in local government and central government-controlled firms? We find that the Chinese government controls listed companies directly or indirectly through solely state-owned enterprises (SSOEs). Taking into account the trade-off between political and agency costs, we show that firm value increases when some control rights are decentralized from the government to state-owned enterprises (SOEs). Moreover, decentralization improves significantly the performance of local government- controlled, but not central government-controlled firms.     

Ownership and the Value of Political Connections: Evidence from China

Research has found that political connectedness can have both positive and negative effects on firm value. To resolve these mixed findings, we investigate the impact of political ties conditional on ownership for a sample of Chinese firms over the period 1999–2006. We find that private firms with politically connected managers have a higher value and obtain more government subsidies than those without connected managers, whereas local state‐owned enterprises with connected managers have a lower value and employ more surplus labour than those without connected managers. Our results indicate that the effect of political ties is subject to firm ownership.     

The IPO of Industrial and Commercial Bank of China and the ‘Chinese Model’ of privatizing large financial institutions

We examine the privatization process of the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (ICBC), the largest bank in the world by market capitalization, and its dual initial public offerings (IPOs) in the Hong Kong and Shanghai Stock exchanges in 2006. The Chinese government retains majority equity ownership of ICBC while foreign institutional investors hold minority equity stakes. Other large financial institutions went through the same reform process and have similar, post-IPO ownership structures. The largest Chinese banks, as a group, outperformed their counterparts from other emerging and developed markets before and during the 2007–2009 financial crisis. We argue that the ‘Chinese model’ of privatizing and managing large financial institutions can be advantageously used in other countries.     

Bank ownership and executive perquisites: New evidence from an emerging market

Direct bank ownership is a common practice in emerging markets. The current paper studies how bank ownership affects firm performance through corporate executive perquisites (perks) in China, a leading emerging economy. In addition to common factors known to influence the level of executive perks, we find a significantly positive link between bank ownership of company shares and executive perquisites. Further analyses suggest that higher level of executive perquisites hurt firm operating efficiency. Specifically, perks are positively associated with interest rate paid by the firms. We find some evidence consistent with the notion that the conflict of interests that banks face as both lenders and shareholders in the emerging markets induces banks to play less effective monitoring if they are concerned with the security of their loans or aim to obtain better arrangement for their loans. Our results reveal a particular mechanism through which bank ownership influences firm decisions and performance.     

Does the response of competitors to privatization announcements reflect competitive or industry-wide information effects? International evidence

We examine the stock price reaction of rival firms to the announcement of the privatization of their industry counterparts to infer information about the intra-industry effects of privatization. We find that the rival firms reacted negatively to the privatization announcements, suggesting that the announcement effects reflect competitive rather than positive industry effects. The reaction is stronger for industry counterparts in low economic freedom countries than those in high economic freedom countries. Interestingly, we also find that full privatization announcements generate larger negative abnormal returns for rival firms than partial privatization announcements where the privatized firm gains only partial autonomy from the government. In this regard, we find that, as the proportion of government ownership reduces, subsequent partial privatization announcement elicits stronger market reaction from rival firms. The negative abnormal returns earned by shareholders of rival firms are not due to price pressure and portfolio rebalancing effects resulting from index composition changes. We conclude that the negative effects documented for the rival firms reflect investors' concern about the potential competitive effects resulting from privatization of the state enterprise.     

Corporate Performance of Mixed Enterprises

We delineate Hong Kong listed corporations into three levels of privatization: the fully privatized blue chips, semi‐privatized red chips and the least privatized H shares. Both H shares and red chips are mixed enterprises that mimic private ownership with joint government and private stock ownership. We find that mixed enterprises are less profitable and lower valued than the fully privatized blue chips, but red chips are more efficient and perform better than blue chips when market confidence swings to their favor. Regression analysis suggests that increased stock ownership by the government and increased emolument incentives are counterproductive to profitability, especially in bad economic times of the 1997–98 Asian financial crisis.     

Ownership Structure as a Determinant of Firm Value: Evidence from Newly Privatized Czech Firms

Using a sample of 988 newly privatized Czech firms, with part of the ownership structure exogenously determined prior to voucher privatization, we find that share values are positively related with the ownership stakes of foreigners, insiders, and restituents. While the findings for foreigners and insiders can be attributed to their superior ability to identify more profitable firms, we interpret the findings on restituents as evidence of the beneficial effect of blockholdings. On the other hand, we find that the ownership of the fund with the largest stake is not significantly related with share value, suggesting that the value of external blocks depends on the identity of the owner. However, when the fund is also the largest blockholder in the firm, it has an adverse effect on share value. The negative effect of the dominant block owned by a fund is mitigated when a bank sponsors the fund. Although funds are legally separated from their sponsoring institutions, bank‐sponsored funds may nevertheless have inherited a better access to the innards of these firms, and may be in a better position to monitor them.