Regulation and Bonding: The Sarbanes-Oxley Act and the Flow of International Listings

In this paper, we examine the economic impact of the Sarbanes‐Oxley Act (SOX) by analyzing foreign listing behavior onto U.S. and U.K. stock exchanges before and after the enactment of SOX in 2002. Using a sample of all listing events onto U.S. and U.K. exchanges from 1995–2006, we develop an exchange choice model that captures firm‐level, industry‐level, exchange‐level, and country‐level listing incentives, and test whether these listing preferences changed following the enactment of SOX. After controlling for firm characteristics and other economic determinants of these firms' exchange choice, we find that the listing preferences of large foreign firms choosing between U.S. exchanges and the London Stock Exchange's (LSE) Main Market did not change following the enactment of SOX. In contrast, we find that the likelihood of a U.S. listing among small foreign firms choosing between the NASDAQ and LSE's Alternative Investment Market decreased following the enactment of SOX. The negative effect among small firms is consistent with these marginal companies being less able to absorb the incremental costs associated with SOX compliance. The screening of smaller firms with weaker governance attributes from U.S. exchanges is consistent with the heightened governance costs imposed by SOX increasing the bonding‐related benefits of a U.S. listing.     

What drives delistings of foreign firms from U.S. Exchanges?

We examine time dependency in the factors motivating delistings of foreign firms from major U.S. Exchanges over the period 1962–2006. For firms listing before Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX), we find that governance has no significant effect on delisting but after SOX, it becomes one of the main forces driving delisting. For firms whose delisting decision is most likely attributable to SOX, we find they realize low benefits from listing – they originate from countries with strong home market governance, and from listing onward realize low trading volume, analyst coverage, and make little use of capital raising. Our results suggest that SOX has had a large influence on the benefits seek from a U.S. listing, leading firms from well governed countries and low capital raising needs to delist.     

How Representative Are Firms That Are Cross‐Listed in the United States? An Analysis of Accounting Quality

We provide evidence on the characteristics of local generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) earnings for firms cross‐listing on U.S. exchanges relative to a matched sample of foreign firms currently not cross‐listing in the United States to investigate whether U.S. listing is associated with differences in accounting data reported in local markets. We find that cross‐listed firms differ in terms of the time‐series properties of earnings and accruals, and the degree of association between accounting data and share prices. Cross‐listed firms appear to be less aggressive in terms of earnings management and report accounting data that are more conservative, take account of bad news in a more timely manner, and are more strongly associated with share price. Furthermore, the differences appear to result partially from changes around cross‐listing and partially from differences in accounting quality before listing. We do not observe a similar pattern for firms cross‐listed on other non‐U.S. exchanges or on the U.S. over‐the‐counter market, suggesting a unique quality to cross‐listing on U.S. exchanges.     

The Sarbanes‐Oxley Act and the Choice of Bond Market by Foreign Firms

This paper examines the economic impact of the Sarbanes‐Oxley Act (SOX) by studying foreign firms’ choice of whether to issue bonds in the U.S. public bond market or elsewhere before and after the law's enactment in 2002. After controlling for firm characteristics, bond features, home‐country attributes, and market conditions, I find that foreign firms rely less on the U.S. public bond market after SOX. Additionally, some determinants of choosing the U.S. public bond market have changed since the passage of SOX: firms listing equities on U.S. stock exchanges, adopting International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS), and doing large bond issuances are more likely to choose this market in the post‐SOX period than in the pre‐SOX period. Overall, these results are consistent with a shift in the expected costs and benefits of choosing the U.S. public bond market following SOX. This paper provides the first evidence about how SOX influences debt financing decisions and alters capital flows across international bond markets.     

U.S. International Equity Investment

Using a comprehensive data set of all U.S. investment in foreign equities, we find that the single most important determinant of the amount of U.S. investment a foreign firm receives is whether the firm cross‐lists on a U.S. exchange. Correcting for selection biases, cross‐listing leads to a doubling (or more) in U.S. investment, an impact greater than all other factors combined. Much of this increased U.S. investment is purchased in the foreign market, implying that the cross‐listing effect reflects something more fundamental about a firm than easier acquisition of its securities. We also demonstrate that cross‐listing is an important determinant of U.S. international investment at the country level and describe easy‐to‐implement methods for including a cross‐listing variable as an endogenous control.     

Takeovers,market monitoring,and international corporate governance

We theoretically and empirically examine the role of international takeover markets in curtailing dominant shareholder moral hazard for firms with higher value‐added from acquisitions. In equilibrium, such firms strategically list shares in the markets of their targets and voluntarily dilute dominant shareholder control through capital‐raising events to lower their expected acquisition costs. Empirical tests, using a sample of foreign firms cross‐listing on U.S. stock exchanges during 1990–2003, support the framework. We find a strong influence of post‐listing dilution of dominant shareholder control through capital‐raising events on the likelihood of acquisitions and their cost to the acquirers, in both U.S. and non‐U.S. markets.     

The U.S. listing gap

Relative to other countries, the U.S. now has abnormally few listed firms. This “U.S. listing gap” is consistent with a decrease in the net benefit of a listing for U.S. firms. Since the listing peak in 1996, the propensity to be listed is lower for all firm size categories and industries, the new list rate is low, and the delist rate is high. The high delist rate accounts for 46% of the listing gap and the low new list rate for 54%. The high delist rate is explained by an unusually high rate of acquisitions of publicly listed firms.     

Foreign cultures, Sarbanes–Oxley Act and cross-delisting

Using a sample of foreign firms listed in U.S. and delisting shares over the period 2000 and 2010, this paper studies the impact of Sarbanes–Oxley Act (SOX) on the cross-delisting behavior of foreign firms based on the firm characteristics, legal tradition, overall culture and degree of individualism of the country of domicile. Pre-SOX, the propensity to delist is lower for firms from countries with cultural similarities to the U.S. and higher for firms from individualistic societies. Post-SOX these trends are reversed. Consistent with the existing research we find that the delisting decision of foreign firms cross-listed in the U.S. is based on the potential gains from listing based on the growth opportunities, length of presence in the U.S. and legal regulations of the country of domicile. Out findings provide evidence of the cultural factors that impact the competitiveness of U.S. capital markets.     

THE EFFECT OF CROSS‐LISTING ON TRADING VOLUME: REDUCING SEGMENTATION VERSUS SIGNALING INVESTOR PROTECTION

We examine the relation between cross‐listing on the U.S. and UK regulated and unregulated exchanges and trading volume for a sample of 500 foreign firms from 34 countries. We find that the increase in trading volume is a function of both reducing segmentation and signaling investor protection. In addition, we find that home market trading volume, firm size, firm returns, and analyst forecast accuracy are the major determinants of a firm's trading volume. We also show that U.S. and UK investors trade foreign securities that originate from low‐investor‐protection countries more than they trade those from high‐investor‐protection countries, which is consistent with the bonding hypothesis.     

What Companies Need to Know About International Cross‐Listing

This article addresses four questions about cross‐listing by non‐U.S. companies on a U.S. stock exchange: Why do companies cross‐list? Does a U.S. listing increase firm value? If so, what are the sources of the increased valuation? And finally, how has the Sarbanes‐Oxley Act (SOX) affected the value of a U.S. listing? Both managerial surveys and academic research show that companies list in the U.S. to increase visibility and share liquidity, to broaden their shareholder base, to gain access to cheaper financing and reduce the cost of capital, and, in some cases, to implement a global business strategy. Foreign companies also typically cross‐list after periods of strong market performance and experience a positive valuation effect around the time of listing, but then underperform the market in the period after the cross‐listing. On average, cross‐listed companies exhibit higher valuations than their home‐market peers, but with significant variation based on firm characteristics: The valuation premiums are larger for smaller companies with higher past sales growth, higher ROAs, and lower financial leverage. In the long run, the companies that show a permanent increase in valuation are those that succeed in expanding their U.S. shareholder base and improving their levels of shareholder protection. Finally, the evidence suggests that SOX, while perhaps deterring some would‐be overseas listings, has not seriously eroded the net benefits of a U.S. listing.     

A Breakdown of the Valuation Effects of International Cross‐listing*

It is well known that cross‐listing domestic stocks in foreign exchanges has significant valuation effects on the listed company's shares. Using a sample of firms with dual shares, we explore the differential effects of cross‐listing on prices and we are able to separate the different sources of the benefits of cross‐listing. These sources include market segmentation, liquidity, and the bonding of controlling shareholders to lower expropriation of firm resources. Our results show that even though the market segmentation and bonding effects are both statistically significant, the economic significance of segmentation is more than double that of bonding. Furthermore, we document an economically and statistically significant increase in the liquidity of both share classes after the listing. Overall, our results explain why less and less firms are willing to list in the USA: Sarbanes Oxley has increased the cost of adopting better governance while its benefits are not substantial; and market segmentation has decreased significantly in the last years.     

Contracts valuation assessment noise and cross-border listing of equities on U.S. and U.K. stock markets

This study develops and tests the hypothesis that firms in the home country have capital market incentives to cross-border list on foreign stock exchanges that have similar financial reporting with local generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). Non-U.S. firms' contracts and the underlying GAAP are based on the home-country culture and institutional climates. This connection with culture and institution makes the local GAAP's assessment of the contracts less spurious relative to foreign GAAP. Ball et al. [J. Account. Econ. 29 (2000) 1] note that contracting with stakeholders in the home markets is based on local GAAP's numbers, while cross-border listing provides settings in which the value relevance of local GAAP-based contracts is assessed based on foreign GAAP. Therefore, foreign investors' assessment of the contracts using foreign stock exchange GAAP or mindset of foreign GAAP is likely to result in an assessment noise, which is value irrelevant. The level of assessment noise depends on the differences between foreign and local GAAP. Because of the valuation implications of the assessment noise, we expect cross-border listing to diminish as the likelihood of assessment noise increases.As predicted, we find that assessment noise undermines cross-border listing on U.S. stock exchanges. Because U.S. and local GAAPs are based on different cultural and institutional environments, assessment noise arises if U.S. investors use the mindset of U.S. GAAP financial reports to assess local GAAP-based contracts of cross-border firms. The results are robust in the London Stock Exchange in which assessment noise is induced by interpreting local GAAP contracts as if they were based on U.K. GAAP. As expected, the influences of assessment noise on cross-border listings are more robust in the United States than in the United Kingdom. Our results suggest that harmonization of financial reporting is critical in attenuating the influences of assessment noise on global capital market developments.     

Accounting Choice, Home Bias, and U.S. Investment in Non-U.S. Firms

This paper examines the relation between accounting choice and U.S. institutional investor ownership in non‐U.S. firms. We predict that U.S. investors exhibit home bias in their preference for accounting methods conforming to U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) because such methods are more familiar, reduce information processing costs, and are perceived as higher quality. We find that firms exhibiting higher levels (changes) of U.S. GAAP conformity have greater levels (changes) of U.S. institutional ownership. Lead‐lag regressions suggest that increases in U.S. GAAP conformity precede increases in U.S. investment, but changes in U.S. institutional holdings do not precede changes in accounting methods. We also find that the positive relation between U.S. GAAP conformity and U.S. investment holds regardless of a firm's visibility to U.S. investors (e.g., American Depositary Receipt listing, stock index membership, analyst following, firm size). However, we find that U.S. GAAP conformity has a significantly greater impact among firms already visible to U.S. investors.     

ADRs,Analysts, and Accuracy: Does Cross Listing in the United States Improve a Firm's Information Environment and Increase Market Value?

This paper investigates the relation between cross listing in the United States and the information environment of non‐U.S. firms. We find that firms that cross list on U.S. exchanges have greater analyst coverage and increased forecast accuracy than firms that are not cross listed. A time‐series analysis shows that a change in analyst coverage and forecast accuracy occurs around cross listing. We also document that firms that have more analyst coverage and higher forecast accuracy have higher valuations. Furthermore, the change in firm value around cross listing is correlated with changes in analyst following and forecast accuracy, suggesting that cross listing enhances firm value through its effect on the firm's information environment. Our findings support the hypothesis that cross‐listed firms have better information environments, which are associated with higher market valuations.     

The U.S. Share of Trading Volume in Cross‐Listings: Evidence from Canadian Stocks

I analyze the firm‐specific determinants of the U.S. share of trading volume for 126 U.S.‐listed Canadian firms. I find that the U.S. share of volume is directly related to the mass of informed and liquidity traders in the United States relative to Canada, as proxied by relative analyst following, relative duration of listing, and the U.S. share of sales. Evidence also supports the market liquidity argument that the market with lower spreads and greater depths has greater volume. Finally, the U.S. share is directly related to the relative sensitivity of the stock's value to information in the United States.     

The Geography of Equity Listing: Why Do Companies List Abroad?

This paper documents aggregate trends in the foreign listings of companies, and analyzes their distinctive prelisting characteristics and postlisting performance. In 1986–1997, many European companies listed abroad, mainly on U.S. exchanges, while the number of U.S. companies listed in Europe decreased. European companies that cross-list tend to be large and recently privatized firms, and expand their foreign sales after listing abroad. They differ sharply depending on where they cross-list: The U.S. exchanges attract high-tech and export-oriented companies that expand rapidly without significant leveraging. Companies cross-listing within Europe do not grow unusually fast, and increase their leverage after cross-listing.     

International Transmission of U.S. Monetary Policy Shocks: Evidence from Stock Prices

This paper analyzes intraday changes in firm‐level equity prices around interest rate announcements to assess the transmission of U.S. monetary policy to the global economy. We document that foreign firms on average are roughly as sensitive to U.S. monetary policy as U.S. firms, although we also find considerable cross‐sectional variation across firms. In particular, foreign stocks in cyclically sensitive industries show stronger responses to interest rate surprises, consistent with a demand channel of policy transmission. In addition, transmission of U.S. policy appears to be stronger to economies with fixed exchange rates. Evidence for a credit channel is weaker.     

Investor Protection,Investment Efficiency and Value: The Case of Cross‐Listed Firms

We examine the impact of improved investor protection due to cross‐listing on foreign firms’ investment decisions and firm value. While we find that cross‐listing increases firms’ capital expenditures and mergers and acquisitions activities, cross‐listed firms also invest more in research and development, make better acquisition decisions, and have higher profitability compared to non‐cross‐listed firms. Moreover, cross‐listing is associated with better cash utilization by foreign firms for investments. These improvements in investments and cash utilization are more pronounced for firms cross‐listed on US exchanges and for firms from countries with weak investor protection laws.     

Differential levels of disclosure and the earnings-return association: evidence from foreign registrants in the United States

Foreign companies listing on U.S. exchanges are required to report financial information under U.S. GAAP on form 20-F using either Item 17 or Item 18 disclosure rules. These two disclosure rules differ in that Item 17 allows many exemptions from U.S. GAAP, while Item 18 requires disclosure of all financial information in accordance with U.S. GAAP. This study examines the differential earnings-return association between Item 17 and Item 18 filers.We find significantly higher earnings-return associations for Item 18 filers than for Item 17 filers. While the earnings-return association of Item 18 foreign firms is not different from that of matched U.S. firms (which fundamentally use Item 18 rules), the earnings-return association of Item 17 foreign firms is significantly lower than that of matched U.S. firms. Overall, the results are consistent with the idea that higher levels of disclosure may be related to lower discount rates and higher earnings response coefficients (ERCs).     

IAS Versus U.S. GAAP: Information Asymmetry–Based Evidence from Germany's New Market

Motivated by the debate about globally uniform accounting standards, this study investigates whether firms using U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) vis‐à‐vis international accounting standards (IAS) exhibit differences in several proxies for information asymmetry. It exploits a unique setting in which the two sets of standards are put on a level playing field. Firms trading in Germany's New Market must choose between IAS and U.S. GAAP for financial reporting, but face the same regulatory environment otherwise. Thus, institutional factors such as listing requirements, market microstructure, and standards enforcement are held constant. In this setting, differences in the bid‐ask spread and share turnover between IAS and U.S. GAAP firms are statistically insignificant and economically small. Subsequent analyses of analysts' forecast dispersion, initial public offering underpricing, and firms' standard choices corroborate these findings. Thus, at least for New Market firms, the choice between IAS and U.S. GAAP appears to be of little consequence for information asymmetry and market liquidity. These findings do not support widespread claims that U.S. GAAP produce financial statements of higher informational quality than IAS.