Bank Relationship and Firm Performance: Evidence From Thailand Before the Asian Financial Crisis

Abstract:   This study examines the relation between bank relations and market performance in Thailand, an economy in which commercial banks play a crucial role through lending relationship and, for a number of companies, equity ownership. Overall, bank relationships, both equity‐based and debt‐based, positively affect capital investment. However, there is a negative relation between lending relationships, both short‐term and long‐term, and market performance indicating that bank lending may not always be consistent with value maximization. There is also evidence of a positive marginal effect of bank monitoring through equity ownership on market performance. Further, the relation between bank equity ownership and market performance appears to be non‐linear with a concave function. Ownership by corporate insiders is also negatively related to bank equity ownership. Overall, the findings highlight the detrimental effects of excessive short‐term debt usage, one of the factors believed to contribute to the financial crisis in Thailand, and the marginal benefit of the equity‐based relationship on firm value.     

Firm Size and the Information Content of Annual Earnings Announcements: Australian Evidence

Abstract:   We investigate the effect of firm size on the market's short‐window response to annual earnings announcements for a large sample of Australian listed companies. Our research design involves regressions of unexpected earnings against unexpected returns. Non‐linearity in the returns‐earnings relationship is incorporated and other factors known to affect the response to earnings announcements are controlled for. Contrary to prior US research, our results show that firm size has either no effect on the response to earnings announcements (3 day window) or the response is significantly stronger for larger firms (twenty‐one day window). The information content of earnings announcements is present across firm size categories but the nature of the response differs with firm size and context.     

Separation of Ownership from Control and Acquiring Firm Performance: The Case of Family Ownership in Canada

Abstract:   This study investigates the relationship between ownership structure and acquiring firm performance. A large proportion of Canadian public companies have controlling shareholders (families) that often exercise control over voting rights while holding a small fraction of the cash flow rights. This is achieved through the concurrent use of dual class voting shares and stock pyramids. Many suggest that these ownership structures involve larger agency costs than those imposed by dispersed ownership structures and that they distort corporate decisions with respect to investment choices such as acquisitions. We find that average acquiring firm announcement period abnormal returns for our sample of 327 Canadian transactions are positive over the 1998–2002 period. Cash deals, acquisitions of unlisted targets and cross‐border deals have a positive impact on value creation. Governance mechanisms (outside block‐holders, unrelated directors and small board size) also have a positive influence on the acquiring firm performance. Further, the positive abnormal returns are greater for family firms. We do not find that separation of ownership and control has a negative impact on performance. These results suggest that, contrary to other jurisdictions offering poor minority shareholder protection or poor corporate governance, separation of control and ownership is not viewed as leading to value destroying mergers and acquisitions, i.e., market participants do not perceive families as using M&A to obtain private benefits at the expense of minority shareholders. We do find a non‐monotonic relationship between ownership level and acquiring firm abnormal returns. Ownership of a majority of the cash flow rights has a negative impact on announcement returns. This is consistent with the view that large shareholders may undertake less risky projects as their wealth invested in the firm increases.     

The impact of board size on firm performance: evidence from the UK

We examine the impact of board size on firm performance for a large sample of 2746 UK listed firms over 1981–2002. The UK provides an interesting institutional setting, because UK boards play a weak monitoring role and therefore any negative effect of large board size is likely to reflect the malfunction of the board's advisory rather than monitoring role. We find that board size has a strong negative impact on profitability, Tobin's Q and share returns. This result is robust across econometric models that control for different types of endogeneity. We find no evidence that firm characteristics that determine board size in the UK lead to a more positive board size–firm performance relation. In contrast, we find that the negative relation is strongest for large firms, which tend to have larger boards. Overall, our evidence supports the argument that problems of poor communication and decision-making undermine the effectiveness of large boards.     

CEO Stock Options and Equity Risk Incentives

Abstract:   We test the hypothesis that the risk incentive effects of CEO stock option grants motivate managers to take on more risk than they would otherwise. Using a sample of mergers we document that the ratio of post‐ to pre‐merger stock return variance is positively related to the risk incentive effect of CEO stock option compensation but this relationship is conditioned on firm size, with firm size having a moderating effect on the risk incentive effect of stock options. Using a broader time‐series cross‐sectional sample of firms we find a strong positive relationship between CEO risk incentive embedded in the stock options and subsequent equity return volatility. As in the case of the merger sample, this relationship is stronger for smaller firms.     

Corporate governance,external market discipline and firm productivity

Using a sample of Australian companies over the 2000–2005 period, we examine the impact of internal corporate governance on firm's total factor productivity, taking into account the interaction between internal governance and external market discipline. Our empirical findings point to a substitution effect between product market competitiveness and firm-level corporate governance. Overall, internal corporate governance mechanisms – more efficient boards and greater CEO stock-based compensation – are effective instruments for improving firm productivity. However, internal governance is less effective when a firm faces a highly competitive product market. We find only weak empirical support for an association between firm's ownership structure and productivity, and no support for an association between industry takeover intensity and firm productivity.     

The Role of Payout Ratio in the Relationship Between Stock Returns and Dividend Yield

Abstract:   This paper examines the relationship between returns and dividend yield in the UK stock market, and introduces earnings‐related data to the asset pricing model in the form of payout ratio. The latter has a considerable effect upon the inferences which would otherwise be drawn from a study of the dividend yield‐returns relationship in the absence of such earnings information. Payout ratio conveys additional signalling information and is an important adjunct to dividend yield in explaining returns.     

Is Busy Really Busy? Board Governance Revisited

We investigate the relationship between firm governance and the board's position in the social network of directors. Using a sample of 133 German firms over the four‐year period from 2003 to 2006, we find that firms with intensely connected supervisory boards are (1) associated with lower firm performance, and (2) pay their executives significantly more. We interpret these results as evidence of poor monitoring in firms with directors who are more embedded in the social network. In both cases, simple measures for busy directors that were used by other studies in the past fail to show any significant pattern. The findings suggest that the quality and structural position of additional board seats may play a bigger role than simply the number of board appointments.     

Board structure and market performance: Does one solution fit all?

We investigate the relationship between internal corporate governance and market performance across multiple countries, utilizing a comprehensive data set comprising 77,440 firm observations from 15 European Union countries over the period 2002-2018. Specifically, we examine the impact of board characteristics, including size, independence, gender diversity, CEO duality, and classified boards, on market performance. Our findings reveal that CEO duality is generally negatively related to returns, whereas independent directors and board diversity are positively related to market performance. We observe a positive association between staggered boards and market performance as well as Tobin's Q, aligning with the EU's emphasis on stakeholder investments. Upon analyzing the data at the country level, we identify that the links between board structure and performance vary by country, and there isn't a single variable that is consistently related to market returns or Tobin's Q. These divergent findings indicate that there is no universally applicable corporate governance solution that can be recommended for companies throughout Europe.     

Explaining the Short‐ and Long‐Term IPO Anomalies in the US by R&D

Abstract:   Financial scholars who research the initial underpricing and long‐term underperformance of IPOs generally attribute these phenomena to information asymmetry and investors' misevaluations. Here, we identify, on a sample of 2,696 US IPOs issued during 1980–1995, a widespread source of information asymmetry and valuation uncertainty—the R&D activities of issuers—and document that these activities significantly affect both the initial underpricing of IPOs (R&D is positively correlated with underpricing) and their long‐term performance (R&D is positively related to long‐term performance). Given the pervasiveness and constant growth of firms' R&D activities in modern economies, our identification of R&D as a major factor affecting IPO's performance contributes to the understanding of this important economic and capital market phenomenon.