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.     

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.     

Analyst following of privatized firms around the world: The role of institutions and ownership structure

We examine which factors affect the decision of analysts to follow newly privatized firms as well as the factors that determine the extent of that following. Contrary to traditional private firms, privatized firms harbor particular uncertainties related to the government's commitment toward privatization. The first-stage estimation shows that the decision by analysts to initiate coverage of newly privatized firms is positively influenced by lower political risk, better judicial efficiency, better information disclosure, and effective extra-legal institutions in the country. Conditional on the decision to initiate coverage, the second-stage results indicate that the extent of analyst following is more important: (1) when there is control relinquishment by the government, (2) when there is more participation by foreign investors and employees, and (3) for those larger firms in nonstrategic sectors. Finally, analysts' coverage is negatively related to postprivatization ownership concentration and underpricing. This latter result runs counter to the existing evidence on private firms—that is, that underpricing “buys” coverage.     

Why do privatized firms pay higher dividends?

We examine state income and reputation incentives to account for the high dividends of privatized firms. Consistent with these agency-cost based incentives, we show strong and robust evidence that the extent of state ownership is positively related to corporate dividends. We distinguish between the empirical importance of these incentives using variation in the rule of law to protect minority shareholders, the fiscal deficit and the political orientation of the state. Our findings show that an incentive to enhance the state's reputation with minority shareholders can account for the high dividends of privatized firms.     

Depoliticization and corporate cash holdings: Evidence from the mandated resignation of directors in China

The 2013 depoliticization regulation (Rule 18) in China mandates government officials to resign from board positions in public firms, terminating firms' political connections established through these directors. Exploiting this regulation as a quasi-experiment, we document that politically connected firms increase their cash holdings 12.7% more than non-connected firms because of these resignations. This pattern is more pronounced among firms that rely more heavily on the government for external resources. Among state-owned firms, the pattern is more evident in firms that are more deeply privatized. In addition, firms that lose political ties experience a significant decline in obtaining bank loans and government subsidies, and they are also slower to adjust their cash holdings toward the optimal level. These findings underscore the role of corporate political linkages in facilitating firms' access to resources that “soften” firms' budget constraints.     

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 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.     

State Ownership,Political Institutions,and Stock Price Informativeness: Evidence from Privatization

In this paper, we examine the relation between government ownership and stock price informativeness around the world. Using a sample of privatized firms from 41 countries between 1980 and 2012, we find strong and robust evidence that state ownership is associated with lower firm-level stock price variation, i.e., stock price informativeness. Furthermore, we find that the relation between state ownership and stock price informativeness depends on political institutions. In particular, the adverse effects of state ownership on stock price informativeness are more pronounced in countries with lower political rights (i.e., lower political constraints on the government).     

Board connections and crisis performance: Family,state, and political networks

We introduce a novel concept of network interactions in which board connections provide access to external spheres of political influence, state ownership, and family control. We posit this form of indirect access via board association enables connected firms to benefit from information privy to external networks while avoiding their resource-based costs of membership. Board network data are assembled for 1290 East Asian firms and linked to hand-collected data on political connections and corporate ownership around the 2008–09 crisis. Companies with board connections to state-owned firms and family business groups had greater crisis-period accounting performance and stock returns. In countries with weak institutional development, board connections to politically connected firms were also beneficial.     

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.     

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.     

The reversal of privatization in China: A political economy perspective

We document reversals of privatization in China—local governments re-possessing ownership stakes in a quarter of previously privatized firms during 1998–2007, a period when the privatization process was still ongoing. This type of ownership restructuring helped ease the unemployment burden in the local labor markets, and was more likely to occur in firms located in provinces led by an official without strong political status in the Chinese Communist Party. A reversal in privatization led to higher leverage, lower profitability and lower labor productivity. Our paper sheds light on how frictions in the political structure affect the implementation of economic policies in a top-down system.     

Auditor Choice in Politically Connected Firms

We extend recent research on the links between political connections and financial reporting by examining the role of auditor choice. Our evidence that public firms with political connections are more likely to appoint a Big 4 auditor supports the intuition that insiders in these firms are eager to improve accounting transparency to convince outside investors that they refrain from exploiting their connections to divert corporate resources. In evidence consistent with another prediction, we find that this link is stronger for connected firms with ownership structures conducive to insiders seizing private benefits at the expense of minority investors. We also find that the relation between political connections and auditor choice is stronger for firms operating in countries with relatively poor institutional infrastructure, implying that tough external monitoring by Big 4 auditors becomes more valuable for preventing diversion in these situations. Finally, we report that connected firms with Big 4 auditors exhibit less earnings management and enjoy greater transparency, higher valuations, and cheaper equity financing.     

Do privatized banks in middle- and low-income countries perform better than rival banks? An intra-industry analysis of bank privatization

This paper presents a comprehensive analysis of the pre- and post-privatization operating performance and stock market performance of privatized banks and their rivals in middle- and low-income countries. First, we find that privatization announcements elicit negative abnormal returns for rival banks. The effects are more pronounced for subsequent tranche sales where the proportion of government ownership in the privatized bank is reduced. Second, we observe that the privatized banks underperformed the benchmark index in the long run. Investors who bought shares of the privatized banks on the first day of trading and held them for 5 years (instead of investing in the market index) lost 24% of their wealth. The underperformance is consistent with the negative long run returns that have been documented for initial public offerings. Third, we document marginal improvements in the post-privatization operating performance of the privatized banks. Though the privatized banks in middle- and low-income countries are better capitalized than rival banks, they carry higher problem loans and are overstaffed relative to other private banks in the post-privatization period. Since most of the sample firms are partially privatized, we submit that perhaps the continued government ownership of the privatized banks might have hindered managers’ ability to restructure the firms.     

How are political connections valued in China? Evidence from market reaction to CEO succession

Using a sample of listed Chinese firms between 2000 and 2010, the paper analyzes the stock market reaction to CEO succession. We document significantly positive cumulative abnormal returns when CEO succession is accompanied with increased political connections. We also show that the market reaction to political connections is significantly stronger for external successors and for poorly performing firms, while it is significantly weaker for firms in high-tech industries and firms located in more developed regions. Finally we find that political connections are valued significantly less in state owned enterprises than in privately controlled firms. Our findings suggest that Chinese investors do value political connections, and such valuation is conditioned by successor origin, prior firm performance, industry, region, and ownership structure.     

Political connections,auditor choice and corporate accounting transparency: evidence from private sector firms in China

This article investigates the way in which political connections impact auditor choice. Using a political connection index constructed based on the bureaucratic ranks of executive managers and board members in Chinese private sector firms, we find that for firms with weak political connections, the likelihood of hiring high‐quality auditors increases with the degree of political connectedness, while it decreases with political connectedness for firms with strong political connections. This inverse U‐shaped relationship is particularly pronounced for firms with ownership structures that intensify agency problems. Finally, we find that political connections and accounting transparency also have an inverse U‐shaped relationship.     

Determinants of state equity ownership,and its effect on value/performance: China's privatized firms

Evidence on the relationship between state ownership and performance in China's privatized firms is convex, concave and linear. Hence, the nature of this relationship is not resolved. This study examines this relationship for a larger, more recent sample of 4315 firm year observations of privatized Chinese firms during 1996–2003. Results support the hypothesis of a convex relationship between state ownership and performance showing benefits from strong privatization and state control. Not only is ownership structure found to affect performance, but also ownership concentration and balance of power jointly affect performance. Chinese firms with mixed control show significantly poorer performance than state or private controlled firms affirming the problem of ambiguity of ownership control, property rights, agency issues, profits and welfare objectives. New determinants of state ownership in China's firms are strategic importance, legal ownership, profitability, and market performance. Privatization benefits because there is a causal relation between ownership and performance.     

Post-privatization state ownership and bank risk-taking: Cross-country evidence

We examine the relation between state residual ownership and bank risk-taking for privatized banks from 45 countries. Applying propensity score matching, we find that privatized banks tend to exhibit higher levels of risk-taking post-privatization than their publicly listed non-privatized counterparts. Moreover, partially privatized banks exhibit higher levels of risk-taking than fully privatized banks. We also observe a positive and significant relation between the level of residual state ownership and risk-taking. These findings are consistent with the distorted objectives associated with government control, as suggested by the political benefits of control, and with the soft budget constraint views of state ownership. The distortion can be mitigated by the quality of a country's institutional and regulatory environments. Finally, our results show that the effect of state ownership on risk-taking is more pronounced in countries with a higher dominance of state-owned enterprises, and it was more prevalent during the global 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.     

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.