“You Can Enter but You Cannot Leave…”: U.S. Securities Markets and Foreign Firms

Although a number of prior papers have argued the benefits to foreign firms of cross‐listing their shares in the U.S., the number of foreign firms exiting U.S. capital markets has been increasing. This has occurred despite the difficulties foreign firms face in deregistering from the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). This paper examines the reasons underlying this trend. One of our main findings is that the passage of the Sarbanes‐Oxley Act has reduced the net benefits of a U.S. listing and registration, particularly for smaller foreign firms with lower trading volume and stronger insider control.     

International Cross‐Listings and Subsequent Security‐Market Choices: Evidence from ADRs

We study the link between the attributes of American depositary receipt (ADR)‐listed firms and their post‐listing security‐market choices. We find that developed market firms are more likely to issue equity and debt than their emerging market counterparts. Furthermore, we find that large firms are more likely to issue debt and less likely to issue equity. When we examine locations where ADR firms raise their capital, we find that firms originating from countries where the protection of minority shareholders is weak are more likely to issue debt on their home markets and less likely to issue debt on international markets (excluding U.S. markets). Furthermore, ADR firms originating from developed (emerging market) countries are more (less) likely to issue their equity on their domestic markets and less (more) likely to issue equity on international markets (excluding U.S. markets).     

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.     

Cross-listing effect on information environment of foreign firms: ADR type and country characteristics

We examine sources of improvement in the information environment of foreign firms that cross-listed in the United States as American Depositary Receipts (ADRs) between 1995 and 2005. We analyze changes in the number and dispersion of analyst recommendations on foreign firms following their cross-listing. We find increases in analyst coverage intensity across all four types of ADR programs, especially among firms that were listed on organized exchanges (the listing effect), and those that adopted capital raising ADR programs (the financing effect). Our results suggest that the listing effect is more persistent than the financing effect. On the other hand, reductions in recommendation dispersion are observed mainly for firms that choose non-capital raising ADRs and those from emerging markets. Overall, improvements in information environment are more profound among foreign firms originating from countries with greater information asymmetry, namely, countries with weaker legal tradition and rule of law, and countries that are less familiar to U.S. investors.     

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.     

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.     

Shareholder Taxes in Acquisition Premiums: The Effect of Capital Gains Taxation

We exploit cross‐temporal differences in capital gains tax rates to test whether shareholder‐level capital gains taxes are associated with higher acquisition premiums for taxable acquisitions. We model acquisition premiums as a function of proxies for the capital gains taxes of target shareholders, taxability of the acquisition, and tax status of the price‐setting shareholder as represented by the level of target institutional ownership. Consistent with a lock‐in effect for acquisition premiums, results suggest a unique positive association between shareholder capital gains taxes for individual investors and acquisition premiums for taxable acquisitions, which is mitigated by target institutional ownership.     

Does Mandatory Shareholder Voting Prevent Bad Acquisitions? The Case of the United Kingdom

A large number of studies have shown that many companies have made large acquisitions that their own shareholders probably would not have approved if given the opportunity to do so. In this article, which summarizes the findings of their study published recently in the Review of Financial Studies, the authors present evidence that suggests the effectiveness of shareholder voting as a corporate governance mechanism designed to prevent such value‐reducing acquisitions from taking place. The authors' study focused on acquisitions in the U.K. where proposed transactions that exceed a series of 25% relative size (target's as a percentage of the acquirer's) thresholds are defined as “Class 1” transactions and require shareholder approval. The authors found strikingly positive stock market reactions to the announcements of such Class 1 acquisitions—as compared to zero if not negative average announcement returns for Class 2 transactions that were not subject to a shareholder vote. And when the authors extended their analysis to U.S. M&A markets, they found that the larger (again, in relative size) U.S. deals—large enough that they would have required a shareholder vote in the U.K.—provided returns to their shareholders that were negative, and thus significantly lower than those of their U.K counterparts. In terms of the economic significance of their findings, the authors found that Class 1 transactions were associated with aggregate gains to acquirer shareholders of $13.6 billion. By contrast, U.S. transactions of similar size, which again were not subject to shareholder approval, were associated with aggregate losses of $210 billion for acquirer shareholders; and Class 2 U.K. transactions, also not subject to shareholder approval, were associated with aggregate losses of $3 billion. In a further series of tests designed to shed light on how mandatory shareholder voting generates such substantial value improvements for acquirer shareholders, the authors also found evidence suggesting that when faced with the requirement of a shareholder vote, CEOs and boards are more likely to resist the temptation to overpay to close a deal. And the fact that the shareholders of the Class 1 acquirers did not end up blocking a single transaction that was submitted to a vote suggests that this mechanism works without the need for shareholders to actually vote down a deal. In other words, mandatory shareholder voting on acquisitions is a powerful deterrent to “bad deals” because, first of all, the vote is triggered automatically by the relative size tests and, second, CEOs and boards, with the help of their bankers, have a pretty good idea well in advance of the vote whether their shareholders are going to vote “no”—and such a vote would be viewed by top management as a major rejection, a strong vote of no confidence.     

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.     

The Effects of Market Segmentation and Investor Recognition on Asset Prices: Evidence from Foreign Stocks Listing in the United States

Non-U.S. firms cross-listing shares on U.S. exchanges as American Depositary Receipts earn cumulative abnormal returns of 19 percent during the year before listing, and an additional 1.20 percent during the listing week, but incur a loss of 14 percent during the year following listing. We show how these unusual share price changes are robust to changing market risk exposures and are related to an expansion of the shareholder base and to the amount of capital raised at the time of listing. Our tests provide support for the market segmentation hypothesis and Merton's (1987) investor recognition hypothesis.     

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.     

Do Private Firms Invest Differently than Public Firms? Taking Cues from the Natural Gas Industry

We study how listing status affects investment behavior. Theory offers competing hypotheses on how listing‐related frictions affect investment decisions. We use detailed data on 74,670 individual projects in the U.S. natural gas industry to show that private firms respond less than public firms to changes in investment opportunities. Private firms adjust drilling activity for low capital‐intensity investments. However, they do not increase drilling in response to new capital‐intensive growth opportunities. Instead, they sell these projects to public firms. Our evidence suggests that differences in access to external capital are important in explaining the investment behavior of public and private firms.     

Wealth effects for acquirers and divestors related to foreign divested assets

This study examines acquisitions of foreign divested assets by U.S. firms. The results indicate that the excess returns to these acquisitions is a significant 0.48%, suggesting that capital markets perceive potential synergies from the effective utilization and strategic management of these assets by U.S. companies. The wealth effects to divestors of these foreign assets is 0.65%, significant at the 1% level, indicating that firms benefit from reducing their geographic scope of operations. We further examine excess returns to acquirers, and we find that several firm-specific characteristics foster anticipation of positive performance gains resulting from the acquisition of divested assets in foreign countries. Similar results are observed for the divesting firms also. Analysis of long horizon performance provides weak indication that performance of divesting firms improves subsequent to the divestment.     

CORPORATE GOVERNANCE IN AN EMERGING MARKET: THE CASE OF ISRAEL

Despite significant capital-market reforms in the mid-1980s, the Israeli government and banks continue to play an unusually dominant role in Israeli financial markets. Israeli banks operate as merchant banks and, through pyramid structures of ownership, control large segments of manufacturing, construction, insurance, and services. In addition, the banks dominate all facets of the capital market, including underwriting, brokerage, investment advice, and the management of mutual and provident funds.
Because of this dominance by the banks, several important mechanisms of corporate governance are missing. There is no effective market for corporate control; institutional investors have little incentive to monitor corporate managers; and those managers in turn have little incentive to improve firm performance and increase shareholder value.
To be sure, there has been an impressive wave of IPOs on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange (TASE) in the 1990s. But those firms' stocks have substantially underperformed the market since going public, and many "higher-quality" Israeli firms have chosen in recent years to list their securities on the NASDAQ and not at home. The main reason the most promising Israeli firms go public in the U.S. is because that is where U.S. and other foreign investors want to buy them; such investors want the assurances that come with the U.S. corporate governance system.     

Short‐Term Performance of U.S.‐Bound Chinese IPOs

Firms from emerging markets, including China, increasingly seek to raise capital outside of their home markets. We examine the short‐term performance of U.S.‐bound Chinese initial public offerings (IPOs) and find that these IPOs have significantly lower underpricing than a matched sample of U.S. counterparts. We also find that the magnitude of IPO underpricing for U.S.‐bound Chinese firms is positively related to revisions in offer price.     

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.     

Leveraged Buyouts in the U.K. and Continental Europe: Retrospect and Prospect

The markets for management buyouts in the U.K. and continental Europe have experienced dramatic growth in the past ten years. In the U.K., buyouts accounted for half of the total M&A activity (measured by value) in 2005. And as in the U.S. during the‘80s, the greatest number of U.K. buyouts in recent years have been management‐ and investor‐led acquisitions of divisions of large corporations. In continental Europe, by contrast, the largest fraction of deals has involved the purchase of family‐owned private businesses. But in recent years, increased pressure for shareholder value in countries like France, Netherlands, and even Germany has led to a growing number of buyouts of divisions of listed companies. Like the U.K., continental Europe has also seen a small but growing number of purchases of entire public companies (known as private‐to‐public transactions, or PTPs), including the largest ever buyout in Europe, the €13 billion purchase this year of the Danish corporation TDC. In view of the record levels of capital raised by European private equity funds in recent years‐which, until 2005, exceeded the amounts invested in any given year‐we can expect more growth in private equity investment in the near future. In continental Europe, the prospects for buyouts remain especially strong, given both the pressure from investors to restructure larger corporations and the possibilities for adding value in family‐owned firms. But, as the authors note, today's private equity firms face a number of challenges in earning adequate returns for their investors. One is increased competition. In addition to the increased activity of U.S. private equity firms, local private equity investors are also facing competition from hedge funds and new entrants such as government‐sponsored operators, family offices, and wealthy entrepreneurs. Another major challenge is finding value‐preserving exit vehicles. Although an IPO is an option for the largest buyouts with growth prospects, most buyout investments are harvested either through sales to other companies or, increasingly, other private equity firms. The latter transactions, known as “secondary” buyouts, now account for a significant share of new funds invested by private equity firms across Europe.     

Family Control and Financing Decisions

This study uses a comprehensive European dataset to investigate the role of family control in corporate financing decisions during the period 1998–2008. We find that family firms have a preference for debt financing, a non‐control‐diluting security, and are more reluctant than non‐family firms to raise capital through equity offerings. We also find that credit markets are prone to provide long‐term debt to family firms, indicating that they view their investment decisions as less risky. In fact, our empirical results demonstrate that family firms invest less than non‐family firms in high‐risk, research and development (R&D) projects, but not in low‐risk, fixed‐asset capital expenditure (CAPEX) projects, suggesting that fear of control loss in family firms deters risk‐taking. Overall, our findings reveal that the external financing (and investment) decisions of family firms are in greater (lesser) conflict with the interests of minority shareholders (bondholders).     

The effect of securities class action lawsuits on mergers and acquisitions

This paper investigates whether shareholder class action litigation affects the takeover candidacy, premium, and completion rate of mergers and acquisitions involving defendant target firms. We use a comprehensive dataset of publicly traded U.S. firms that became the targets of takeover bids between 1998 and 2016 and find that firms subject to shareholder class action lawsuits within the previous two years are more likely to be targeted for acquisition while commanding a significantly higher premium. Firms that face such litigation after a takeover announcement experience a significant decrease in takeover completion.     

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.