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.     

Government Stakes as an Insurance Policy: Evidence from Seasoned Equity Offerings of Chinese Firms

While privatization has attracted much more attention in the literature, one type of reverse privatization, a privately-controlled firm inviting government ownership as its minority shareholders, is neglected in the literature. Using large-scale census firm data from China, we investigate the determinants of this kind of reverse privatization and its impact on firm performance. We find that (1) the decision of reverse privatization by Chinese private firms is affected by local political risk, firm-level financial characteristics, and industry-level characteristics, (2) the reverse privatization significantly affects the firm’s performance, which is measured in different proxies but the effects are not consistent, and (3) moreover, we find that the benefit of reverse privatization decreases as government ownership increases. Our results suggest that the prevalence of reverse privatization in China is a political outcome, which is affected by the trade-off of political risk and political privilege. Our work suggests that political risk and political considerations are the main driving factors of privatization, or its opposite, reverse privatization. Reverse privatization, to some extent, is a rational choice in some transition economies. Our findings offer clear policy implications to the nationalization phenomenon taking place around the world recently.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

The value relevance of corporate voluntary disclosure in the Middle-East: The case of Jordan

We examine whether higher voluntary disclosure, resulting from privatization and the accompanying governance reforms, enhances the value of privatized Jordanian firms. We use panel data for 243 firm-year annual reports (over a period of 9 years from 1996 to 2004) and employ univariate and multivariate tests in order to test our hypothesis,. We construct a governance index to proxy for the impact of privatized firms’ governance on voluntary disclosure. Also, we control for the endogeneity of voluntary disclosure in its relation with firm value. Our multivariate results indicate that voluntary disclosure is positively associated with firm value. We also find that firm value is associated with industry types as a proxy for size. However, we did not find that growth and liquidity are associated with firm value.     

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.     

Efficiency of French privatizations: a dynamic vision

We interpret privatization in light of corporate governance theory. After replicating some traditional tests, we test our new model on a sample of privatized French firms. We cannot confirm for French privatizations the positive effect on overall static and dynamic efficiency of the firm traditionally attributed to privatizations. In addition, we find that whatever positive value accrues from privatization is affected by the contextual, organizational, governance, and strategic variables that influence the privatization process.     

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.     

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.     

Political connections of newly privatized firms

We investigate the extent of political connections in newly privatized firms. Using a sample of 245 privatized firms headquartered in 27 developing and 14 developed countries over the period 1980 to 2002, we find that 87 firms have a politician or an ex-politician on their board of directors. Politically-connected firms are generally incorporated in major cities, are highly leveraged, and operate in regulated sectors. The likelihood of observing political connections in these firms is positively related to government residual ownership, and negatively related to foreign ownership. Political fractionalization and tenure, as well as judicial independence are also key explanatory variables. Finally, politically-connected firms exhibit a poor accounting performance compared to their non-connected counterparts.     

From Social to Private Ownership: Multiple Blockholders in Slovenian Unlisted Firms

This paper studies the ownership structures of unlisted privatized firms in Slovenia. On the basis of official ownership records for all nonfinancial firms over a six-year period (1999-2004), we explore the factors responsible for the concentration of ownership and for the dissolution of the multiple blockholder structures that these firms were assigned at privatization. We observe significant path dependence: patterns of ownership and control are in part determined by the persistence of the initial privatization owners (state funds, privatization investment funds, employees, and managers) as firm blockholders. We also find that ownership concentrates less in larger, riskier, and better-performing firms. Multiple blockholders remain present in the firms in which the two largest owners are of the same type, which presumably makes it easier for them to control in coalition.     

FOREIGN INVESTOR PARTICIPATION IN PRIVATIZATIONS: DOES THE INSTITUTIONAL ENVIRONMENT MATTER?

We examine the determinants of foreign investors' participation in the privatization process of developing countries. First, we estimate the probability that foreign investors target privatized firms in a given country. We show that a favorable legal environment where investor protection is higher enhances foreign investors' participation. Foreigners also prefer large, strategic firms from high‐growth economies and socially stable countries with low political risk. Second, we restrict our analysis to privatized firms that foreign investors actually choose and show that the stakes foreigners hold are larger if the firms are privatized by private sales as opposed to public offerings.     

Privatization,financial development,property rights and growth

This study analyzes how prevailing institutional arrangements i.e., property rights, contracting rights, political institutions, and corporate governance practices affect privatized firms’ performance, capital markets development, and economic growth. Most of the studies surveyed show that privatization enhances privatized firms performance, efficiency, and profitability, which percolates to economic growth. Privatized firms performed better in countries with better regulatory and legal frameworks. Partial privatization may be beneficial in countries with weak institutions, namely, the French civil law countries. The stronger the economic and the governing institutions, the easier it is for privatized firms to thrive and contribute to economic growth. Overall, privatization allows firms to achieve improved efficiency while driving the development of the financial sector.     

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.     

民营化、融资约束与企业创新——来自中国工业企业的证据

本文研究国有企业民营化对企业创新的影响及其影响机制。利用中国工业企业数据库,以民营化企业为实验组、以国有企业为对照组进行双重差分检验,结果发现,国有企业民营化显著抑制了企业创新,而融资约束是抑制民营化企业创新的重要因素。进一步检验发现,融资约束对民营化企业创新的抑制作用主要存在于金融发展水平较低的地区,而在金融发展水平较高的地区,这种抑制作用并不明显。本文的研究结果从融资约束的角度拓展了民营化影响企业创新的相关研究,且从民营化的角度为金融市场如何影响企业创新提供了新的视角。此外,本文有助于澄清有关民营化的争议,为进一步深化混合所有制改革、加强金融对民营企业的支持以促进民营企业的创新和发展提供理论依据和政策参考。     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Bank privatization in developing and developed countries: Cross-sectional evidence on the impact of economic and political factors

We examine how political, institutional, and economic factors are related to a country’s decision to privatize state-owned banks. Using a panel of 101 countries from 1982 to 2000, we find that political factors significantly affect the likelihood of bank privatization only in developing countries. Specifically, in non-OECD countries, bank privatization is more likely the more accountable the government is to its people. In contrast, none of our political variables affects the bank privatization decision in developed countries. Economic factors (such as the quality of the nation’s banking sector) are significant determinants of bank privatization in both OECD and non-OECD nations.