企业数字化转型能抑制大股东掏空吗？

数字化转型是数字经济背景下企业形成竞争优势的关键，在公司治理中发挥着积极作用，影响着企业决策。本文以沪深两市2016—2020年的A股非金融公司为研究样本，实证检验了企业数字化转型对大股东掏空的影响。研究发现，企业数字化转型会抑制大股东的掏空行为。机制检验结果表明，企业数字化转型能够通过增强信息透明度和提高机构投资者持股比例来抑制大股东的掏空行为。进一步研究发现，在非国有上市公司和中西部地区的上市公司中，数字化转型对大股东掏空行为的抑制作用更显著；此外，市场化进程较低地区公司的数字化转型对其大股东掏空行为的抑制效果更显著。     

高管薪酬粘性形成机理研究:基于掏空视角

本文通过构建引入大股东掏空行为的委托代理模型,基于掏空视角探究高管薪酬粘性形成机理,并以2013-2017年沪深A股上市公司为样本进行实证检验,研究发现如下四点结论:(1)大股东实施掏空行为加剧了高管薪酬粘性特征,掏空程度越高,薪酬粘性特征越明显。(2)掏空程度对高管薪酬粘性的加剧作用因高管持股比例或大股东持股比例高低差异而产生突变,存在明显的门槛效应。(3)高管持股比例高于门槛值时,掏空程度对高管薪酬粘性的加剧作用更显著;反之高管持股比例较低时,则不明显。(4)大股东持股比例在门槛值以下,大股东掏空行为明显加剧了高管薪酬粘性特征;当大股东持股比例高于门槛值时,则不存在显著影响。     

融资融券、终极控制人两权分离与大股东掏空抑制

采用2010-2016年沪深两市A股上市公司数据,考察融资融券机制、终极控制人两权分离对大股东掏空行为的影响.研究发现:两权分离度越高,大股东掏空越严重.而融资融券抑制了终极控制人两权分离引起的大股东掏空.进一步分析发现:在投资者保护环境更差、信息披露质量较低、内部治理机制更差的公司中,融资融券的掏空治理效应更加明显.     

机构投资者与大股东掏空行为的研究——基于博弈论的分析框架

公司治理一直以来都是中外学者比较关注的问题,传统的公司治理,是围绕公司所有权和控制权这一基本特征的观点展开.随着所有权从分散走向集中,当代公司代理问题的重点已经从第一类代理问题——股东与经营者的代理问题转向第二类代理问题——大股东与中小股东之间的代理问题.而大股东“掏空”行为又是第二类代理问题研究的重中之重.由于我国特定的制度和历史背景所形成的“一股独大”的特殊股权结构使大股东对小股东的“掏空”行为变得非常普遍,而大股东的这种“掏空”行为实质上是对中小股东权益的掠夺和利益的损害,极大的打击了中小股东投资的积极性,进而严重地破坏了资本市场的正常秩序,阻碍资本市场的进一步发展,最终势必会影响整个经济的发展.因此,如何抑制大股东“掏空”行为,保护中小股东的利益,促进我国资本市场的健康发展成为公司治理迫切需要解决的问题.本文运用静态博弈模型分析了机构投资者介入抑制大股东“掏空”行为的机制,从理论角度得出机构投资者参与治理的动机受到其对上市公司治理情况的判断和监管成本影响的结论.     

大股东掏空会提高上市公司控制权变更可能性吗？

基于2010-2020年的A股上市公司样本数据，本文研究了大股东掏空对公司控制权变更的影响，结果表明：（1）大股东掏空程度越高，公司控制权变更倾向越大，股权质押爆仓导致的控制权变更与大股东掏空具有更显著的正向关系，一系列稳健性检验后，结论依然成立。（2）大股东掏空会通过恶化企业财务状况（降低公司业绩，进而提高融资约束）和提高股权质押动机来影响控制权变更。（3）在民营企业、机构投资持股比例低、高管持股比例低以及独立董事占比低的公司中，大股东掏空与控制权变更具有更强的正向关系。     

机构投资者、信息披露与盈余管理

本文以反映公司治理效率的信息披露与盈余管理作为关注要点,深入研究了机构投资者持股的治理效果问题.本文研究表明,机构投资者持股公司的盈余管理程度显著低于无机构投资者持股公司,并且盈余管理程度随着机构投资者持股的增加而显著降低.本文还检验了机构投资者持股能否有效提高公司信息披露的质量,发现机构投资者持股公司的信息披露质量显著高于无机构投资者持股公司,而且信息披露质量随着机构投资者持股的增加而提高.本文还发现,机构投资者持股公司信息披露对于盈余管理的监控作用更为显著,并且随着机构投资者持股的增加促进作用更为明显.以上发现意味着目前我国机构投资者已经参与到公司治理中,并在一定程度上发挥了积极的治理作用.     

机构投资者退出威胁能有效抑制高管机会主义减持吗？

本文以2007—2020年中国A股上市公司为研究样本,考察机构投资者退出威胁对高管机会主义减持行为的影响及作用机制。研究发现,机构投资者退出威胁能够有效抑制高管机会主义减持行为,具有显著的治理效应。机构投资者退出威胁有效降低了股价波动和股票错误定价,从而显著抑制了高管机会主义减持。环境不确定性和管理层自利性越强,则机构投资者退出威胁对高管机会主义减持的抑制效应越弱。进一步分析发现,上市公司机构投资者为交易型、发生股权质押以及产权性质为非国有企业时,机构投资者退出威胁对高管机会主义减持的影响更强;而且机构投资者退出威胁治理效应产生了积极的后果,显著抑制了高管减持寻租,提升了企业价值,降低了高管减持时的择机性。     

公司治理对公司绩效的影响研究——以房地产上市公司为例

本文以2015年126家上市房地产公司为样本,从内外部公司治理角度,对影响中国房地产上市公司绩效因素进行实证研究。结果发现:房地产企业股权比较集中;第一大股东持股比例与高管前三名薪酬水平对公司绩效呈现正相关关系;企业的负债水平与公司绩效呈负相关关系;公司绩效水平与独立董事比例、董事会规模及机构投资者持股比例没有显著关系。以此分析结论为依据,为我国房地产市场发展提供相应的参考建议。     

公司治理、机构投资者与盈余管理

本文选取沪深两市2003至2005年(非金融类)上市公司的数据,采用最小二乘法和二阶段回归方法,对公司治理、机构投资者与盈余管理三者的关系进行了实证研究。研究发现:机构投资者在一定程度上参与了上市公司的治理,其持股比例与公司治理水平呈正相关关系,说明机构投资者的持股比例越高越有助于提高公司治理水平;公司治理水平与盈余管理程度呈负相关关系;机构投资者的持股比例与盈余管理程度呈负相关关系,说明机构投资者能有效地抑制管理层的盈余管理行为。     

机构投资者与股权激励：中国证券市场的实证研究

股权激励是公司治理的重要手段之一,2006年初,股权激励机制正式引入中国。本文通过对2006年中引入股权激励的40家上市公司的研究发现,在上市公司宣布股权激励方案之后,机构投资者的持股比例有了明显的上升,即使是引入对照组以控制大盘走势等其他的潜在影响因素之后,这一结果仍然显著存在。上述结果表明机构投资者高度关注公司的股权激励行为。在现行治理环境下,机构投资者更倾向于对公司治理良好的公司进行投资。     

内部控制、治理环境与投资者保护

本文研究了内部控制质量对投资者保护的影响,以及不同治理环境对内部控制治理功能的影响。研究发现:内部控制质量的提高,或更为充分的内控信息披露有助于抑制大股东资金占用,有助于抑制经理人与股东之间的代理成本;治理环境越差的地区,内部控制治理效应越高。这说明,对于投资者保护较弱的地区,内部控制可能成为补偿弱投资者保护负面影响的一种替代机制。本文研究意味着,近年来推出的内部控制相关制度起到了积极的效果;此外,完善上市公司内部控制,对于治理环境较差、投资者利益得不到有效保障的地区显得尤为重要。     

机构投资者能改进上市公司高管的薪酬激励吗?

次贷危机爆发以来,公司高管的巨额薪酬成为众矢之的。随着我国机构投资者的迅速崛起,市场对机构投资者改进上市公司治理寄予了厚望。我国的机构投资者能否对上市公司高管的薪酬激励和股权激励产生积极影响是本文关注的重点。本文选取2004~2008年度的上市公司作为样本,运用线性概率模型、Probit、Logit、Tobit以及OLS等回归方法对机构持股和上市公司高管薪酬激励,特别是股权激励的关系进行实证检验。实证结果表明中国的机构投资者并未有效限制高管股权激励和固定薪酬的增长,对于薪酬设计的改善作用也有待加强,机构股东积极主义在中国还有待加强。     

Independent directors’ board networks and controlling shareholders’ tunneling behavior

As one of the channels by which board directors build important relationships, board networks can affect the governance role of independent directors. Defining director board networks as their connections based on direct ties they establish when serving on at least one common board, this paper explores the role of the network centrality of independent directors in restraining tunneling behavior by controlling shareholders in the Chinese capital market. Our empirical evidence shows that tunneling behavior by controlling shareholders is negatively related to the network centrality of independent directors and that this relationship is stronger when non-operating fund occupation is used as the measure of tunneling. The results of our study show that board networks can help independent directors to restrain tunneling behavior by large shareholders, which plays a positive role in corporate governance.     

大股东过度自信行为与公司治理的有效性——基于大股东增持的实证检验

大股东是公司治理的重要参与主体,但大股东行为未必都是理性的。本文以大股东增持为研究的切入点,研究了大股东过度自信行为对公司治理有效性的影响。结果发现,大股东过度自信行为对公司治理有效性有显著的负面影响,而公司外部治理环境的完善对其具有矫正作用。即使剔除政府救市因素对大股东增持的影响,上述研究结论也依然成立。本文认为,在公司治理机制构建中对参与主体非理性因素的考虑,是提高公司治理机制有效性的重要前提。     

社交媒体上“用嘴投票”对管理层自愿性业绩预告的影响

本文研究了投资者 “股吧”讨论这种“用嘴投票”机制能否发挥治理作用进而促进管理层进行自愿性业绩预告。用上市公司股吧中的发帖量、阅读量和评论量来衡量投资者“用嘴投票”的参与程度,研究发现投资者“用嘴投票”参与度越高,管理层进行盈余预测自愿性披露的概率越大,且更愿意及时披露业绩下滑等坏消息。进一步研究发现,投资者“用嘴投票”是通过对股价产生影响、引发监管层关注和招致媒体报道这三个渠道对管理层产生预警进而发挥治理作用。且这一治理机制在管理层受到互联网信息影响可能性越大、公司中小股东户数越多以及论坛的讨论内容越负面时更为显著。     

Evidence from impending bankrupt firms that long horizon institutional investors are informed about future firm value

A key assumption in many accounting and finance studies is that long horizon institutional investors are informed shareholders. Yet past empirical research finds no evidence that these institutions anticipate major corporate events, including earnings-based events. I find that long horizon institutions are better informed in that they sell more shares of impending bankrupt firms than of matched distress firms at least one quarter ahead of bankruptcy. Share sales are greater in impending bankrupt firms whose shareholders ultimately lose all of their equity. In additional analyses, I document greater share sales by long horizon institutions with supposedly superior information processing abilities and/or access to corporate management. Share sales are significantly less in the post Regulation FD era. Overall, my findings support the validity of the common assumption that long horizon institutions are informed. Regulation FD appears to mitigate (but not eliminate) their information advantage.     

Institutional investors and earnings management associated with controlling shareholders' promises: Evidence from the split share structure reform in China

We examine the effectiveness of institutional investors in constraining aggressive earnings management induced by strong contractual incentives. To this end we focus on the consequences of earnings-related promises (covenants) negotiated between corporate controlling shareholders and minority shareholders during China’s split-share structure reform, wherein failure to achieve profit benchmarks had the potential to transfer significant wealth from controlling to minority shareholders. Our initial analysis provides evidence that profit-promised firm-years are, on average, associated with income-increasing earnings management, and that this association is stronger for: (i) firm-years in which the profit-promise was satisfied, and (ii) firm-years in which proxies for the level of unmanaged earnings suggest that earnings management was needed to satisfy the promise. However, such benchmark-beating behavior is weaker for firms with higher levels of institutional ownership. Further analysis documents that the exit threat of institutional shareholders can discipline earnings management associated with profit promises. We also show that the effect of institutional shareholders in reducing earnings management associated with profit promises is greater for domestic mutual funds and for privately controlled firms. Interestingly, our evidence suggests that institutional investors only play an effective monitoring role over earnings management when their incentives are strongly aligned with those of other minority owners. In other cases, our evidence suggests that these investors may exacerbate the level of earnings management.     

Say on Pay: Is It Needed? Does It Work?

A leading compensation practitioner reviews “Say on Pay” rules, those corporate practices giving shareholders the right to vote on executive compensation. The assumption behind “Say on Pay” is that managers may be overpaid because directors fail to provide adequate oversight. O'Byrne questions this underlying assumption. He provides substantial evidence that directors do a poor job overseeing executive pay and that directors have weak incentives to pursue shareholder interests in executive pay. He also finds that “Say on Pay voting is sensitive to differences in pay for performance, but so forgiving that extraordinary pay premiums are required to elicit a majority ‘no’ vote”; and “that three quarters of institutional investors have lower SOP voting quality… than the average investor and almost all have a short‐term focus, with much greater vote sensitivity to current year grant date pay premiums than to long‐term pay alignment and cost.” The common corporate practice of providing competitive target compensation regardless of past performance leads to low alignment of pay and performance. Unfortunately, directors have little incentive to protect shareholder interests “because they are paid labor providers, just like management, not stewards of substantial personal capital.”     

社交媒体上“用嘴投票”对管理层自愿性业绩预告的影响

本文研究了投资者 “股吧”讨论这种“用嘴投票”机制能否发挥治理作用进而促进管理层进行自愿性业绩预告。用上市公司股吧中的发帖量、阅读量和评论量来衡量投资者“用嘴投票”的参与程度,研究发现投资者“用嘴投票”参与度越高,管理层进行盈余预测自愿性披露的概率越大,且更愿意及时披露业绩下滑等坏消息。进一步研究发现,投资者“用嘴投票”是通过对股价产生影响、引发监管层关注和招致媒体报道这三个渠道对管理层产生预警进而发挥治理作用。且这一治理机制在管理层受到互联网信息影响可能性越大、公司中小股东户数越多以及论坛的讨论内容越负面时更为显著。     

Corporate Governance in India

The Indian corporate governance system has both supported and held back India's ascent to the top ranks of the world's economies. While on paper the country's legal system provides some of the best investor protection in the world, enforcement is a major problem, with overburdened courts and significant corruption. Ownership remains concentrated and family business groups continue to be the dominant business model, with significant pyramiding and evidence of tunneling activity that transfers cash flow and value from minority to controlling shareholders. But for all its shortcomings, Indian corporate governance has taken major steps toward becoming a system capable of inspiring confidence among institutional and, increasingly, foreign investors. The Securities and Exchanges Board of India (SEBI), which was established as part of the comprehensive economic reforms launched in 1991, has made considerable progress in becoming a rigorous regulatory regime that helps ensure transparency and fair practice. And the National Stock Exchange of India, also established as part of the reforms, now functions with enough efficiency and transparency to be generating the third‐largest number of trades in the world, just behind the NASDAQ and NYSE. Among more recent changes, the enactment of Sarbanes—Oxley type measures in 2004—which includes protections for minority shareholders in family‐ or “promoter”‐led businesses—has contributed to recent increases in institutional and foreign stock ownership. And while family‐ and government‐controlled business groups continue to be the rule, India has also seen the rise of successful companies like Infosys that are free of the influence of a dominant family or group and have made the individual shareholder their central governance focus.