The Operating Performance of Newly Privatised Firms in Central European Transition Economies

This study examines the operating performance of privatised firms in three Central European Transition Economies between 1990 and 1998. Overall, we find no evidence of a significant improvement in operating performance for the first six years after privatisation. Contrary to the increasing empirical evidence for non‐transition economies, our privatised firms experience no improvement in profitability, capital investments, efficiency, and output, a significant drop in employment, as well as a significant increase in leverage. The most important determinants of the performance changes following privatisation were country effects, timing of the privatisation sales, industry classification, and state ownership after privatisation. Our findings are consistent with the empirical evidence that the transition process proved to be more difficult than expected and that, although necessary, privatisations do not necessarily produce equal efficiency gains in transition economies ( Megginson, 2005 ; Havrylyshyn and McGettigan, 1999 ).     

Dynamics in Ownership and Firm Survival: Evidence from Corporate Germany

This study investigates the determinants of changes in corporate ownership and firm failure for German firms. We find that many of the determinants of failure also affect ownership changes in this bank‐based economy. They include poor performance, weak corporate governance, high leverage, and small firm size. The ownership structure also plays a role for both events. Separate analyses of one of these events are therefore likely to miss important effects. The implications for the German corporate governance system are that the differences to countries with more market‐based systems are not as pronounced as previously speculated.     

Does ownership concentration improve M&A outcomes in emerging markets?: Evidence from India

Using firm level data from India, we examine the impact of ownership concentration on post-M&A performance of firms. Our analysis has implications for both the M&A literature, which emphasises the role of agency conflict between managers and owners of widely held companies as a key reason for M&A failures, and the corporate governance literature, especially in the context of emerging market economies. A cautious interpretation of our results suggests that while ownership concentration may reduce the manager–owner agency conflict, it may nevertheless precipitate other forms of agency conflict such that ownership concentration may not necessarily improve post-M&A performance. In particular, our results have implications for the literature on the agency conflict between large (or majority) shareholders and small (or minority) shareholders of a company, especially in contexts such as emerging market economies where corporate governance quality is weak.     

Corporate Restructuring and Bondholder Wealth

This paper provides an overview of existing research on how corporate restructuring affects bondholder wealth. Restructuring is defined as any transaction which affects the firm's riskiness by changing its underlying capital structure. Thus, it reaches well beyond asset restructuring and includes transactions such as leveraged buyouts, security issues and exchanges, and the issuance of stock options. We identify significant gaps in the literature, emphasize the potential differences in bond performance between market‐ and stakeholder‐oriented corporate governance systems, and provide valuable insights into methodological advances. We find that many issues remain as the empirical evidence is often inconclusive and focuses almost exclusively on the US. Research on other countries remains constrained by the lesser development of their bond markets, but is equally imperative because the position and bargaining power of creditors vis‐à‐vis the firm differ substantially across countries and governance regimes.     

Form versus substance: The effect of ownership structure and corporate governance on firm value in Thailand

We examine the relation between the quality of corporate governance practices and firm value for Thai firms, which often have complex ownership structures. We develop a comprehensive measure of corporate governance and show that, in contrast to conventional measures of corporate governance, our measurement, on average, is positively associated with Tobin’s q. Furthermore, we find that q values are lower for firms that exhibit deviations between cash flow rights and voting rights. We also find that the value benefits of complying with “good” corporate governance practices are nullified in the presence of pyramidal ownership structures, raising doubts on the effectiveness of governance measures when ownership structures are not transparent. We conclude that family control of firms through pyramidal ownership structures can allow firms to seemingly comply with preferred governance practices but also use the control to their advantage.     

Corporate governance and firm performance

How is corporate governance measured? What is the relationship between corporate governance and performance? This paper sheds light on these questions while taking into account the endogeneity of the relationships among corporate governance, corporate performance, corporate capital structure, and corporate ownership structure. We make three additional contributions to the literature:First, we find that better governance as measured by the Gompers, Ishii, and Metrick [Gompers, P.A., Ishii, J.L., and Metrick, A., 2003, Corporate governance and equity prices, Quarterly Journal of Economics 118(1), 107–155.] and Bebchuk, Cohen and Ferrell [Bebchuk, L., Cohen, A., and Ferrell, A., 2004, What matters in corporate governance?, Working paper, Harvard Law School] indices, stock ownership of board members, and CEO-Chair separation is significantly positively correlated with better contemporaneous and subsequent operating performance.Second, contrary to claims in GIM and BCF, none of the governance measures are correlated with future stock market performance. In several instances inferences regarding the (stock market) performance and governance relationship do depend on whether or not one takes into account the endogenous nature of the relationship between governance and (stock market) performance.Third, given poor firm performance, the probability of disciplinary management turnover is positively correlated with stock ownership of board members, and board independence. However, better governed firms as measured by the GIM and BCF indices are less likely to experience disciplinary management turnover in spite of their poor performance.     

Managerial incentives and corporate leverage: evidence from the United Kingdom

This paper investigates the effect of managerial incentives and corporate governance on capital structure using a large sample of UK firms during the period 1999–2004. The analysis revolves around the view that managerial incentives are important in determining a firm's leverage. However, we argue that the exact impact of these incentives on leverage is likely to be determined by firm‐specific governance characteristics. To conduct our investigation, we construct a simple corporate governance measure using detailed ownership and governance information. We present evidence of a significant non‐monotonic relationship between executive ownership and leverage. There is also strong evidence suggesting that corporate governance practices have a significant impact on leverage. More importantly, the results reveal that the nature of the relation between executive ownership and leverage depends on the firm's corporate governance structure.     

Corporate governance and capital allocations of diversified firms

We examine how various aspects of corporate governance structures affect the capital allocation inefficiency that drives the value discounts of diversified firms. Diversified firms with more effective internal or external governance mechanisms experience more efficient investment allocations at both the firm and segment levels and show less of a diversification discount. The efficiency of the investment allocation process is better for diversified firms with high board independence, low board busyness, high institutional ownership, high outside director ownership, high CEO equity-based pay, high audit quality, and strong shareholder rights. The results hold after controlling for other potential influences. Our evidence suggests that corporate governance considerations are important in assessing the relation between investment efficiency and firm value for diversified firms.     

The political economy of corporate governance in developing economies: The case of Bangladesh

The paper investigates the influence of concentrated shareholding, boardroom politics and interest group politics in the quality of corporate governance in listed firms. It finds that the controlling shareholders exert influence in boardroom politics through family-aligned board and executive management. The evidence shows that concentrated ownership, family-aligned board and management, and political connection(s) of the controlling shareholder(s) tend to be inversely associated with the quality of corporate governance in a firm. The findings of the study suggest that the broad-based interest group politics which influence both political preference and corporate control politics contribute significantly to the current state of corporate governance in developing economies.     

Corporate Governance and Expected Stock Returns: Evidence from Germany

Recent empirical work shows evidence for higher valuation of firms in countries with a better legal environment. We investigate whether differences in the quality of firm‐level corporate governance also help to explain firm performance in a cross‐section of companies within a single jurisdiction. Constructing a broad corporate governance rating (CGR) for German public firms, we document a positive relationship between governance practices and firm valuation. There is also evidence that expected stock returns are negatively correlated with firm‐level corporate governance, if dividend yields are used as proxies for the cost of capital. An investment strategy that bought high‐CGR firms and shorted low‐CGR firms earned abnormal returns of around 12% on an annual basis during the sample period.     

An Ohlson valuation framework for valuing corporate governance: The case of Taiwan

We examine the relation between a firm's market value, financial performance, and corporate governance as a cointegrated system in the Ohlson (1995) valuation framework. Using a comprehensive set of 29 governance measures in 4 categories for Taiwanese firms, we find that governance related to ownership structure and divergence between cash flow rights and control rights are important for a firm's market valuation. In particular, information about shareholdings of board directors and supervisors, shareholdings of controlling family, and voting rights are influential for firm value. Controlling for book value and residual incomes in the model, these governance measures track much of the remaining firm valuation that is unrelated to a firm's financial performance. Our findings provide some insight into the intrinsic value of corporate governance and the types of corporate governance mechanisms that are especially important for firms with similar ownership structure and controls.     

The impact of governance reform on performance and transparency

This study examines the influence of Mexico’s efforts to improve corporate governance on firm performance and transparency. We utilize compliance data from the Code of ‘Best’ Corporate Practices, disclosed annually by public firms in Mexico, as a measure of corporate governance strength. We document a significant increase in compliance over 2000–2004 indicating Mexican companies view non-compliance as costly. However, we find no association between the governance index and firm performance, nor is there a relation with transparency. Instead, we find firms with greater compliance resort to the more costly mechanism of making dividend payments (higher propensity to pay and greater yield) to reduce agency conflicts. We conclude these associations are the direct result of the institutional features of the Mexican business environment, which is characterized by concentrated ownership of insiders, interlocked boards of directors, a lack of insider trading enforcement, and generally poor protection of minority investors. Our results show that monitoring mechanisms alone are not enough to fundamentally change economic behavior.     

Corporate governance and family firm performance during the Global Financial Crisis

We investigate the impact of corporate governance on accounting and market performance relationships of family firms during the Global Financial Crisis (GFC). We expect the monitoring aspects of corporate governance to complement the long-term orientation of family firms, improving the value relevance of accounting and market performance during times of exogenous financial shocks such as the GFC. We find that the family-firm value is more sensitive to book value than earnings changes. We also find better corporate governance, irrespective of whether it is a family firm or non-family firm, is associated with better accounting and market performance during the GFC.     

Mutual funds’ ownership and firm performance: Evidence from China

Mutual funds have emerged and rapidly developed since 2000 in China. This study tests empirically the impact of mutual funds’ ownership on firm performance in China, using a large sample for the period of 2001–2005. We find that equity ownership by mutual funds has a positive effect on firm performance. The result is robust to several measures of firm performance and various estimations. Our finding supports recent regulatory efforts in China to promote mutual funds as a corporate governance mechanism and suggests that pooling diffuse minority interests of individual shareholders who are prone to free-rider problems via mutual funds is beneficial.     

The connection between gender diversity and firm performance: Evidence from Taiwan

This paper examines the factors influencing female board membership in Taiwan over the period from 1996 through 2017 and the potential impact of female board representation on firm performance. With 16,477 firm-year observations, our findings show that Taiwanese firms with higher board independence and institutional ownership tend to have lower female board representation. In examining performance implications, the results suggest that board gender diversity is positively associated with firm performance overall. This positive relationship is even stronger in small firms, where female directors may have more influence. In subsample analysis based on lowest and highest ultimate control ownership, we document that the positive impact of board gender diversity is mainly driven by firms that have high ultimate control ownership. Our findings suggest that, in environments with weak corporate governance, female board members may act as effective monitors, especially in smaller firms. Regulators and firms in developing economies with weak corporate governance environment should encourage gender diversity on boards.     

Corporate Performance,Corporate Governance and Top Executive Turnover in Finland

This paper empirically investigates how corporate governance forces and firm performance affect top executive turnover in Finnish listed companies. I document an increase in CEO, top management, and board turnover in response to poor stock price performance and operating losses. The sensitivity of the relation between stock price performance and CEO turnover is significantly higher in firms with a two‐tier board structure (when the CEO is not the chairman), but significantly lower when the CEO or a board member is the controlling shareholder. These results suggest that both the ownership structure and the board design have implications for the disciplining of managers.     

The financing behaviour of listed Chinese firms

This paper examines the corporate financing behaviour of listed companies in the People's Republic of China. Our results suggest that some determinants of firm leverage (e.g., size, asset tangibility, growth opportunities and profitability) commonly cited in studies on developed economies also appear to be important in China. In particular, the positive relationships that firm size and asset tangibility have with firm leverage are consistent with the predictions of the static trade-off capital structure model. However, these commonly quoted determinants function in a way different from that reported in developing countries. Moreover, we do not find that State ownership, legal person ownership and foreign ownership have important influences on the capital structure choices of Chinese firms. Given the tight regulatory control over equity issues and acute owner–manager incentive conflicts in State-owned firms, we also hypothesise, and find evidence to support, that Chinese firms have built-in incentives for raising equity. This provides one explanation of the negative effect of profitability on firm leverage and shows that some of the unique Chinese institutional features do help shape corporate financing behaviour.     

Determinants of Capital Structure in Emerging European Economies: Evidence from Slovenian Firms

Although empirical research has shown that some capital structure differences can be explained by modern capital structure theory in mature market economies, the forces behind capital structure decisions in emerging European economies remain a puzzle. We assume that, in these countries, the change in economic system, and therefore corporate governance, has been only gradual; other forces must be at work when firms decide on their capital structures compared to those of mature market economies. After identifying possible relevant factors in Slovenian firms, we show that throughout the period from 1999 to 2006, these factors explained the greatest part of capital structure differences. However, the explanatory power of the proposed factors is changing, which implies changing corporate governance and financial behavior of Slovenian firms during transition.     

The Determinants of Debt Maturity Structure: Evidence from France,Germany and the UK

We examine the determinants of the debt maturity structure of French, German and British firms. These countries represent different financial and legal traditions that may have implications on corporate debt maturity structure. Our model incorporates the factors representing three major theories (tax considerations, liquidity and signalling, and contracting costs) of debt maturity. It also controls for capital market conditions. The results confirm the applicability of most theories of debt maturity structure for the UK firms. However, the evidence from France and Germany are mixed. Overall the findings suggest that the debt maturity structure of a firm is determined by firm‐specific factors and the country's financial systems and institutional traditions in which it operates.