Tunneling or propping: Evidence from connected transactions in China

Friedman et al. (2003) develop a model in which, in equilibrium, controlling shareholders may choose either tunneling or propping of their listed companies depending on the magnitude of an adverse shock and the magnitude of the private benefits of control. In this paper, we employ connected transaction data from China to test the implications of their model. We hypothesize that, when listed companies are financially healthy (in financial distress), their controlling shareholders are more likely to conduct connected transactions to tunnel (prop up) their listed companies and the market reacts unfavorably (favorably) to the announcement of these transactions. Our empirical findings strongly support our hypotheses. We also find that all of the transaction types in our sample can be used for tunneling or propping depending on different financial situations of the firms. Finally, political connection is negatively associated with the announcement effect. Overall, our analysis supports Friedman et al.'s (2003) model by furnishing clear evidence for propping and tunneling to occur in the same company but at different times.     

Does governance travel around the world? Evidence from institutional investors

We examine whether institutional investors affect corporate governance by analyzing portfolio holdings of institutions in companies from 23 countries during the period 2003–2008. We find that firm-level governance is positively associated with international institutional investment. Changes in institutional ownership over time positively affect subsequent changes in firm-level governance, but the opposite is not true. Foreign institutions and institutions from countries with strong shareholder protection play a role in promoting governance improvements outside of the U.S. Institutional investors affect not only which corporate governance mechanisms are in place, but also outcomes. Firms with higher institutional ownership are more likely to terminate poorly performing Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) and exhibit improvements in valuation over time. Our results suggest that international portfolio investment by institutional investors promotes good corporate governance practices around the world.     

Ineffective corporate governance: Director busyness and board committee memberships

Our paper examines whether holding multiple outside board seats compromises a director’s ability to effectively perform monitoring duties. Analyzing over 1400 firms, we report that individuals who hold more outside directorships serve on fewer board committees. The relation, however, appears non-linear, U-shaped, and in support for both the busyness and the reputation hypotheses. In addition, we find that holding more outside board seats decreases the likelihood of membership on compensation and audit committees. The findings substantiate evidence [Akhigbe, A., Martin, A.D., 2006. Valuation impact of Sarbanes–Oxley: Evidence from disclosure and governance within the financial services industry. Journal of Banking and Finance 30 (3), 989–1006] of value relevance of board committee structures. Additional analysis of committee memberships suggests that women and ethnic minorities are placed on more board committees. Also, directors on smaller and independent boards serve on more committees. Finally, it appears that the Sarbanes–Oxley act had a material impact on the association between the number of multiple board seats and committee memberships.     

Corporate governance and firm value: International evidence

In this paper, we investigate the relation between firm-level corporate governance and firm value based on a large and previously unused dataset from Governance Metrics International (GMI) comprising 6663 firm-year observations from 22 developed countries over the period from 2003 to 2007. Based on a set of 64 individual governance attributes we construct two alternative additive corporate governance indices with equal weights attributed to the governance attributes and one index derived from a principal component analysis. For all three indices we find a strong and positive relation between firm-level corporate governance and firm valuation. In addition, we investigate the value relevance of governance attributes that document the companies' social behavior. Regardless of whether these attributes are considered individually or aggregated into indices, and even when “standard” corporate governance attributes are controlled for, they exhibit a positive and significant effect on firm value. Our findings are robust to alternative calculation procedures for the corporate governance indices and to alternative estimation techniques.     

The effect of board structure on firm value: A multiple identification strategies approach using Korean data

Outside directors and audit committees are widely considered to be central elements of good corporate governance. We use a 1999 Korean law as an exogenous shock to assess whether and how board structure affects firm market value. The law mandates 50% outside directors and an audit committee for large public firms, but not smaller firms. We study this shock using event study, difference-in-differences, and instrumental variable methods, within an overall regression discontinuity approach. The legal shock produces economically large share price increases for large firms, relative to mid-sized firms; their share prices jump in 1999 when the reforms are announced.     

Incentive and entrenchment effects in European ownership

In a large sample of European firms we analyze the value discount associated with disproportional ownership structures first documented by Claessens et al. (2002). Consistent with a theoretical model of incentive and entrenchment effects, we find higher value discount in family firms, in firms with low cash flow concentration, and in industries with higher amenity value. Furthermore, the discount is higher in countries with good investor protection and higher for dual class shares than for pyramids. We find no impact on operating performance, likelihood of bankruptcy, dividend policy, or growth. Finally, we discuss policy implications of these findings.     

Zombie Board: Board Tenure and Firm Performance

We show that board tenure exhibits an inverted U‐shaped relation with firm value and accounting performance. The quality of corporate decisions, such as M&A, financial reporting quality, and CEO compensation, also has a quadratic relation with board tenure. Our results are consistent with the interpretation that directors’ on‐the‐job learning improves firm value up to a threshold, at which point entrenchment dominates and firm performance suffers. To address endogeneity concerns, we use a sample of firms in which an outside director suffered a sudden death, and find that sudden deaths that move board tenure away from (toward) the empirically observed optimum level in the cross‐section are associated with negative (positive) announcement returns. The quality of corporate decisions also follows an inverted U‐shaped pattern in a sample of firms affected by the death of a director.     

Shareholder democracy in play: Career consequences of proxy contests

This paper shows that proxy contests have a significant adverse effect on careers of incumbent directors. Following a proxy contest, directors experience a significant decline in the number of directorships not only in the targeted company, but also in other nontargeted companies. The results are established using the universe of all proxy contests during 1996–2010. To isolate the effect of the proxy contest, our empirical strategy uses within-firm variation in directors? exposure to the possibility of being voted out and exploits the predetermined schedule of staggered boards that allows only a fraction of directors to be nominated for election every year. We find that nominated directors relative to non-nominated ones lose 58% more seats on other boards. The evidence suggests the proxy-contest mechanism imposes a significant career cost on incumbent directors.     

Control/ownership structure,creditor rights protection,and the cost of debt financing: International evidence

We explore the effect of governance on bond yield-spreads and ratings in a multinational sample of firms. We find strong evidence that ultimate ownership (i.e., the voting/cash-flow rights wedge) and family control have a positive and significant effect on bond yield-spreads, and a negative and significant effect on bond ratings. Control in the hands of widely held financial firms has a positive effect on bond ratings only, while State control has no effect on either bond yield-spreads or ratings. We also find that a higher protection of debtholders’ rights generally reduces bond yield-spreads and increases bond ratings. Our results additionally show that, for both bondholders and rating agencies, the enforcement of debt laws is crucially important. Finally, we document a negative effect of debt covenants on debt costs when there is a high expropriation risk and poor creditor rights protection.     

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.     

A THEORY OF UNWINDING OF CROSS‐SHAREHOLDING UNDER MANAGERIAL ENTRENCHMENT

In this article I examine corporate strategies regarding cross‐shareholding and the unwinding of cross‐shareholding, and I present a rationale for corporate managers to unwind cross‐shareholding from the perspective of managerial entrenchment. Although cross‐shareholding enhances managerial entrenchment, the increased agency costs associated with managerial opportunism increase the incentives for a hostile takeover. To avoid a takeover, managers have to unwind cross‐shareholdings. The unwinding of cross‐shareholdings implies that managers will relinquish their entrenchment and thus will act to increase shareholders' wealth in the future. The model proposed here explains why cross‐shareholdings among Japanese firms declined during the 1990s, a decade during which the cost of takeovers decreased because of financial market deregulation.