Dual-class premium,corporate governance,and the mandatory bid rule: Evidence from the Brazilian stock market

This paper conducts a systematic analysis of the determinants of the relative price difference between voting and non-voting shares, i.e., the “dual-class premium,” within the context of a mandatory bid rule. While the removal of the mandatory bid rule can increase potential gains from control, it can also weaken protection for minority shareholders. We provide evidence that the latter effect dominates by showing that the premium increases (decreases) in response to enhancement (lowering) of investor protection via regulatory alterations in the rule. The premium is lower in government-owned firms, which may be an indicator that control transfers, that allow benefits from the mandatory bid rule to accrue to minority shareholders, are less likely in government-owned firms. We also find that the premium is inversely related to an index designed to capture the firm's corporate governance practices. The results suggest that expropriations of minority shareholders are more likely at firms with poor corporate governance provisions and weak takeover rules relating to mandatory bids.     

Equity sales in Belgian corporate groups: expropriation of minority shareholders? A clinical study

In Belgian corporate groups, complex pyramidal structures and interlocking ownership lead to separation of ownership and control. This may generate incentives for the controlling shareholder to divert resources within the group through intragroup equity sales. This in turn could lead to significant private benefits at the expense of the minority shareholders. We test this hypothesis by investigating the stock price reaction to the announcement of equity sales in Belgian groups. Our results suggest that intragroup equity sales create value for minority shareholders. Equity sales between group members and non-group members do not seem to affect the value for minority shareholders in Belgian groups.     

The Loser's Curse: Accounting for the Transaction Costs of Takeover and the Distortion of Takeover Motives

Studies for major stock markets of share price movements in the period around a takeover show that target company shareholders typically experience large gains in wealth but that acquiring company shareholders do not. The reasons for this asymmetry–and, in particular, for the absence of gains for the shareholders of the companies which initiate the deal–are imperfectly understood. This note suggests one factor contributing to those results. It argues that accounting practice prescribed by the main standard setters is non‐neutral towards ‘successful’ and ‘unsuccessful’ bidders with respect to reporting the transaction costs of bidding. It shows how the prescribed accounting treatment of these costs affects performance measures used in salary contracts as well as in the markets for executives and for corporate control. The result is that the managers of bidding companies will have an ‘arti ?cial’ incentive to in ?ate their bid price or to go ahead with a bid which offers no bene ?t to their shareholders. Ironically, the main standard setters seem minded soon to prohibit the only accounting technique which does not distort these incentives.     

Large controlling shareholders and stock price synchronicity

This paper examines the effect of controlling shareholders on stock price synchronicity by focusing on two salient corporate governance features in a concentrated ownership setting, namely, ultimate cash flow rights and the separation of voting and cash flow rights (i.e., excess control). Using a unique dataset of 654 French listed firms spanning 1998–2007, this study provides evidence that stock price synchronicity increases with excess control, supporting the argument that controlling shareholders tend to disclose less firm-specific information to conceal opportunistic practices. Additionally, this study shows that firms with substantial excess control are more likely to experience stock price crashes, consistent with the conjecture that controlling shareholders are more likely to hoard bad information when their control rights exceed their cash flow rights. Another important finding is that firms’ stock prices are less synchronous and less likely to crash when controlling shareholders own a large fraction of cash flow rights. This is consistent with the argument that controlling shareholders have less incentive to adopt poor disclosure policies and to accumulate bad news, since high cash flow ownership aligns their interests with those of minority investors.     

Stock‐Based Compensation in a Concentrated Ownership Setting: An Empirical Investigation

Stock‐based compensation has been viewed as an important mechanism for tying managers’ wealth to firm performance, and thus alleviating the agency conflict between the shareholders and the managers when ownership is diffused. However, in a concentrated ownership structure, controlling owners are usually the management of the firm; they can engage in self‐dealing activities to the detriment of minority shareholders’ interests. Yet, outside investors may anticipate the problem and discount the share price for the entrenchment behaviors they observe. In this study, we investigate how controlling owners trade off the benefits and the costs of using stock‐based compensation. Based on a sample of Taiwanese firms, our evidence shows that stock‐based compensation is negatively related to the agency problem embedded in a concentrated ownership structure. This relationship is evident among firms with more frequent equity offerings. Overall, our empirical evidence suggests that controlling owners consider the negative price effects of stock‐based compensation and trade off these costs with the benefits of expropriating minority shareholders’ interests, particularly when firms seek more external equity capital. Our results hold after controlling for selection bias and share collateral by controlling owners.     

When bank loans are bad news: Evidence from market reactions to loan announcements under the risk of expropriation

In this paper we investigate whether inefficient bank loans can reduce the value of borrowing firms when expropriation of the stock of minority shareholders by controlling shareholders is a major concern. Using data from Chinese banks, we find that bank loan announcements generate significantly negative abnormal returns for the borrowing firms. In line with this expropriation view, negative stock price reactions following bank loan announcements are concentrated in firms that are perceived to be more vulnerable to expropriation by controlling shareholders. Finally, we find evidence that a negative relationship between market reactions and firm vulnerability to expropriation exists only when firms borrow from the least efficient banks.     

An international study of shareholder protection in freeze-out M&A transactions

Freeze-out M&A transactions are those initiated by controlling shareholders to acquire minority shareholders' ownership in the firm. We compare international freeze-out mergers in 35 countries in merger premium, choice of payment, and completion probability. We find greater merger premium and probability of cash payment but lower deal completion rates in countries with stronger minority shareholder protection. Using detailed minority shareholder protection indexes, we find some evidence that the ex-post anti-self-dealing law enforcement is more important than the ex-ante anti-self-dealing law regulation in protecting minority shareholder value. Our study provides new evidence of minority shareholder protection in the setting of conflicts of interest between majority and minority shareholders.     

Tunneling or Value Added? Evidence from Mergers by Korean Business Groups

We examine whether firms belonging to Korean business groups (chaebols) benefit from acquisitions they make or whether such acquisitions provide a way for controlling shareholders to increase their wealth by increasing the value of other group firms (tunneling). We find that when a chaebol-affiliated firm makes an acquisition, its stock price on average falls. While minority shareholders of a chaebol-affiliated firm making an acquisition lose, the controlling shareholder of that firm on average benefits because the acquisition enhances the value of other firms in the group. This evidence is consistent with the tunneling hypothesis.     

Effects of recontracting on shareholder wealth: The case of voluntary spin-offs

This paper investigates the effect of voluntary corporate spin-off announcements on shareholder wealth. A significant positive share price reaction is documented for 93 voluntary spin-off announcements between 1963 and 1981. These shareholder gains do not appear to come wholly at the expense of bondholders. Evidence suggests the gains to shareholders may arise from tax and regulatory advantages and/or improved managerial efficiency resulting from the spin-off.     

中小股东仅能“搭便车”么?——来自深交所社会公众股东网络投票的经验证据

本文利用深交所的社会公众股东网络投票数据,研究了中小股东参与网络投票与公司决策的影响因素和经济后果。结果表明,大股东代理问题严重、机构投资者持股比例较高的公司,中小股东的网络投票参与率较高;中小股东的网络投票参与率与公司股票异常回报正相关,并且这种关系随着大股东代理问题的严重程度而增强。与小股东利益更为相关的股权分置改革提案中,中小股东投票参与率更高,并且这种更高的投票参与率在股权分置改革提案中能为中小股东增进财富。     

The sources of shareholder wealth gains from going private transactions: The role of controlling shareholders

The present study investigates the sources of shareholder wealth gains – as measured by cumulative abnormal returns and premiums – from going private transactions (GPTs). Using data for 314 GPTs from 18 Western European countries, we find that the announcements of GPTs generate a cumulative average abnormal return of about 22% and that pre-transaction shareholders on average receive a raw premium of about 36%. We further find that these shareholder wealth gains increase with the degree of separation of cash-flow and control rights of the pre-transaction ultimate owner and decrease with its ownership interests and with the presence of a second large shareholder. Taken together, these findings support the view that GPTs are expected to mitigate the inefficiencies induced by pre-transaction agency problems between controlling and minority shareholders. Thus, shareholder wealth gains from GPTs reflect the potential additional value that will be created under private ownership.     

Going Public without Governance: Managerial Reputation Effects

This paper addresses the agency problem between controlling shareholders and minority shareholders. This problem is common among public firms in many countries where the legal system does not effectively protect minority shareholders against oppression by controlling shareholders. We show that even without any explicit corporate governance mechanisms protecting minority shareholders, controlling shareholders can implicitly commit not to expropriate them. Stock prices of such companies are significantly higher and firms are more likely go public because of this reputation effect. Moreover, insiders divest shares gradually over time, at a rate that is negatively related to the degree of moral hazard.     

THE WEALTH EFFECTS OF VOLUNTARY SELLOFFS: IMPLICATIONS FOR DIVESTING AND ACQUIRING FIRMS

Previous research examining the wealth effects of voluntary selloffs has shown positive stock price movements around the announcement date for divesting firms. Shareholders realize positive economic gains from selloffs. One recent study indicates that shareholders of acquiring firms also realize economic gains. This study examines the division of economic gains between divesting and acquiring firms and the impact of the firm's financial condition and relative selloff size on the level of economic gains. Significant positive price movements are observed for divesting firms immediately prior to and on the announcement date. Some evidence of positive, although not significant, price movements is found for acquiring firms. These results suggest shareholders of divesting firms realize economic gains from selloffs while shareholders of acquiring firms neither gain nor lose. Also, as divesting firms sell off larger portions of their total assets, their shareholders realize greater economic gains; the division of economic gains becomes more one-sided (in favor of divesting firms) as the relative size of the selloff increases.     

Does Board Independence Matter in Companies with a Controlling Shareholder?

A number of studies have reported value discounts for listed companies in countries that provide weak legal protection to minority shareholders. Such studies typically attribute these discounts to the ability, and the well‐documented tendency, of controlling shareholders to extract a disproportionate share of corporate resources for “private benefits.” This tendency and the resulting discounts create a dilemma for those controlling shareholders intent on maximizing value for not just themselves, but all shareholders: How can such controlling shareholders assure their minority shareholders that they will not exploit their power to expropriate resources and so eliminate the discount from their companies' shares? This article investigates the possibility that such discounts can be reduced by appointing boards of directors made up of individuals who are independent of the controlling shareholders. Based on the systematic analysis of some 800 companies representing 22 countries, the authors' recent study reports that corporate values are consistently higher when boards are more independent of controlling shareholders—and that this relationship is especially strong in those countries that afford fewer rights to minority shareholders. What is likely to cause controlling shareholders to appoint more independent directors—a change that, after all, effectively limits the controlling shareholders' power and “degrees of freedom”? The answer provided by the authors is that board independence is most likely to be pursued by companies with controlling shareholders that also have major growth opportunities that must be funded mainly with outside equity.     

How does law affect finance? An examination of equity tunneling in Bulgaria

We model and test the mechanisms through which law affects tunneling and tunneling affects firm valuation. In 2002, Bulgaria adopted legal changes which limit equity tunneling through dilutive equity offerings and freezeouts. Following the changes, minority shareholders participate equally in equity offerings, where before they suffered severe dilution; freezeout offer price ratios quadruple; and Tobin's q rises sharply for firms at high risk of tunneling. The paper shows the importance of legal rules in limiting equity tunneling, the role of equity tunneling risk as a factor in determining equity prices, and substitution by controlling shareholders between different forms of tunneling.     

Shareholder wealth effects and bid negotiation in freeze-out deals: Are minority shareholders left out in the cold?

This paper examines the shareholder wealth effects of bids by controlling shareholders seeking to acquire the remaining minority equity stake in a firm, deals commonly referred to as minority freeze-outs. Minority claimants in freeze-out offers receive an allocation of deal surplus at the bid announcement that exceeds their pro rata claim on the firm. An analysis of bid outcomes and renegotiation indicates that minority claimants and their agents exercise significant bargaining power during freeze-out proposals. Overall, our results suggest that legal standards and economic incentives are sufficient to deter self-dealing by controllers during freeze-out bids.     

论控股股东对上市公司虚假财务报告的责任

控股股东对公司和其他股东负有诚信义务.在我国,控股股东往往凭借对上市公司董事会和管理当局的控制操纵上市公司财务报告.为保护中小投资者利益,应当追究控股股东对虚假陈述的责任.     

中小股东一致行动改善了公司治理水平吗?

在资本市场推行注册制改革的背景下,维护中小股东利益成为保障注册制改革效果,助力资本市场平稳运行的关键。本文实证考察了作为非实际控制人的中小股东如何利用一致行动参与公司治理。研究表明,中小股东通过一致行动形成投票表决权的集中配置,进而制衡大股东,从而改善公司绩效。在治理机制方面,中小股东一致行动对绩效的改善,一方面源于其帮助中小股东在股东大会上提出更多代表自身利益的议案,在董事会中委派更多董事,在决策过程中形成更大影响力;另一方面则源于其帮助中小股东实现对大股东的制衡和对经理人的监督,从而抑制实际控制人的“隧道挖掘”行为,缓解内部人控制问题。进一步研究发现,中小股东一致行动的作用效果受到一致行动人的持股比例、形成动机、上市公司的投票表决制度以及一致行动人类型的影响。     

Impact of share pledging by controlling shareholders on firm value in the context of China's tightened regulatory reforms

This study investigates the effect of the 2018 regulatory reforms of share pledging by a controlling shareholder on firm value in China. Using a dataset spanning the period 2015 to 2020, we provide robust results suggesting that tighter regulations effectively reduce firms' crash risk, relax financial constraints, reduce bankruptcy risk, and mitigate the controlling shareholder expropriation of minority shareholders' wealth via tunnelling. Additionally, controlling shareholders, by investing more pledged funds in the listed firm after reforms, foster capital investment and R&D expenditure, which benefit firm growth and competitiveness and ultimately increase firm long-term value.     

Do controlling shareholders collude with their related large shareholders? Evidence of equity pledges and shareholding increases from China

The key for controlling shareholders to prevent the risk of equity pledge is to increase the stock price, and the large shareholders' shareholding increases have the effect of increasing the stock price. Using the data of Chinese A-share firms from 2007 to 2019, this paper examines the relationship between the controlling shareholders' equity pledges and their related large shareholders' shareholding increases. We find that when the controlling shareholders pledge equity, their related large shareholders are more likely to increase their shareholdings. By analyzing the necessity, ability and motivation of related large shareholders to provide help, we find that shareholding increases of related large shareholders are behaviors of helping controlling shareholders to mitigate the risk of equity pledge. Based on the analysis of external acquisition threats, stability heterogeneity of control rights and exogenous impact of Vanke Equity Competition, it is shown that the controlling shareholders pledging equity promote their related large shareholders to increase their shareholdings for the purpose of preventing the risk of control transfer. In further analysis, we find that the shareholding increases of related large shareholders have the practical effect of improving the stock price and preventing pledge risks. This paper proves that the controlling shareholders pledging equity collude with their related large shareholders, which is reflected in the fact that the shareholding increases of the related large shareholders have become a means for controlling shareholders to prevent the risk of equity pledge.