Insider ownership, ownership concentration and investment performance: An international comparison

This article makes two important contributions to the literature on the incentive effects of insider ownership. First, it presents a clean method for separating the positive wealth effect of insider ownership from the negative entrenchment effect, which can be applied to samples of companies from the US and any other country. Second, it measures the effects of insider ownership using a measure of firm performance, namely a marginal q, which ensures that the causal relationship estimated runs from ownership to performance. The article applies this method to a large sample of publicly listed firms from the Anglo-Saxon and Civil law traditions and confirms that managerial entrenchment has an unambiguous negative effect on firm performance as measured by both Tobin's (average) q and our marginal q, and that the wealth effect of insider ownership is unambiguously positive for both measures. We also test for the effects of ownership concentration for other categories of owners and find that while institutional ownership improves the performance in the USA, financial institutions have a negative impact in other Anglo-Saxon countries and in Europe.     

卖空与创新:A股公司融券试点的证据

本文依托中国A股市场2010年开始实施的融券试点,在通过多时点双重差分和倾向得分匹配等计量方法控制内生性的基础上,实证检验了卖空对上市公司创新行为的促进作用.结果 表明:(1)加入融券标的后,卖空公司的创新数量和创新质量都有显著提高;(2)对于金融市场欠发达、治理水平较差的公司,这种作用更明显;(3)在使用融券余额作为卖空势力的测度并用ETF基金持股比例作为工具变量进一步控制内生性以后,以上结论仍然成立.卖空有助于降低创新企业的信息不对称性和加强对经理人的薪酬激励,进而促进了企业的创新.因此,取消卖空限制将有助于中国企业的创新和资本市场的健康稳定发展.     

The pricing of U.S. IPOs by seasoned foreign firms

We examine the pricing of U.S. initial public offerings (IPOs) by foreign firms that are already seasoned in their domestic countries. Presumably, these equity offers have less downside risk for investors than typical IPOs since domestic share prices can be used to help establish a preoffer value for the firm's equity. In spite of the presumed diminished downside risk, we find that offers by firms from countries that impose foreign ownership restrictions and capital controls are on average underpriced, experiencing an average first-day return in the United States of 12.7%. This result stems in part from the underwriter's failure to price the issue to fully reflect the postoffer premium that often arises for the U.S. shares. In contrast, offers by firms from countries without ownership restrictions have an average first-day return of 0.0%.     

Changes in insider ownership and changes in the market value of the firm

The empirically-observed cross-sectional relation between the level of insider share ownership and the level of firm value has often been interpreted to mean that a change in share ownership can lead to a change in firm value. Such an interpretation has been criticized for ignoring potential endogeneity. In this paper, we perform two sets of tests to circumvent this alleged endogeneity. First, we measure changes in value over the 6-day interval around announcements of insider share purchases and find that the cross-sectional variability in changes in value is described by a curvilinear relation between firm value and insider ownership where the value of the firm first increases, then decreases, as insider share ownership increases. Second, we conduct tests to determine (1) whether the insider purchases are a response to changes in firm characteristics that require a new optimal equilibrium ownership level or (2) whether insiders are purchasing shares to signal that the firm is undervalued. We find no evidence to support these interpretations. Overall, our results are consistent with a causal interpretation of the empirical relation between insider ownership and firm value.     

Corporate Governance and Asset Sales: The Effect of Internal and External Control Mechanisms

We investigate firms that sell assets to determine whether corporate governance mechanisms are effective at controlling agency problems. Our evidence shows that these firms have lower managerial ownership and are more likely to make unrelated acquisitions, suggesting weak internal controls. Analysis of insider trading activity shows that, on average, net buying increases before the asset sale and shareholders benefit more when this occurs. Results suggest that how managers reach a given level of ownership provides more information about incentive alignment than just the level of ownership. Our results also highlight the dynamic nature of corporate restructuring as firms acquire and then sell assets.     

Trading and enforcing patent rights

We study how the market for innovation affects enforcement of patent rights. We show that patent transactions arising from comparative advantages in commercialization increase litigation, but trades driven by advantages in patent enforcement reduce it. Using data on trade and litigation of individually owned patents in the United States, we exploit variation in capital gains tax rates across states as an instrument to identify the causal effect of trade on litigation. We find that taxes strongly affect patent transactions, and that trade reduces litigation on average, but the impact is heterogeneous. Patents with larger potential gains from trade are more likely to change ownership, and the impact depends critically on transaction characteristics.     

Do institutional investors drive corporate social responsibility? International evidence

This paper assesses whether shareholders drive the environmental and social (E&S) performance of firms worldwide. Across 41 countries, institutional ownership is positively associated with E&S performance with additional tests suggesting this relation is causal. Institutions are motivated by both financial and social returns. Investors increase firms’ E&S performance following shocks that reveal financial benefits to E&S improvements. In cross section, investors increase firms’ E&S performance when they come from countries with a strong community belief in the importance of E&S issues, but not otherwise. As such, these institutional investors transplant their social norms regarding E&S issues around the world.     

Firm size,ownership structure,and systematic liquidity risk: The case of an emerging market

Previous studies support the hypothesis that institutional ownership leads to an enhanced systematic liquidity risk by increasing the commonality in liquidity. By using a proprietary database of all incoming orders and ownership structure in an emerging stock market, we show that institutional ownership leads to an increase in commonality in liquidity for mid- to-large cap firms; however, only individual ownership can lead to such an increase for small cap firms, revealing a new source of systematic liquidity risk for a specific group of firms. We also reveal that commonality decreases with the increasing number of investors (for both individual and institutional) at any firm size level; suggesting that as the investor base gets larger, views of market participants become more heterogeneous, which provides an alternative way to decrease the systematic liquidity risk.     

The role of cross-listing,foreign ownership and state ownership in dividend policy in an emerging market

In this paper, we investigate if dividend policy is influenced by ownership type. Within the dividend literature, dividends have a signaling role regarding agency costs, such that dividends may diminish insider conflicts (reduce free cash flow) or may be used to extract cash from firms (tunneling effect) – which could be predominant in emerging markets. We expect firms with foreign ownership and those that are listed in overseas markets to have different dividend policies and practices than those that are not, and firms with more state ownership and less individual ownership to be more likely to pay cash dividends and less likely to pay stock dividends. Using firms from an emerging economy (China), we examine whether these effects exist in corporate dividend policy and practice. We find that both foreign ownership and cross-listing have significant negative effects on cash dividends, consistent with the signaling effect and the notion of reduced tunneling activities for firms with the ability to raise capital from outside of China. Consistent with the tunneling effect, we find that firms with higher state ownership tend to pay higher cash dividends and lower stock dividends, while the opposite is true for public (individual) ownership. Further analysis shows that foreign ownership mediates the effect of state ownership on dividend policy. Our results have significant implications for researchers, investors, policy makers and regulators in emerging markets.     

Determinants of state equity ownership,and its effect on value/performance: China's privatized firms

Evidence on the relationship between state ownership and performance in China's privatized firms is convex, concave and linear. Hence, the nature of this relationship is not resolved. This study examines this relationship for a larger, more recent sample of 4315 firm year observations of privatized Chinese firms during 1996–2003. Results support the hypothesis of a convex relationship between state ownership and performance showing benefits from strong privatization and state control. Not only is ownership structure found to affect performance, but also ownership concentration and balance of power jointly affect performance. Chinese firms with mixed control show significantly poorer performance than state or private controlled firms affirming the problem of ambiguity of ownership control, property rights, agency issues, profits and welfare objectives. New determinants of state ownership in China's firms are strategic importance, legal ownership, profitability, and market performance. Privatization benefits because there is a causal relation between ownership and performance.     

Government support for environmental regulation: Evidence from China

With an emphasis on innovation, Porter (1991) challenges the traditional wisdom and then hypothesizes a promotional effect of environmental regulation on firm performance. This paper reveals a complementary source, i.e., government support, to explain the promotional effect in a developing country. We use evidence from China to find a positive causal effect of environmental regulation stringency on firm performance. To justify our theory, we show that state ownership shares of a firm as an exogenous proxy for government support positively moderate the causal effect. We also use causal mediation analysis to document that loans from banks as the representative type of government support mediates the causal effect significantly in statistics and economics.     

The evolution of ownership structure of corporate spin-offs

Spin-offs inherit the ownership structure of their parents. The change from the monitoring requirements of the parent to those of an often smaller and higher risk firm constitutes a shock to this inherited ownership structure. This paper examines how block ownership changes in response to this shock and the performance and survival consequences of these changes. Block ownership increases from an average inherited level of 20.34% to 27.35% in three years. Comparison with size and industry-matched firms shows that this is not due to secular trends. Block ownership increases more when the inherited block ownership is smaller, when the spin-offs are smaller, have poorer performance and fewer growth opportunities relative to the parent, and when they operate in industries that are less related to the parents' industries. The results suggest that block ownership changes in response to the monitoring needs of spin-offs. This interpretation is supported by the positive association between changes in block ownership and subsequent firm performance and survival.     

Ownership and control in Central and Eastern Europe

The unique natural experiment of the fall of the iron curtain led to large institutional and governance differences across countries. This allows us to observe the evolution of ownership and control after an initial shock. We utilize this cross-time/cross-country variation in institutions and privatization methods to analyze the determinants and effects of individual investor control in a large sample of firms in 11 CEE countries over the period 2000–2007. Controlling for possible endogeneity and firm effects, we find that large individual investors add value to the firms they control. They do so predominantly compared to state controlled firms but also compared to other privately controlled firms. If large individual investor firms employ professional managers and (only) supervise them actively, they achieve the better performance improvements in Tobin's q than the firms managed by their controlling shareholders. Concerning the determinants of ownership, large individual shareholders substitute for missing good country governance institutions, and ownership is very sticky, since initial conditions (privatization methods) still matter. It appears that secondary markets do not converge on the same ownership equilibria as primary markets do.     

TAX-LOSS SELLING,INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS,AND THE JANUARY EFFECT: A NOTE

In this note we test the hypothesis that trading by tax-motivated individual investors is responsible for the January effect. We examine the ownership structure of a large sample of firms over a four-year period and find that the small firms that usually exhibit high January returns have low institutional ownership. After controlling for firm size, we still find that institutional ownership is significantly related to January abnormal returns. These results suggest that one reason the January effect may concentrate in small firms is because these firms are held by tax-motivated individual investors.     

Setting a fox to keep the geese — Does the comply-or-explain principle work?

The German Corporate Governance Code works according to the comply-or-explain principle. One of its recommendations was to publish the remuneration of the members of the executive board on an individual basis. We examine the characteristics of the firms that complied with the code requirement. Our results indicate that firms that paid higher average remunerations to their management board members were less likely to comply, whereas firms with higher Tobin's Q were more likely to comply. We also document a non-monotonic relation between ownership concentration and the probability of compliance that is consistent with standard corporate governance arguments.Due to the fact that the number of firms complying with the disclosure requirement was low, a new law was passed that mandates disclosure unless the shareholders' meeting (with a 75% majority) decides otherwise. We find that this “loophole” in the new legislation is exploited by smaller firms, firms with comparatively high levels of executive remuneration, and firms with concentrated ownership. We discuss the implications of our results for the effectiveness of the comply-or-explain regulation.     

Corporate governance and firm value during a financial crisis

The main purpose of this paper is to evaluate the effects of management ownership and other corporate governance variables on Hong Kong firms’ stock performance following the onset of the Asian Financial Crisis (1997–98). Our results show that Hong Kong firms with a more concentrated management (executive board) ownership displayed better capital market performance during the 13-month period of the Crisis. We also find that firms with more equity ownership by non-executive directors, and in which the positions of CEO and board chairperson were occupied by the same individual experienced a smaller stock price decline. Our findings are consistent with the notion that there is a greater alignment of insiders with outside owners, rather than the expropriation by insiders who have the opportunity to divert value, for firms with higher levels of management ownership during an unexpected capital market crisis.     

Managerial Ownership and Accounting Conservatism

In this paper we examine the effect of managerial ownership on financial reporting conservatism. Separation of ownership and control gives rise to agency problems between managers and shareholders. Financial reporting conservatism is one potential mechanism to address these agency problems. We hypothesize that, as managerial ownership declines, the severity of agency problem increases, increasing the demand for conservatism. Consistent with our hypothesis, we find that conservatism as measured by the asymmetric timeliness of earnings declines with managerial ownership. The negative association between managerial ownership and asymmetric timeliness of earnings is robust to various controls, in particular, for the investment opportunity set. We thus provide evidence of a demand for conservatism from the firm's shareholders.     

THE RISE IN MANAGERIAL STOCK OWNERSHIP

Despite the widespread view from Berle and Means onward that ownership of U.S. companies has become increasingly separated from managerial control, the authors report that managerial ownership of public corporations is markedly higher today than in 1935. Using a comprehensive sample of the 1,500 publicly traded firms in 1935 and a comparable sample of 4,200 firms in 1995, their study finds that managerial ownership increased from an average of 13% in 1935 to 21% in 1995. In terms of real (1995) dollar values, average managerial ownership increased from $18 million to $73 million over the same 60‐year period. One potential explanation for this increase is that greater reliance on managerial ownership has substituted for less reliance on other incentive alignment devices, such as pay‐for performance and the market for corporate control. The authors, however, report just the opposite. The use of such other corporate governance mechanisms has generally also increased over time, suggesting that the top managements of today's publicly traded corporations face greater pressure from investors and boards of directors than managements earlier in the century. An alternative explanation concern possible changes over time in the effects of certain company characteristics on the costs and benefits of using managerial ownership as a control device. While most of the characteristics the authors examined had the same relationship to managerial ownership in both periods, the role of volatility was different. In 1935, managerial ownership was inversely related to firm volatility; that is, higher volatility was associated with lower managerial ownership. In 1995, however, the relationship of managerial ownership to volatility was “nonlinear”; managerial ownership was positively related to firm volatility at low and moderate levels of volatility but the relationship turns negative when firm volatility is high. The overall lower level of volatility today, together with advances in capital markets and financial theory that have reduced the costs of hedging, appear to have reduced the costs of managers holding large stakes in their firms.     

State ownership,soft-budget constraints,and cash holdings: Evidence from China’s privatized firms

We study the relation between state ownership and cash holdings in China’s share-issue privatized firms from 2000 to 2012. We find that the level of cash holdings increases as state ownership declines. For the average firm in our sample, a 10 percentage-point decline in state ownership leads to an increase of about RMB 55 million in cash holdings. This negative relation can be attributable to the soft-budget constraint (SBC) inherent in state ownership. The Chinese financial system is dominated by the state-owned banks, an environment very conducive for the SBC effect. We further examine and quantify the effect of state ownership on the value of cash and find that the marginal value of cash increases as state ownership declines. The next RMB added to cash reserves of the average firm is valued at RMB 0.96 by the market. The marginal value of cash in firms with zero state ownership is RMB 0.36 higher than in firms with majority state ownership. The SBC effect exacerbates agency problems inherent in state-controlled enterprises, contributing to their lower value of cash.     

Does foreign institutional ownership increase return volatility? Evidence from China

This paper investigates the impact of foreign institutional ownership on firm-level stock return volatility in China, based on our study of a sample of 1458 firms between 1998 and 2008. The empirical results show that share ownership by foreign institutions (both financial and non-financial) increases firm-level stock return volatility, even after controlling for a complete ownership structure, firm size, turnover, and leverage, and correcting for potential endogeneity problems. However, the results also show that foreign individual shareholdings reduce volatility. Furthermore, we document a positive relationship between domestic shareholdings (individual, institutional, and governmental) and firm-level stock return volatility. Empirical results with interaction terms show that foreign institutional ownership increases firm-level return volatility by strengthening the positive impact of liquidity on volatility. The volatility reduction effect of foreign individual ownership is attenuated by government ownership suggests a poor governance environment as a result of the involvement of the Chinese government.