Investor protection and cash holdings: Evidence from US cross-listing

This paper examines (i) whether the level of firms’ cash holdings differ depending on the strength of investor protection, (ii) whether excess cash holdings are valued more with better investor protection, and (iii) whether cross-listed firms that improve investor protection through “bonding” hold relatively more cash than non-cross-listed firms. We analyze 1405 ADR firms and their corresponding matched firms from 39 different countries and document that ADR firms have significantly higher cash holdings relative to their non-cross-listed peers, especially in recent years. The increase in cash holdings is much higher for emerging market firms because of their transition from particularly poor home country investor protection and accounting standards before cross-listing to much higher standards after cross-listing. In addition, firms with level III ADR listing, which represents the strongest investor protection, have higher cash holdings relative to other types of ADR firms.     

Is cross-listing a panacea for improving earnings quality? The case of H- and B-share firms in China

This study examines whether cross-listed Chinese H- and B-share firms exhibit higher earnings quality relative to non-cross-listed A-share firms based on seven accounting- and market-based earnings quality attributes, including accrual quality, persistence, predictability, smoothness, conservatism, timeliness and value relevance. We find that earnings quality does not differ between cross-listed and non-cross listed firms in terms of accrual quality, timeliness and value relevance, and that H- and B-share firms report earnings with lower quality in terms of persistence and predictability. We also find that the B-firms report smoother earnings, while the H-firms report more conservative earnings. The results of a battery of cross-sectional, endogeneity and sensitivity analyses either confirm our primary findings of no earnings quality difference or reveal lower earnings quality for cross-listed firms than for non-cross-listed firms. Considering that cross-listing in China is primarily driven by government decisions, our findings suggest that, without proper incentives, cross-listing is not likely to be a panacea for higher quality financial reporting.     

Voluntary disclosure practices by foreign firms cross-listed in the United States

This is one of the first large-scale studies to examine the voluntary disclosure practices of foreign firms cross-listed in the United States. We proxy for voluntary disclosure using three attributes of firms’ management earnings guidance: (1) the likelihood of issuance; (2) the frequency of earnings guidance; and (3) a guidance quality measure. After first establishing that market participants view these firms’ disclosures as credible and economically important (i.e., the disclosures are negatively related to analyst forecast errors and the implied cost of equity capital), we compare cross-listed firms’ disclosure practices with comparable US firms and explore variations in disclosure practices among cross-listed firms. We find that cross-listed firms issue less frequent and lower quality management earnings guidance than comparable US firms. We further show that the gap between US and cross-listed firms widened after passage of Regulation FD, a regulation which induced greater public disclosure of firm-specific information. Focusing on the sample of cross-listing firms, we show that firms from common-law countries disclose more than firms from code-law countries. Finally, our results indicate that cross-listed firms that do not list on an organized US exchange provide more frequent and higher quality disclosure than those that do list on organized exchanges.     

Accounting conservatism of cross-listing firms in the pre- and post-Sarbanes Oxley periods

This study investigates the level of accounting conservatism of a sample of cross-listed firms, American Depository Receipts (ADRs), during the pre- and post-Sarbanes Oxley (SOX) periods. After examining two proxies for accounting conservatism, Basu's [Basu, S. (1997). The conservatism principle and the asymmetric timeliness of earnings. Journal of Accounting and Economics 24(1), 3-37.] conservatism measure and abnormal accruals, we find that the SOX-exposed Levels II and III ADRs become more conservative during the post-SOX period while the SOX-unexposed Level I ADRs have no increase in the level of accounting conservatism. Further, we investigate whether such an increase in accounting conservatism is associated with different levels of shareholder protection in ADRs' home countries, and find that only Levels II and III ADRs from code law (weak shareholder protection) countries become more conservative and Levels II and III ADRs from common law (strong shareholder protection) countries have no change in accounting conservatism. These results suggest that SOX-exposed cross-listing firms from weak shareholder protection countries are most greatly influenced by the stringent requirements in SOX, and hence respond by increasing conservatism in their financial reporting.     

Cross-listing and legal bonding: Evidence from mergers and acquisitions

Using a sample of foreign acquisitions of US targets, this study examines the extent to which cross-listing in the US leads to legal and regulatory bonding, and/or whether reputational bonding proxied by financial intermediaries monitoring, an often ignored component of the bonding mechanism, is an important factor in US investors decision to hold shares in cross-listed firms. We find that compared to US firms, cross-listed firms are less likely to use equity in takeovers of US targets. Further, cross-listed firms from countries with poorer legal protections are less likely to finance with equity and pay higher premiums than cross-listed firms from countries with better legal protections. Using analysts’ coverage and institutional following as proxies for financial intermediary monitoring, we find some support for the importance of reputational bonding. The evidence suggests that while cross-listing reduces barriers to investment, there are limits to its ability to completely subsume both the legal environment and the importance of the monitoring of financial intermediaries. This further suggests that the extent of actual legal and regulatory bonding by cross-listed firms may be more limited than often assumed.     

Cost of Capital for Exempt Foreign Private Issuers: Information Risk Effect or Earnings Quality Effect? It Depends

We examine whether the information risk accompanying Foreign Private Issuers' (FPIs) exemptions from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) reporting requirements is associated with capital market penalties (measured by a higher cost of equity capital) and, further, the extent to which this information risk is mitigated by earnings quality. Our overall results indicate that exempt FPIs exhibit a higher cost of equity capital than reporting FPIs, and this relation still persists after controlling for earnings quality. Furthermore, we partition our sample into firms from strong and weak investor protection environments. Interestingly, similar to the results in Francis et al. (2008), for FPIs from strong investor protection regimes we find no difference in the cost of capital between exempt and filing FPIs, even after controlling for earnings quality. To the contrary, for FPIs from weak investor protection regimes, we find that the exemption is associated with a higher cost of equity capital, and that earnings quality does not significantly reduce the premium paid by these issuers.     

Exploring the Causes of Accounting Restatements by Family Firms

Prior research shows that family firms have better earnings quality than non‐family firms in common‐law countries and highly developed markets. In contrast, we do not find a significant difference in the financial reporting quality between family and non‐family firms in the context of a civil‐law system and less developed market. We show that the financial reporting quality of family firms is conditioned on: (1) the divergence between the controlling shareholders’ voting rights and their cash flow rights, and (2) the firm's reputation for integrity, while these two conditions do not explain the restatement likelihood for non‐family firms. Moreover, when accounting irregularities are detected in the case of family firms, they are associated with more serious accounting restatements. Together, these results imply that the severity of the conflict between ultimate and minority shareholders, and a lack of integrity, explain the propensity for making financial restatements among family firms in a regime characterized as having weak investor protection and concentrated ownership structures.     

Earnings quality and firm valuation: international evidence*

This study uses a sample of over 7000 firms in 38 countries to investigate the relation between firm valuation and earnings quality. We find a positive and significant relation between firm valuation and an aggregate earnings quality measure based on seven earnings attributes (accruals quality, persistence, predictability, smoothness, value relevance, timeliness, and conservatism). This relation is particularly strong for firms with greater investment opportunities and more need for external finance, and for firms in low investor protection countries. Thus, firms are able to compensate for a weak legal environment by adopting higher earnings quality standards, particularly when they need to gain access to global capital markets. Overall, our findings suggest that firms with higher earnings quality are valued more highly in stock markets, supporting the idea that investors require a premium for the information risk associated with lower‐quality earnings.     

Investor communication and the benefits of cross-listing

While studies have sought to explain the benefits of cross-listing, little attention has been paid to the role of communication between managers and investors during this process. In this paper, I investigate whether managers change communication policies around U.S. cross-listings. I document significant increases in communication when firms cross-list. I then test whether these investor communication practices around cross-listing are associated with capital market benefits. I find that cross-listed firms that communicate more with investors experience greater and longer lasting cross-listing benefits. Lastly, I explore two potential reasons that may lead managers to choose higher levels of communication: to support an increase in investor recognition and to facilitate monitoring. I find results consistent with communication increasing visibility and scrutiny, suggesting that communication functions as a supporting tool to achieve managers’ cross-listing goals.     

The financial performance, capital constraints and information environment of cross-listed firms: Evidence from Mexico

This study provides evidence that Mexican firms that choose to trade in the United States as exchange-listed American Depositary Receipts (ADRs) have significantly weaker ex-post (subsequent to cross-listing) financial performances than Mexican firms that are eligible to list in the United States but choose not to do so. Our study is related to the generalizabililty of two streams of international research: global equity offerings studies (e.g., ( [Errunza & Miller, 2003] and [Foerster & Karolyi, 2000]) [Errunza, V. & Miller, D. 2003 Valuation effects of seasoned global equity offerings. Journal of Banking and Finance (September), 1611-1631; Foerster, S. & Karolyi, G., 2000. The Long-run performance of global equity offerings. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis (December), 499-527]), based on large, multi-country samples, which show that ADR firms substantially underperform local-market benchmark company returns in years following issuance and accounting characteristics of ADR firms research (e.g., (Lang, Raedy, & Yetman, 2003) [Lang, M., Raedy, J. Smith, & Yetman, M. (2003). How representative are firms that are cross-listed in the United States? An analysis of accounting quality. Journal of Accounting Research]), which employ a multi-country sample and conclude that ADR firms are less aggressive in terms of earnings management and that they report accounting data that are more strongly associated with share prices. The cited studies above use relatively large samples, which are usually considered to be advantageous, but such studies tend to mask individual country differences in market efficiency, legal protections for shareholders, disclosure environment, and shareholder-class features that make generalizations tenuous.We show that cross-listed (ADR) Mexican firms, on average, are smaller, more highly levered, and less profitable than non-cross-listed (NCL) firms. Further, logistic regression models for classifying various ADR and NCL groupings of firms, using financial variables and other firm characteristics, are highly significant. While supplemental tests of earnings quality suggest that NCL firms exhibit nominally smoother earnings, that evidence is not sufficient to explain the stronger financial performance reported for those firms relative to ADR firms. Finally, our tests of value relevance, using book value and earnings to explain price, show significantly higher explanatory power for the ADR firms and generally non-significant explanatory power for the NCL firms. The value-relevance results may indicate that investors in Mexican ADR firms benefit from U.S. regulation and that reported market inefficiency in Mexico may result in low demand for financial statements of NCL firms.This study has the advantage of focusing on a single, emerging-market economy (Mexico, the United State's second-largest trade partner) in contrast to most previous ADR research that uses multi-country samples dominated by developed-market countries. It is also one of the first ADR studies to deal with selection-bias issues by comparing ADR and NCL firms. To gain these advantages, however, we must conduct tests on and draw conclusions from a relatively small sample.     

Do accounting standards matter to financial analysts? An empirical analysis of the effect of cross-listing from different accounting standards regimes on analyst following and forecast error

This paper explores whether the effects of cross-listing on analyst following and forecast error differ among firms with different accounting standards. The results reveal a higher increase in the number of analysts for cross-listed firms that follow their home country's GAAP prior to cross-listing and reconcile or switch to IAS/US GAAP or UK GAAP after cross-listing, compared to those that adopt IAS or US GAAP prior to cross-listing. We find that firms that switch to IAS/US GAAP have a higher increase in analyst following after cross-listing compared to firms that reconcile to IAS/US GAAP. In addition, we find a higher increase in analyst following after cross-listing for firms from low-level accounting standards environments compared to firms from high-level accounting standards environments. Our results show evidence of an increase in the magnitude of analysts’ forecast error after cross-listing for firms that follow their home country's GAAP pre-cross-listing but reconcile post-cross-listing to IAS/US GAAP or UK GAAP. On the other hand, we report a decrease in forecast error for firms that switch to IAS/US GAAP.     

Stock price informativeness,cross-listings,and investment decisions

We show that a cross-listing enables firms to obtain, from the stock market, more precise information about the value of their growth opportunities. Thus, cross-listed firms make better investment decisions and trade at a premium. This theory of cross-listings implies that the sensitivity of investment to stock prices is larger for cross-listed firms. Moreover, the cross-listing premium is positively related to the size of growth opportunities and negatively related to the quality of managerial information. The sensitivity of the premium to the size of growth opportunities increases with factors that strengthen the impact of the cross-listing on price informativeness.     

The impact of securities regulation on the earnings properties of European cross-listed firms

The objective of this study was to determine if the securities regulation in a foreign country is related to the earnings quality of European firms cross-listed in Europe. The study compared the post-listing earnings quality of 112 European firms cross-listed in 13 European stock exchanges during 1989–2001 to those of a controlled sample of non-cross-listed firms. Earnings quality was assessed by the use of reporting discretion to manage earnings. The regulatory strictness was represented by three indices of securities regulation.Empirical results provide some support to a positive association between earnings quality and the foreign securities regulation, suggesting that the foreign regulatory requirements have little or no effect on the reported earnings of European firms cross-listed in European exchanges.     

The effect of earnings quality and country-level institutions on the value relevance of earnings

This study investigates the relationship between the value relevance of earnings and earnings quality across countries. We find that there is a stronger relationship between earnings quality and the value relevance of earnings in countries with high investor protection than in countries with weak investor protection. We also find that the association between the value relevance of earnings and earnings quality is higher when a country’s information environment is less opaque. Overall, our study documents evidence on international differences in the ability of stock prices to capture useful accounting information, consistent with the notion that the returns-earnings association reflects not only the quality of accounting earnings but also the informativeness of stock prices.     

The Predictive Role of Analyst Coverage Intensity: Evidence from Cross-Listing in the US

This paper investigates financial analysts' predictive power of future performance and earnings quality, using a sample of firms cross-listed in the US. We find that analyst coverage is positively related to analysts' expectations about firms' future performance and negatively related to analysts' concern over firms' earnings quality. Country-level legal origin and disclosure index are two significant determinants of analyst coverage of cross-listed firms. In addition, the intensity of analyst coverage can predict future abnormal stock price performance. While documenting the substantial informational benefits to cross-listing, our study suggests that these benefits may not be complete since analysts appear to have predictive power and selectively provide coverage for firms with favorable future prospects.     

Earnings management and stock price crashes post U.S. cross-delistings

We examine whether cross-delisted firms from the major U.S. stock exchanges experience an increase in crash risk associated with earnings management. Consistent with our prediction, we find that earnings management has a greater positive impact on stock price crash risk post cross-delisting when compared to a control group of firms that remain cross-listed. More importantly, we find that this effect is more pronounced for cross-delisted firms from countries with weaker investor protection, poorer quality of their information environment and less conservative accounting practices. Our findings are robust to the potential endogenous nature of the cross-delisting decision, alternative measures of stock price crash risk and information asymmetry. We interpret our results as evidence of a “reverse bonding effect” following cross-delistings from U.S. stock exchanges.     

Cross-listing and corporate social responsibility

This paper investigates the dynamics of cross-listing and corporate social responsibility (CSR). Using a sample of 10,815 firm-year observations from 54 countries over the period 2002–2011, we find that cross-listed firms have better CSR performance than non–cross-listed domestic firms. This result is robust to endogeneity and different types of cross-listing. We also find that CSR increases (decreases) significantly after cross-listing in (delisting from) U.S. markets. The positive impact of cross-listing on CSR performance is stronger for firms from countries with weaker institutions, lower country-level sustainability, and higher liability of foreignness, and for firms operating in industries with high litigation risk. Finally, we find that cross-listed firms with better CSR performance exhibit higher valuations.     

Financial reporting and firm valuation: relevance lost or relevance regained?

In this study, I examine whether balance sheet and income statement numbers have lost or regained their relevance over the last 30 years. Institutional and macroeconomic factors like the global trend towards strengthening regulation and harmonising financial reporting, the extended use of fair values over historical cost, and the recurring occurrence of accounting scandals, market bubbles, and financial crises make it likely that the role of financial reporting for firm valuation has changed. Following prior research, I estimate four models for the concurrent relation between market value and accounting numbers, and then examine the pattern in explanatory power over time. I find that the loss in relevance of the income statement continues in recent years and is present in a large international sample, in particular in countries with strong institutions. While the overall relevance of the balance sheet remains stable, I find a downward trend during the first sample half, which reverses in the second half, especially in common law countries with strong investor protection, strict disclosure requirements, and integrated markets. Even though several caveats apply, the results suggest that changes in the economy, the institutional environment, and in how firms operate affect the relative importance of accounting information for the use in firm valuation by outside stakeholders.     

Crises,contagion and cross-listings

We investigate whether cross-listing shares in the form of depositary receipts in overseas markets benefits investors in emerging market countries during periods of local financial crisis from 1994 to 2002. We regress cumulative abnormal returns for three windows surrounding the crisis events on the cross-listing status while controlling for cross-sectional differences in firm age, trading volume, foreign exposure, disclosure quality and corporate governance. Further, we examine cross-listing effects in countries popularly thought to experience contagious effects of these crises. We find that cross-listed firms react significantly less negatively than non-cross-listed firms, particularly in the aftermath of the crisis. The results on contagious cross-listing effects are however mixed. Our findings are consistent with predictions based on theories of market segmentation as well as differential disclosure/governance between developed and emerging markets. We do not find evidence that foreign investors “panic” during a currency crisis.     

Institutional investor type,earnings management and benchmark beaters

This paper classifies institutional investors into transient or long-term by their investment horizons to examine the association between institutional investor type and firms’ discretionary earnings management strategies in two mutually exclusive settings – firms that (do not) use accruals to meet/beat earnings targets. The results support the view that long-term institutional investors constrain accruals management among firms that manage earnings to meet/beat earnings benchmarks. This suggests long-term institutional investors can mitigate aggressive earnings management among these firms. Transient institutional ownership is not systematically associated with aggressive earnings management and is evident only among firms that manage earnings to meet/beat their earnings benchmarks. This indicates transient institution-associated managerial myopia may not be as prevalent as posited by critics. This study highlights the importance of explicitly considering the type of institutional investor and the specific setting when investigating the association between institutional ownership and corporate earnings management.